Obama's first failed appointment

google the Hastert rule and then we can talk about fairness.

If Pelosi had kept the Haster rule in place, Bush would never have gotten Iraq war funding after 2007...since the bills that were deliberated and enacted never had a "majority of the majority" support.

I know a little bit about House rules and the way that the recent changes have been mischaracterized.

But i'm off to party now...be happy to discuss it later.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

google the Hastert rule and then we can talk about fairness.

I know a little bit about House rules and the way that the recent changes have been mischaracterized.

But i'm off to party now...be happy to discuss it later.

No problem. I have enjoyed our respectful exchange. But remember, I am not defending what happened in the past, only what we have been promised in "Change, yes we can!" and the responsibility that Pelosi and Reid will have to accept for the last 2 years and the next 2 while they control congress. The thought that there is transpancy is false. The thought that there is a bipartisan approach is false. The thought that change has come to Washington is false. Peace.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No problem. I have enjoyed our respectful exchange. But remember, I am not defending what happened in the past, only what we have been promised in "Change, yes we can!" and the responsibility that Pelosi and Reid will have to accept for the last 2 years and the next 2 while they control congress. The thought that there is transpancy is false. The thought that there is a bipartisan approach is false. The thought that change has come to Washington is false. Peace.

I would expect those who did not vote for Obama (or the Democratic majority in Congress) to focus on the lack of change they have seen to-date.

I would rather focus on the change I have seen. Just one example of more transparency - Obama's EO that restores the intent of the Freedom of Information Act....giving us, the "people" greater access to government documents.

Change will be incremental and most Obama supporters dont expect miracles....just something better and more accountable than the last eight years.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I would expect those who did not vote for Obama (or the Democratic majority in Congress) to focus on the lack of change they have seen to-date.

I would rather focus on the change I have seen. Just one example of more transparency - Obama's EO that restores the intent of the Freedom of Information Act....giving us, the "people" greater access to government documents.

Change will be incremental and most Obama supporters dont expect miracles....just something better and more accountable than the last eight years.

I still suspect you are not going to get your hands on much more than you did in the past. The same people that redact the documents released to the public still work in the same offices. The people who get to say what is released to the public have not left because Bush left. I think that if you think you are going to have greater access to government documents, you are going to be sorely disappointed.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I still suspect you are not going to get your hands on much more than you did in the past. The same people that redact the documents released to the public still work in the same offices. The people who get to say what is released to the public have not left because Bush left. I think that if you think you are going to have greater access to government documents, you are going to be sorely disappointed.

In fact, there will be different people responsible for FOIA requests.

Geneally, it will be the inspectors general of the department/agency and these will be Obama appointments.

FYI, Bush has the most "political" IGs in recent history, with the least autonomy, contrary to the stated role of IGs to be relatively independent to ensure greater accountability.

Who knows for certain if the new FOIA guidelines will provide greater transparency.

Time will tell. But why be disappoiinted before even giving the new administration a chance....seems very cynical to me.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Redux

I would expect those who did not vote for Obama (or the Democratic majority in Congress) to focus on the lack of change they have seen to-date.

I would rather focus on the change I have seen. Just one example of more transparency - Obama's EO that restores the intent of the Freedom of Information Act....giving us, the "people" greater access to government documents.

Change will be incremental and most Obama supporters dont expect miracles....just something better and more accountable than the last eight years.

Good post. Yes, most of us are reasonable enough people to not expect anything to meet our needs within the first 2 weeks, after 8 years of spiralling downward...it's a long way to the surface.

[Undertoad]

Well done Redux, and thanks.

[TheMercenary]

Thank you.

Now show me where Obama has replaced the IG's?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Thank you.

Now show me where Obama has replaced the IG's?

There are more than 7,000 positions that Obama has to fill. If you are really interested, they are listed in the Plum Book

I dont think any president has filled all 7,000 within the first two weeks in office. I believe I said in one recent post that I dont expect Obama to work miracles.

But I suspect (with no inside knowledge) that the IGs will be among the first sub-cabinet level positions filled because of their importance to the integrity of the executive branch. I would suggest that March is a reasonable time frame considering that they are subject to Senate confirmation.

[TheMercenary]

Thanks, you can't show me.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Thanks, you can't show me.

You're absolutely right.

And if you want to make the case that there is no change because Obama did not make 7,000+ appointments in two weeks, I wont argue with you.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

You're absolutely right.

And if you want to make the case that there is no change because Obama did not make 7,000+ appointments in two weeks, I wont argue with you.

Ok, where are they and how do they differ from what any president did before him? Certainly you don't think that anyone other than his cronnies didn't do that work? Seriously now.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Ok, where are they and how do they differ from what any president did before him? Certainly you don't think that anyone other than his cronnies didn't do that work? Seriously now.

If this is the level of discussion I've come back too, I'll pass.

I think I laid out the facts (with citations) pretty well.

I would just urge you one more time to read the report on Bush's IGs (majpority political)vs Clinton's IGs (majority professionals with legal/audit/investigation experience) If I could find the data, I suspect Bush Sr and Reagan's, like most previous presidents looked much more like Clinton's than Bush's.

[TheMercenary]

The reality my friend is that nothing has Changed.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The reality my friend is that nothing has Changed.

I suspect that will be the buzzword over the next four years for the 20-30% of the population who may now feel marginalized by Obama's election and are unwilling to even wait beyond two weeks before making such a sweeping declaration.

Hey, thats fine with me!

I'll be happy to continue to cite my posts for others, but dont expect it for responses such as your last few. It would be a waste of my time.