Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
Tyranny is the new boogie man, same as "terrorists" and "Muslims/Islamists". Gotta have a catchy enemy to get your base all worked up. That's why we actually got stuff done in the 90s, no "communists" to rally your base against.

Only a tyrant would try to get us not to think everything is leading toward tyranny at all points in time. You are surely history's greatest monster.

So you think this is much ado 'bout nothing?

Probably we have too many gunz for that to happen eh?

EDIT:

So... we need to start up a new mantra?
"TYRANNY FOR THE TYRANNY GOD!"



I'm in a bit of a slapstick mood...

Bullgak for the bullgak god...

 d-usa wrote:
Bullgak for the bullgak god...

Well... true.

But, tyranny can sneak up on ya... like this "tyrannical bear" (be patient... you'll see him):

That's what you get when you want bear arms

 d-usa wrote:
That's what you get when you want bear arms

EXACTLY!




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well... lookee there!

John Kerry is now Secretary of State!

So, the "advise and consent" process worked.

 whembly wrote:
John Kerry is now Secretary of State!

So, the "advise and consent" process worked.

Would you feel better if he was a recess appointment? I know I wouldn't, but at least I could understand how he got through. As terrible as he is, he is to well connected politically it would seem. BLEH

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
John Kerry is now Secretary of State!

So, the "advise and consent" process worked.

Would you feel better if he was a recess appointment? I know I wouldn't, but at least I could understand how he got through. As terrible as he is, he is to well connected politically it would seem. BLEH

LOL... no. But, there's no need for recess appt as he is politicaly savvy.

And yeah... he's terrible, but the voting public re-elected Obama... so, he can nominate anyone.

What makes him so terrible? Other that his record in Vietnam?

 d-usa wrote:
What makes him so terrible? Other that his record in Vietnam?

Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

 d-usa wrote:
Yes, seriously.

Okay... a) if even 10% of that swift boat accusations are true... then, he's an donkey-cave.

b) most importantly, he's a quintessential politician who looks out for himself and I'm not convinced he'd be a team player in Obama's administration.

We'll see... it isn't like there's a whole lot difference between him and hillary (policy-wise).

*shrugs*

I was hoping for BIll Richardson...

If 50% of the swift boat crap would be true, how does any of that impact his experience in foreign relation and his ability to do that job?

Being a Donkey-cave is not constructive to being a PR guy for the Government. Especially in this political environment.

I think the ruling makes a lot of sense. If there's going to be a senate check on appointments, then it shouldn't be dodged just by a loophole like recess appointments.

The challenge now is for the parties to recognise that the current hyper-partisan nature of appointments simply is not good for the country (how long has the ATF been without a director?) and to work to remove the partisan politics from the situation. Something which, to their credit, Reid and Boehner have been doing more of lately.

I wonder if this might work the same as the recent deficit ceiling trillion dollar coin thing - by removing the get out of jail free card pressure is put back on the senate to act responsibly.

 djones520 wrote:
The Republicans have not controlled the Senate since 06'. So no.

Nope. That's nonsense that shows you don't know the basic rules of government of your own country, even though you're so keen to jump in and comment on them. Like much business conducted in the senate, if a three fifths majority of senators aren't willing to pass the law, then it will be filibustered, no matter which party has 'control'.

The issue here is that Republicans are filibustering the nominations they don't like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Correct... it's more of a Legislative vs Executive thing than Republican vs Democrats.

No, it really isn't. Appointments can be filibustered, and have been on a regular basis by the Republican party.

 sebster wrote:
I think the ruling makes a lot of sense. If there's going to be a senate check on appointments, then it shouldn't be dodged just by a loophole like recess appointments.

The challenge now is for the parties to recognise that the current hyper-partisan nature of appointments simply is not good for the country (how long has the ATF been without a director?) and to work to remove the partisan politics from the situation. Something which, to their credit, Reid and Boehner have been doing more of lately.

Yup... they've dialed back a bit...

I wonder if this might work the same as the recent deficit ceiling trillion dollar coin thing - by removing the get out of jail free card pressure is put back on the senate to act responsibly.

Naw... I think the House Republican will raise the limit w/o strings attached as it's really a losing issue for them. They'd be better off raising this and fighting for other things.

 djones520 wrote:
The Republicans have not controlled the Senate since 06'. So no.

