False equivalency

Reader comment on: Obama's Recess Appointments and Bush's

Submitted by ben (United States), Mar 27, 2010 21:07

Bush had 5 nominees awaiting confirmation at this point in his presidency, Obama has 77. Where Obama erred (naivite? strategery?) was in promising so much bipartisanship during the campaign. This gave the Republicans a veto over anything for months on end. Health care not to their liking (even though it was essentially the Republican plan in 1994), then just accuse Obama of not being bipartisan. Stimulus didn't have enough tax cuts (even though more than a third of it was tax cuts - something lefty economists see as much less efficient stimulus) and Republicans vote against it. At some point, Obama has to govern. If the Republicans won't confirm anyone, he must do this. I think the constitution says "advise and consent," not veto.

And, for the record, health care was passed under normal (undemocratic-60-vote) rules, and the changes to the bill were through reconciliation. Let's not already start revising history.

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Other reader comments on this item

Title By Date
It used to be said that the president tended to get whom he wanted unless they were crooked. [44 words]LyleMar 29, 2010 01:36
That is a Complete Misread [240 words]pakaalMar 27, 2010 21:34
⇒ False equivalency [151 words]benMar 27, 2010 21:07

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to False equivalency by ben

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.