wow- the times really blasts the president. [rquoter]President Obama at Recess It is disturbing that President Obama has exhibited a grandiose vision of executive power that leaves little room for public debate, the concerns of the minority party or the supervisory powers of the courts. But it is just plain baffling to watch him take the same regal attitude toward a Congress in which his party holds solid majorities in both houses. Seizing the opportunity presented by the Congressional holiday break, Mr. Obama announced 17 recess appointments -- a constitutional gimmick that allows a president to appoint someone when Congress is in recess to a job that normally requires Senate approval. The appointee serves until the next round of Congressional elections. This end run around Senate confirmation was built into the Constitution to allow the president to quickly fill vacancies that came up when lawmakers were out of town, to keep the government running smoothly in times when travelers and mail moved by horseback and Congress met part time. Modern presidents have employed this power to place nominees who ran into political trouble in the Senate. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton made scores of recess appointments. But both of them faced a Congress controlled by the opposition party, while the Senate has been under Democrat control for Mr. Obama's entire term. In some cases, Mr. Obama has used the recess appointment power to rescue egregiously bad selections that would never pass muster on grounds of experience and competence. In other cases, he has merely sought to avoid logjams that the White House created for itself by refusing to accommodate reasonable Democratic requests for information, documents and consultation. The White House regularly accuses Senate Republicans of unfairly blocking the president's nominees, and it is true that one determined senator can freeze an appointment. But Mr. Obama's record in this area owes less to unreasonable Republicans than to the low caliber of some of his choices, his disinterest in bipartisan consensus and his aversion to any form of accountability, whether to the Senate, the courts or the public.[/rquoter]
Copying an article and changing "Bush" to "Obama" and then attributing it to the Times doesn't make it accurate. In fact, the Times could probably sue you if they chose. Bush's nominees weren't being held up for no reason. Bush didn't have a huge backlog caused by Senate Republicans just refusing to allow votes, even on popular nominees that would sail through without issues.
Since you do not work for or represent the Times, it is fraud to create your own article and attribute it to their organization. I know you have no sense of ethics, but the fact that you felt the need to do it to give your own ignorant viewpoint any sort of sense of authority says not only how weak your argument is, but also enhances your own already woefully low level of credibility.
fear the basso... Seriously, you guys have no sense of humor; there's a direct link to the article! Sheesh.
First, you give a failed attempt for blasting the poster for incorrect sources. Then you actually engage in the debate. Then you have the nerve to defend the hypocrisy.
I'm truly glad, that the hate for Obama has at least forced a lot of people to learn about our democratic process. including myself
I understand what you're trying to do here, but perhaps you should post an article of the NY Times praising Obama for his recess appointments so you have contrast to them blasting Bush. That would at least give your claim more validity.
You falsely attributed a source and the Times could choose to take action if they wished (though its obviously not worth it). You have no ethics. And your credibility is nil. I am completely serious about each of those.
