Obama Tells Republican Senators To “Go F*ck Yerselves” – Uses Recess Appointment

by Ben Hoffman

WASHINGTON — President Obama will bypass Congress and appoint Dr. Donald M. Berwick, a health policy expert, to run Medicare and Medicaid, the White House said Tuesday.

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said the “recess appointment” was needed to carry out the new health care law. The law calls for huge changes in the two programs, which together insure nearly one-third of all Americans.

Mr. Pfeiffer said the president would appoint Dr. Berwick on Wednesday. Mr. Obama decided to act because “many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could, solely to score political points,” Mr. Pfeiffer said.

Read more…

Obama should use recess appointments for all nominees rather than dealing with the obstructionist Republicans in the Senate. The Senate needs to be eliminated. They’re not representative of the people and are not worthy of their salaries.

Advertisements

15 Comments to “Obama Tells Republican Senators To “Go F*ck Yerselves” – Uses Recess Appointment”

  1. Well, I suppose you were all for the Republican presidents in the past using recess appointments and will be for that in the future if a Republican does the same thing, right?

    • Sure, if the Democrats were filibustering just to obstruct, I’d support Republican recess appointments. That didn’t happen, though.

      • Ben, in this case of Mr. Berwick, were Republicans filibustering? You imply that. Were they? Or is it the case that Dems would not even bring him up for a committee hearing?

        Dem Baucus said, “I’m troubled that, rather than going through the standard nomination process, Dr. Berwick was recess appointed. Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee – and answered.”

        It appears that the little man-child in the White House and the other Dem leaders just were afraid to have any hearings at all!

        I think you mislead on this one.

      • [It appears that the little man-child in the White House and the other Dem leaders just were afraid to have any hearings at all!]

        That sums up your view of our country. You hate our president as a person — not because of anything he has done, which is un-American. You hate our democracy. You hate that we have two parties and that your party sometimes is not in power. You hate America and everything our founding fathers fought for.

        As far as being afraid of hearings, it goes without saying that the Republicans would filibuster Berwick, so why bother giving them the ability?

      • To quote Ben, ” You lie!”

  2. Er, are/were the Rs using the filibuster on this guy?

  3. Mr. Hoffman,

    You are an expert at “selective”truth. I will now give you a list of Bush nominees that “your” side filibustered. You remember your side the hypocrites? The ones who according to you did not obstruct Bush like the “evil” Republicans are doing now.

    Of course these are Appellate Court nominees. So with your usual spin you will say they don’t count,,,but they do.

    You know they were not hard to find. You could have found the truth if you had tried.

    ” Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown. ”

    I can’t wait to see you spin this.

    • [I will now give you a list of Bush nominees that “your” side filibustered.]

      I never claimed that the Democrats didn’t filibuster any of Bush’s nominees. They did, however, have valid reasons for their filibusters. Those were radical conservative nominees.

      Okay, now make a list of all the Republican filibusters.

  4. Estrada’s was the first filibuster ever to be successfully used against a judicial nominee who had clear support of the majority in the Senate, and the first filibuster of any court of appeals nominee. Estrada’s was also the first purely partisan filibuster of any judicial nominee, and the first filibuster of any judicial nominee that was clearly intended to be perpetual rather than temporary.

    Good ol’ Democrats. Looks like they have a little history on this sort of thing. But alas, that will not deter Mr. Hoffman from falsely impugning the Rs.

    • [Good ol’ Democrats. Looks like they have a little history on this sort of thing.]

      Nope, you can’t show me one instance of the Democrats filibustering just to obstruct. After all, look at the confirmation of John Roberts: the most activist Supreme Court judge we’ve had in probably a century.

  5. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” They did, however, have valid reasons for their filibusters. ”

    You do not see how ridiculous that statement is ? By your logic Republicans can just claim the same thing. Valid is in the eyes of the filibuster.

    Kinda like saved or created jobs. That only makes sense to a hard case Partisan. I guess that would be you . 🙂

    • [You do not see how ridiculous that statement is ? By your logic Republicans can just claim the same thing. Valid is in the eyes of the filibuster.]

      Republicans have filibustered nominees just to obstruct and then voted FOR the nominee when they finally stopped the filibuster. Republicans can’t claim Democrats have done that.

  6. “Just to obstruct” is in the eye of the beholder. Let’s be honest. Rs and Ds block the other parties nominees sometimes for partisan reasons and sometimes for principled reasons. No party is lilly white on the process.

  7. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” Republicans have filibustered nominees just to obstruct and then voted FOR the nominee when they finally stopped the filibuster. Republicans can’t claim Democrats have done that. ”

    Another ridiculous statement. If you filibuster the nominee and there is never a vote, well you never have to vote for or against .

    • [Another ridiculous statement. If you filibuster the nominee and there is never a vote, well you never have to vote for or against .]

      No, sometimes the filibusterer ends the filibuster, at which time, the nominee or issue is voted on normally.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: