Comments on: On Bipartisanship

By: pandora

pandora — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:17:14 +0000

No disrespect, Charlie, but weren’t you part of the Delaware politics you’re now condemning?

By: CharlieCopeland

CharlieCopeland — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:31:54 +0000

For the last decade we had a lot of bipartisanship in Dover. Look where Delaware is now. What we really needed was principled leadership. President Jackson (of the Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner) once said, “One man with courage makes a majority.” (I assume President Jackson used “man” in the gender neutral sense).

Not much courage in our government, just a lot of fear.

By: LiberalGeek

LiberalGeek — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:13:04 +0000

Do you really consider a Senator that gave a keynote at the Republican National Convention as a Democrat? Seriously, Joe Lieberman is as much a Democrat as you.

Reid and Obama made a mistake giving that guy the cover of being in the Democratic caucus. He should have been ejected.

By: Chris Slavens

Chris Slavens — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:52:59 +0000

When it comes to some issues, compromise is inappropriate. If two parties are debating whether to fund a program this way, or that way, bipartisanship can be appropriate and beneficial. But if two parties are debating broader issues like socialism vs. capitalism, or big government vs. limited government, one piece of legislation at a time, compromise on the part of the capitalists or limited government advocates is not helpful; it is failure. It’s like saying, “I wanted to stop a murderer from killing someone. So I persuaded him to shoot them, rather than strangle them as he had intended.”

By: anonone

anonone — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:54:44 +0000

You’re probably right. It would be out of character for Obomba to act like a President and use some political muscle.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:43:34 +0000

Easy to do when you know what’s going to happen. The President knew. That’s why he was able to bluster about it. It is a habit now, the mass approval of nominees heading into a break, including 35 last time.

By: anonone

anonone — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:33:41 +0000

The only reason that those 27 appointees were finally released from holds by republicans is because Obomba actually acted like a President for once. Here is the statement from the White House on what went down:

“Today, the United States Senate confirmed 27 of my high-level nominees, many of whom had been awaiting a vote for months.
At the beginning of the week, a staggering 63 nominees had been stalled in the Senate because one or more senators placed a hold on their nomination. In most cases, these holds have had nothing to do with the nominee’s qualifications or even political views, and these nominees have already received broad, bipartisan support in the committee process.

Instead, many holds were motivated by a desire to leverage projects for a Senator’s state or simply to frustrate progress. It is precisely these kinds of tactics that enrage the American people.

And so on Tuesday, I told Senator McConnell that if Republican senators did not release these holds, I would exercise my authority to fill critically-needed positions in the federal government temporarily through the use of recess appointments. This is a rare but not unprecedented step that many other presidents have taken. Since that meeting, I am gratified that Republican senators have responded by releasing many of these holds and allowing 29 nominees to receive a vote in the Senate.

While this is a good first step, there are still dozens of nominees on hold who deserve a similar vote, and I will be looking for action from the Senate when it returns from recess. If they do not act, I reserve the right to use my recess appointment authority in the future.”