Nope. That's nonsense that shows you don't know the basic rules of government of your own country, even though you're so keen to jump in and comment on them. Like much business conducted in the senate, if a three fifths majority of senators aren't willing to pass the law, then it will be filibustered, no matter which party has 'control'.

So? That's the rule for now... unless Reid wants to "nuke it".

The issue here is that Republicans are filibustering the nominations they don't like.

Again... so? Then it behooves the Executive Branch to nominate someone less controversial... that's how the checks & balances work.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Correct... it's more of a Legislative vs Executive thing than Republican vs Democrats.

No, it really isn't. Appointments can be filibustered, and have been on a regular basis by the Republican party.

Disagree... this changes things in the future if the SC upholds this verdict... and the (D) isn't always going to have the Prez and Senate... just like the (R) isn't going to have power permanently either... it affects both parties from this point forward. Hence, it's a Congressional powah vs Executive powah thingy.

 whembly wrote:
From a historical perspective... no President has provoked the legislature to fight over recess appointments in the courts. Which meant that the executive branch had considerable gray area in which to operate, at least politically. I mean... really, it's intent was that back in the day, Congress would be in recess for a long time (horses only travels so far ) and this gives the Presidents some leeway so that Government day-to-day functions aren't impacted severely.

Yeah. The greater historical perspective is that for a long time rejecting a nomination was a fairly rare event. The appointment that changed all that was Robert Bork, the Reagan SC nomination that the Democrats raised all kinds of hell over. Whether or not they were right to attack that nomination as they did, the precedent was set and since then we've since increased politicisation of nominations, until we're now at the point where contraversy over any nomination is fairly common place.

As the process has gotten more politicised, each president in turn responded by using more recess appointments.

No more, if the SC doesn't do anything... future Presidents (and the present one) will now be at the Senate’s mercy.

Not really. The president can still only put up people he wants, not who the senate wants. The worst case scenario for each party is a stalemate.

This shifts the power a little back to the senate, but the president still holds more power, as he is still picking who is nominated.

According the the legal sites... if this stands, the recess appointment in general will all but disappear.

Which is, I think, a good thing. If you're going to have a power in the constitution for the senate to give consent to appointments, then you shouldn't have that consent being bypassed by a loophole like recess appointments.

The idea now is that the senate has to start acting like adults who act in the best interests of the country first and foremost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
This law suit came out of the Democrat controlled senate I believe...

No, it didn't. Don't just guess at gak. Google is like three clicks away.

The case was started by a private company, which then got support from Senate Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
And if the President doesn't get the oppurtunity to ever again, then maybe it's for the better. I'd rather have someone who everyone agrees can fill the spot, opposed to someone that the President felt he had to shove in through the back door to fill the slot.

Except, of course, this isn't about being able to convince everyone that someone will be good in the job. This is about the senate making it difficult for the president to properly execute the requirments of his office, by filibustering nominations.

I'm all for this ruling, but the solution needs to be found by having the senate begin to act like adults.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Hopethetically speaking... if Congress is never in recess, thus forcing the Executive Branch to go through the "Advise and Consent" process for those cabinet members... is that a bad thing?

Provided the senate begins to act like adults with the best interests of the county at heart, then no, it isn't a bad thing.

But we can't just pretend that we can strengthen the senate's power over nominations is good thing in and of itself, with no additional responsibility for them to act properly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I agree with you there... hence, a government shut down might be needed to not only wake the politicians up... but also entice the voters to engage more.

Government shut downs are just theatre, that screw up the proper, regular operations of government while achieving nothing meaningful.

The problem with US politics isn't the lack of engagement, it's the number of people who are hyper-engaged in politics of issues with no real world meaning to the nation as a whole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So you think this is much ado 'bout nothing?

No, but it can be an important, meaningful ruling without having to start throwing around words like tyranny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Okay... a) if even 10% of that swift boat accusations are true... then, he's an donkey-cave.

They're not.

b) most importantly, he's a quintessential politician who looks out for himself and I'm not convinced he'd be a team player in Obama's administration.

I'm not getting that from Kerry at all. In fact, I'd say he's gotten where he's gotten because he's a good inside player who gets parts of the Democratic agenda in place through the basic running of daily politics. He's the guy you need in committee hearings that do important work day in day out, despite getting maybe a page 9 half column in the Washington Post every other month.

What he isn't is much of a speaker, and even worse in debate. His ability to relate to people is basically just does not exist.


