That is a Complete Misread

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

Submitted by pakaal (United States), Mar 27, 2010 21:34

By most people's standards, the idea that Barack Obama campaigned "on doing things differently from Mr. Bush" hardly comes close to saying Obama refused to make recess appointments. And in point of fact, on a comprehensive list of more than 500 promises made by the Obama campaign (with seventeen "Promises Broken" to date), the promise "I won't make any recess appointments" does not appear.

Considering this site is called the "Future of Capitalism" I have to wonder why this writer would consider holding up nominees for positions in the Treasury, the Dept. of Commerce, trade representatives, Farm Credit board and others would be a good thing in of itself, which the Republican party has done in holding up these nominees. I also have to wonder how the writer can make such a false equivalency argument as blatant as "Obama said he'd be different from Bush" while this Senate and House use unprecedented delay tactics as Senator Bunning holding up an appointee due to the passing of a tobacco bill IN ANOTHER COUNTRY.

The Senate and House did not go to these lengths in the Bush Administration, let's keep in mind at this point in the first Bush term, the Senate had held up a only five nominees by 2002, whereas the Republicans have held up seventy-seven nominees.

Obama isn't doing this because he expects to lose seats in 2010, he's (rightfully) tired of waiting for the Republicans to grow up.

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

Other reader comments on this item

Comment on this item