10-24-2013, 01:51 PM
He's done it before. What makes you think he wouldn't do it again, even though he's been spanked for it by the courts?U.S. Army, Retired
10-24-2013, 02:04 PMVoted hottest "chick" at CU - My hotness transcends gender
10-24-2013, 03:03 PM
The Secretary of HHS is a pretty important position, period. So, instead of attempting to cut a deal with Senate Republicans, and find someone that they would not find objectionable or, in the event of a filibuster, try to do what he always does, which is let the media attack any resistance until the Republicans cave, he is going to sit by and leave a gibbering incompetent in the job? And exactly how many of Obama's appointees have been filibustered or otherwise defeated? One was filibustered, by Rand Paul, in order to draw attention to the NSA scandal. Most of Obama's appointments have sailed through confirmation hearings, even when they have demonstrated an appalling inability to make the case for their appointments. Chuck Hagel was so awful that people wondered why anyone should bother holding a hearing if he could get confirmed after his dismal performance. So, no, I don't think that the fear of a Republican filibuster is what is keeping him from sacking Sebelius.
And, let's get back to the OP, for a second. Either he was blindsided, or he wasn't. Since you are arguing that he's keeping Sebelius on because of fear of Republican reaction (which would be a first for this administration), then you appear to be accepting the argument that she allowed him to be blindsided. The implications of this are that, as I suggested, he was completely out of the loop for three and a half years while his signature program was in development. So, either nobody gave him progress reports or identified potential red flags along the way, nor did he solicit any, or he was repeatedly lied to by his subordinates. The former situation implies negligence and incompetence on a grand scale on Obama's part, while the latter means that his subordinates wasted hundreds of millions of dollars and lied to him. There are no other logical explanations. Doesn't that bother you at all that you are arguing for Obama's keeping on someone who failed miserably and wasted that much time and money?
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
10-24-2013, 04:41 PM
So? Again, if Republicans filibuster, there's no reason not to wait until the senate is in recess, and do a recess appointment.
The odds on a Republican filibuster against a moderate liberal are somewhere between slim and none. A filibuster is only likely if the nominee is a loon, which is entirely likely, given that whoever takes the job will have the responsiblity for implementing Obamacare. Nobody in their right mind would take that job, but fortunately, that's not a requirement for service in a Democratic administration.
Well, you have me there. There was no cloture vote involved, so technically, it wasn't a filibuster, it was just a long speech. However, that doesn't change any of the other arguments that I've made.
That is true. We have as yet to plumb the depth of his capacity for whining and self-pity when he fails to get his way.
10-24-2013, 04:45 PM
10-24-2013, 05:06 PM
Dolby got quiet, not a peep.
10-24-2013, 11:50 PM
The sun rising in the East would blindside that halfwit.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|