Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is nothing Obama can do wrong in your eyes ?
Very little that the right-wing has pointed to. Fluff followed by flotsam followed by fiddle-faddle is what we get out of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
He's doing what Bush did. I thought you voted "for change"?
Of course, he's doing what Bush did. Bush was President of the United States. Obama is President of the United States. Are you surprised when two different plumbers show up at your house and they both have pipe wrenches with them? You know, it wouldn't surprise me if that Bush-Lite copycat Obama didn't end up giving some State of the Union address or something at some point.
You want to talk policy or anything? Oh no, we couldn't do that because we all know that Obama is actually turnng this country into Europe or some other godless Communist place.
Right-wingers seem to have no trouble working both sides of the street. None whatsoever...
The Constitution doesn't agree with you. The Executive Branch is separate from the Legislative Branch. The Executive Branch is not required to get the approval of the Legislative Branch on all it's employees any more than the Legislative Branch needs the approval of the Executive Branch on it's hires.
Funny, during the Bush administration, the right seemed to believe that the Executive Branch was the most powerful and oversaw the Legislative Branch. Now it seems like they think the Legislative Branch should oversee the Executive Branch. What a difference an election makes.
What do yopu think the conferamtion process is all about. Its mean to keep the executivbe from appoitn cronees for all its worht. By the way Feinstein Democratic senator from California is calling on hearing on just those Czars without background or confiramtion.Senator Bryd (D) had writeen obama sayihng it distubs him also.
The Constitution doesn't agree with you. The Executive Branch is separate from the Legislative Branch. The Executive Branch is not required to get the approval of the Legislative Branch on all it's employees any more than the Legislative Branch needs the approval of the Executive Branch on it's hires.
There is something called checks and balances created by the Constitution, which prevents any one branch from consolidating too much power. And you are mistaken - the Constitution does in fact give the Legislative branch the authority to screen and confirm presidential appointees. Where were you during the Sotomayor debates?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Another day, another stunt. When the Democrats wanted to know so much as who was at Cheney's secret energy summit, the Republicans howled over what a trashing of the Constitution and the powers of the Executive that would be. Later on, of course, Cheney himself would argue that the Vice President was not part of the Executive branch, but of the Legislative branch.
The Vice President may not be a physical part of the Legislative branch, but he does hold and important position in Congress.. Although, I trust you already knew that..
In any case I will agree that cza... er... advisers.. should receive a level of scrutiny that all federal employees are held to. They are paid large salaries, which comes directly from the taxpayers. In that regard, it is owed to the American people by the administration to ensure their legitimacy and sincere character by holding them to certain moral and ethical standards.
This makes me wonder, what do "czars" really do? If they're anything like the "drug czar" then not much probably.
They can probably wheel and deal outside the realm of public scrutiny.
They also do not have to be accountable for their actions to Congress.
They report ONLY to the President and can invoke Executive Privilege otherwise.
It's the power who stands behind them that gives them power.
"The president should suspend any future appointment of so called czars while the administration and the Congress carefully examines the background and qualifications of the more than 30 individuals who've been appointed to these czar positions."
In any case I will agree that cza... er... advisers.. should receive a level of scrutiny that all federal employees are held to.
The vast majority of all federal employees are held to no special standard at all. If you meet the advertised requirements, have some good grades, and your references hold up, you're as likely as anyone to be hired.
The Senate already confirms more than 500 officers within the Executive branch. Almost none of them receive any actual scrutiny either. They simply get rubber-stamped into office because there isn't the time or inclination to go through each and every one of these people with a fine-toothed comb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
They are paid large salaries, which comes directly from the taxpayers. In that regard, it is owed to the American people by the administration to ensure their legitimacy and sincere character by holding them to certain moral and ethical standards.
A little late to the party aren't you? Administration officials investigated for criminal activity:
Ronald Reagan - 138...Barack Obama - 0.
Since the Clinton administration, every Presidential appointee, or White House staff member, including those in the Office of the President and the Office of the First Lady are required to submit to a full FBI background check.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.