It's not that he doesn't want the change; he just has a different view of what can be accomplished in a Senate that lets the minority tie up legislation with the demand for 60 votes to move it. And now, even that razor thin 60 vote caucus is Gone With the Wind From MA, Scott Brown, who was sworn in today.
The dysfunction is not just that Republicans demand the 60 votes on almost everything of any importance. A single senator can hold up a nomination as a "privilege." Consider this:
Ten months ago, President Obama nominated Martha Johnson to head the General Services Administration. But because Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) was demanding that the GSA approve a federal building project in Kansas City, he put a privilege hold on the nomination.
Never mind that the Senate Homeland Security Committee had unanimously approved the nomination. Never mind that there was no opposition to her appointment per se. Never mind that when a vote was finally taken today, she was approved by 96-0.
It's bad enough to have rule by a 40% minority. We also have obstruction by a single individual, and it obviously can last as long as 8 months, maybe longer.
Here's what Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said on the White House web site after the vote:
Martha Johnson is an ideal candidate for Administrator, which is highlighted by the unanimous vote she received in committee. And the only thing that's changed between now and then is that some in Congress found it to be politically expedient to delay her vote. This isn't just about one person filling one job - it hampers our ability reform the way government works and save taxpayer dollars by making it more efficient and effective.What's worse, Martha Johnson is hardly the first nominee to fall victim to this trend of opposition for opposition's sake. Nine of the President's nominees found themselves stuck in this same situation only to be confirmed by 70 or more votes or a voice vote. Several nominees, including two members of the Council of Economic Advisers, had cloture withdrawn and were passed by a voice vote.
It's no news -- but this is blatant proof of the insane tanglements that the senators have at their disposal to prevent the people's business from being carried out.
Ralph
Now on top of this comes news that Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has placed a blanket hold on ALL pending nominations by Obama (70 in all) until a couple of billion dollar defense contracts in his home state are fast-tracked for approval.
ReplyDeleteThis is lunacy. I know Dems have done the same thing in the past, but I think Repubs take it to a whole new level. Both should come together and remove such foolish and destructive practices.
And if they don't, voters should do it for them by voting every one who defends the practice out of office at the next election opportunity.
Ralph,
ReplyDeleteWhile the points you make are accurate and valid, with all due respect you let Obama slide. He failed to lead on the important issues. Someone from I believe it was Politico.com was on one of the talk shows the other day and claimed we could still get a healthcare bill passed if Obama would simply step up, sayclearly, this is what I want, this is why it's good for the economy, and lead the push on it. But he won't.
One of the ways he could lead is to make the exact points you do. Publicly. Name names. Call out the Republican leadership publicly and ask if they feel this type of behavior is good for the country. Make it so they have to respond in public.
A leader steps up and leads. Obama is by all indications a brilliant man, good-hearted, well-meaning. But he's not a leader. His failure to lead is at least partially responsible for allowing this situation to develop.
I'm way out of my league here - esp. in relation to you - but I think it's fair to say that those of us who are progressive feel that we are members of a dysfunctional family; some of us keep trying to point out when one of our members is screwing up, while others keep making excuses for that member, blaming outsiders, enabling the screw up to continue to keep screwing up.
We feel very frustrated because we feel this family member is not being held accountable for his (in)actions, and so is making things worse for everyone in the family.
I don't think we should hold Obama to a lower standard simply because we like him. Many presidents, including Bush, have accomplished more of their core agenda with less Congressional support. It Obama just more incompetent? I hope not.
The only people who have held him accountable for his failures are people like the voters of Massachusetts.
I think those of us who supported him should be out there chastising him when he overcompromises, or fails to fight what he claimed to believe in. We have a right to expect him to step up and be the man he told us he was when we voted for him.
richard
No, Obama is not incompetent. And I do not agree that he is not a leader. He is a different kind of leader than you want him to be.
ReplyDeleteYou may very well be right that, if he had done what you say, people would have then done what he shamed or forced them into doing. I don't know, and you don't really know either.
With things going so badly, it is certainly tempting to conclude that it would have been better the other way: call people out and name names and make enemies -- try to make people fear his power rather than respectfully negotiating with him.
What you say in your second paragraph that he could do: Isn't that exactly what he did when he met with the GOP at their retreat? We have to wait to see if that style works over time; but the immediate result was the GOP said they wouldn't make that mistake again.
You assume that the MA vote was a vote against Obama. I disagree. It certainly wasn't FOR him, but I think it was a vote against the broken, money-driven Congress as the prime target. See the blog on 2/4 and the article I quote from at length.