Second, and what this blog will focus on, is Obama's controversial appointment of Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Given the history of past presidential appointments occurring during a Senate recess and the uncompromising, childish obstructionism that the Republican Congress has practiced during the past several months, it is unbelievable (and disgusting, frustrating, illogical... pick an adjective) how much criticism this decision has already received. I'm not feeling very creative today, so I will simply list all of the issues I have with Obama's critics:
1. Turning a Blind Eye to History: President Clinton made 140 appointments during recess; George W. Bush made 171; Obama has made 28. The numbers speak for themselves.
2. The GOP's Overly-Pliant Definition of "In Session": As I understand it, the Constitution says that recess is a time when Congress is not working. Working in D.C., I can assure you that no work has taken place on the Hill since before the holidays. This whole pro forma caveat, which allows the Senate to technically be "in session" without getting any business done is a joke. Just because one or two Senators read the newspaper in a hearing room for 30 minutes a day does not mean they are in session, ready to work and vote. Feigning offense at Obama's appointment is absolutely ridiculous when most Senators, if they're even in town, are probably rolling into the office at 10am, doing some catch-up on Espn.com, and going home at 5. If the Senate wants to be recognized as being in session, maybe they should actually attempt to get something done, such as... oh, I don't know... have an up-or-down vote on the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - like a certain President repeatedly asked for? Just a thought.
3. Importance of this Appointment: Republican politicians consistently peg Obama as a Wall Street supporter and blame Democrats for supporting the bank bailout, yet they refused to vote on this important appointment. The Republicans agree that Cordray is qualified and largely bipartisan; they say it's not him they're against. They oppose the entire agency, which is intended to protect consumers against big banks. If this isn't the absolute epitome of hypocrisy, I really don't know what is.
4. Blame Yourselves, Republicans: Yes, it was a bold (and perhaps unconstitutional) move, but the Republican Congress can blame no one but themselves for the way Obama acted - and will likely continue to act. I recently read an article supporting Pa's opinion that the Republican party's unique hatred of Obama is fundamentally rooted in race. I'm still not sure I buy into that assumption, but the article did provide a disturbing laundry list of ways that this Republican Congress has disrespected Obama and the Office of the Presidency that are historically unmatched - and unthinkable. I'm sure everyone remembers Rep. Joe Wilson shouting "you lie" during Obama's address to Congress some time ago. There's also John Boehner's rejection of Obama's request to speak at a joint session of Congress (which, I learned, was the first such denial in the country's history). And last, but certainly not least, is the entire debt/tax debacle that took place over the holidays. Republicans are calling Obama's Cordray appointment unconstitutional and claiming that he does not respect the "separate but equal" powers of the branches of government. But how many times has the Republican Congress blatantly disrespected the President? Mitch McConnell said, "Congress has a constitutional duty to examine presidential nominees, a responsibility that serves as a check on executive power." Yes, that's true. Separation of power is important, and I am positive that ex-con law professor Obama agrees. But maybe the Republican party should consider taking their responsibilities, in general, a little more seriously and showing some respect for their Commander in Chief. I mean, really, what other choice does Obama have but to make decisions in this way?
I am not a blind, unthinking, radical Obama supporter by any means. I have disagreed with his policies and criticized his decisions in the past. In fact, I actually mailed him a letter of dissatisfaction when he decided to extend the Bush era tax cuts. [I actually just re-read it... and it was really harsh. I'm glad I wrote a positive message of approval to whitehouse.gov this morning.] One of the major criticisms I once had of Obama was his reluctance to put up a strong fight. As the Republicans continue to show, Washington politics is often a dirty game. If you want to get things done and follow through on your election promises, you cannot always prioritize reaching across the aisle and making political friends. Sometimes you need to play hard-ball, and I think that is exactly what Obama is starting to do. Regarding the Cordray appointment Obama said, "I will not stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people they were elected to serve. Not when so much is at stake. Not at this make-or-break moment for the middle class." This is presidential; this is strong; this is what America and the middle class needs. When put up against boring, wish-washy Romney, religious-zealot Santorum, or slimy Gingrich, Obama's odds of winning reelection are lookin' preeeetty good.
No comments:
Post a Comment