What is now interesting is that he is following on from Hillary Clinton, who was a supremely gifted politician because she was so good inside the corridors of power*, and could draw the public to her causes as well. Kerry, like most, only has one string on his bow.




*Well, she was by the end. Her early days in the Clinton presidency and her effort to get her own healthcare reform over the line was a debacle. But she learnt fast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Naw... I think the House Republican will raise the limit w/o strings attached as it's really a losing issue for them. They'd be better off raising this and fighting for other things.

I hope so, and think there is cause for optimism. They really went all out to tank the first Obama term, and the 2012 election showed them that was a terrible bet to have made.

Now I think they're going to dial it back a lot, and quietly wait for the (probably inevitable) liberal overreach to swing them back into office.

 d-usa wrote:
What makes him so terrible?

I find him incredibly bland, and doesn't strike me as someone that is a good face for our Foreign Affairs. I have trouble believing other countries would find him engaging.

You're saying he's not pretty enough for you.

 Ouze wrote:
You're saying he's not pretty enough for you.

I guess he doesn't find the Oompa Loompas attractive?

 Ouze wrote:
You're saying he's not pretty enough for you.

I was referring to personality and function more than physical beauty. Sebster described it better. He is a good day-to-day politician, but "What he isn't is much of a speaker, and even worse in debate. His ability to relate to people is basically just does not exist". Being Sec of State requires strong speaking skills and an ability to relate to others across cultures, and he just doesn't strike as being strong in those areas. I haven't call him any names or go on any tirades, I just don't think SoS is the best place for him. You have to be a good politician to get as far as he has, but there are many different types of politicians with all sorts of different strengths and weaknesses.

Who would you have preferred to have seen?

 Ouze wrote:
Who would you have preferred to have seen?

Colin Powell.

 Ahtman wrote:
I was referring to personality and function more than physical beauty. Sebster described it better. He is a good day-to-day politician, but "What he isn't is much of a speaker, and even worse in debate. His ability to relate to people is basically just does not exist". Being Sec of State requires strong speaking skills and an ability to relate to others across cultures, and he just doesn't strike as being strong in those areas. I haven't call him any names or go on any tirades, I just don't think SoS is the best place for him. You have to be a good politician to get as far as he has, but there are many different types of politicians with all sorts of different strengths and weaknesses.

I think that means he'll be a different kind of Secretary of State to Clinton and likely not as good as she was, but that doesn't mean he'll be bad at it. There's plenty of scope for Secretaries of State who can just deal with other diplomats without bringing a large profile or committing to many public engagements.

For all that, I'm not saying he'll be good, I don't really know at this stage. I'm just saying his complete and utter lack of charisma and robot heart doesn't mean he'll be bad.

 sebster wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I was referring to personality and function more than physical beauty. Sebster described it better. He is a good day-to-day politician, but "What he isn't is much of a speaker, and even worse in debate. His ability to relate to people is basically just does not exist". Being Sec of State requires strong speaking skills and an ability to relate to others across cultures, and he just doesn't strike as being strong in those areas. I haven't call him any names or go on any tirades, I just don't think SoS is the best place for him. You have to be a good politician to get as far as he has, but there are many different types of politicians with all sorts of different strengths and weaknesses.

I think that means he'll be a different kind of Secretary of State to Clinton and likely not as good as she was, but that doesn't mean he'll be bad at it. There's plenty of scope for Secretaries of State who can just deal with other diplomats without bringing a large profile or committing to many public engagements.

For all that, I'm not saying he'll be good, I don't really know at this stage. I'm just saying his complete and utter lack of charisma and robot heart doesn't mean he'll be bad.

Wasn't Kissinger regarded in a similar way, and he was one of our most influential SoS in modern history

 youbedead wrote:

Wasn't Kissinger regarded in a similar way, and he was one of our most influential SoS in modern history

He was generally considered to be charming if not outwardly expressive. Of course since he never had to campaign he had the ability to limit his personal exposure to the public, which is something he remains famous for.

Wasn't Kissinager also generally considered fairly brilliant, if not traditionally charismatic?

I also, since it wasn't clear, have never stated that it isn't possible for Kerry to be a good SoS. It is entirely possible he will surprise me, and I remain open to the possibility. I'm not going to perpetually dislike him just because I don't think he was a good choice initially.