Obama Ignores Dem Choices for Texas U.S. Attorneys; Chooses GOP Favorites

[brentspeak]

http://www.mainjustice.com/2011/06/29/obama-ignores-democratic-choices-for-texas-u-s-attorneys-chooses-gop-favorites/

Obama Ignores Dem Choices for Texas U.S. Attorneys; Chooses GOP Favorites

By Andrew Ramonas | June 29, 2011 11:23 am

President Barack Obama snubbed Texas Democrats on Tuesday and nominated Republican picks for leaders of all four U.S. Attorneys’ offices in Texas.

Obama tapped John Malcom Bales for the Eastern District of Texas, Kenneth Magidson for Southern District of Texas, Robert Pitman for the Western District of Texas and Sarah Saldana for the Northern District of Texas. Texas Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison recommended the nominees to Obama in October 2009.

But the nominees were not on the list the Texas House Democrats led by Rep. Lloyd Doggett sent to the president in October 2009. And Doggett is not pleased. “While there are some able individuals among those being named today to serve as a US Attorney, the Administration has disregarded its previous agreement and our hope for more change in the Texas justice system after decades of total Republican domination,” Doggett said in a statement. A spokeswoman for the congressman didn’t have an immediate comment for Main Justice on who the “able individuals” are.

Home-state senators traditionally recommend candidates to the White House — unless both of the state’s senators are of different parties than the president. In cases in which senators are of a different party than the president, the White House often relies on House members who are members of the president’s political party.

No, this is not an article from The Onion; this is really happening.

[Stuart G]

1. How can he pick Republicans?? please explain. thanks.

[Common Sense Party]

2. He doesn't have to pick people of his own party.

He chose to pick judges from another party.

[brentspeak]

4. I think the question was more along the lines of "Why on earth would Obama pick Republicans??"

[Stuart G]

6. I am well aware of the Consitution...but why would he choose Repuks over Democrats?

[Common Sense Party]

7. Oh..."Why" is a much different story than "How."

Who knows why? To curry favor? To help him win redneck votes? Because he's secretly a closet conservative, Karl Rove GOP plant?

Your guess is better than mine.

[polichick]

10. So why did we bother electing him?

[Common Sense Party]

32. Good question...

I was only answering the "how," not the "why."

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. Article II., Section 1:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

[Honeycombe8]

9. It doesn't say he picked Republicans. nt

[Marnie]

124. Becasue he is a closet Republican.

If you stop thinking of what party elected him and look at his decisions and acts he is at best a moderate Republican. He in no way resembles a pre 2000 Democrat, except for blue dogs or a few other exception,or even most Democrats currently holding public office.

He does resemble people like Snowe, Collins, and Murkowski all Republicans, who pre 2000 would not have been considered moderate Republicans but main stream Republicans.

Like I say, don't think of him based on who elected him but on his own words and acts. And the put him into the party he best matches, without including the Tea Party.

He is a Republican.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polichick]

8. This is the kind of thing that makes you wonder if the prez is just another...

Republican in disguise - not a right-wing nut but a corporate centrist Republican.

[ClarkUSA]

12. Yes, that's why Pres. Obama passed Wall Street reform with his buddy Mitt Romney's blessing.

The Chamber of Commerce hearts him as well. So do the Koch Brothers.

:sarcasm:

[brentspeak]

14. That strong Wall Street "reform"

http://baselinescenario.com/2010/06/21/dead-on-arrival-financial-reform-fails/

Dead On Arrival: Financial Reform Fails

By Simon Johnson

snip

This administration and this Congress had ample opportunity to confront this problem and at least wrestle hard with it. Some senators and representatives worked long and hard on precisely this issue. But the White House punted, repeatedly, and elected instead for a veneer of superficial tweaking. Welcome to the next global credit cycle – with too big to fail banks at center stage.

[ClarkUSA]

18. Here are the facts about Wall Street reform, which The Chamber of Commerce spent billions opposing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1369122&mesg_id=1371318

[brentspeak]

23. How does your link refute the truth that the bill is weak?

[ClarkUSA]

27. What are the specific reasons for your objection to these nominees?

Do you have any? Does anyone objecting to these nominees have any? Just curious. I'd like to know if anyone has any facts to base their opinions on beyond the fact they are Republicans.

BTW, the Sixth District Court which just held up HCR as constitutional was composed of two Republicans and one Democrat. They all voted to uphold President Obama's signature effort.

There are some moderate Republicans who have positions indistinguishable from moderate Democrats. In Texas, that's about as liberal as you're going get and be approved.

BTW, I don't give a shit WTF your dime a dozen Obama-bashing op-ed source thinks. When you think can pass a better bill, please do run for president. If it was so "weak", then why did Wall Street and The Chamber of Commerce spend billions fighting it?

[brentspeak]

31. LOL. It was weakened BECAUSE Wall St. and the Chamber spent millions

Didn't follow how the legislation became increasingly and increasingly hollowed-out and whittled down before Obama signed it, did you?

(And just for accuracy, it was http://wallstreetwarzone.com/wall-street-lobbyists-spending-megabucks-400-million-to-kill-financial-reforms-screw-america-again-yes-theyre-winning-the-war/">"millions" spent by Wall Street and the Chamber to weaken the legislation, not "billions".)

BTW, I don't give a shit WTF your dime a dozen Obama-bashing op-ed source thinks.

Who's opinion should I value more on this issue? MIT professor Simon Johnson's...or that of some anonymous poster on DU?

[ClarkUSA]

38. Again, what are the specific reasons for your objection to these nominees?

Why won't you answer the question? Is it because you haven't a clue as to the answers?

I'd like to know if you have any facts to base your opinion on beyond the fact they are :scared: Republicans.

I repeat:

The Sixth District Court which just held up HCR as constitutional was composed of two Republicans and one Democrat. They all voted to uphold President Obama's signature effort.

There are some moderate Republicans who have positions indistinguishable from moderate Democrats. In Texas, that's about as liberal as you're going get and be approved.

[brentspeak]

64. Again, try answering other people's questions before deflecting with questions of your own:

The question directed to you (and deflected by you) this time was: "Who's opinion should I value more on this issue? MIT professor Simon Johnson's...or that of some anonymous poster on DU?"

[ClarkUSA]

65. Why are you avoiding answering questions that directly relate to YOUR OWN OP SUBJECT?

I'm not interested in chasing your red herrings.

[brentspeak]

70. Ah, you want OTHER people to chase YOUR red herrings

but you don't want to answer questions on things you yourself brought up: "Yes, that's why Pres. Obama passed Wall Street reform with his buddy Mitt Romney's blessing"

[ClarkUSA]

71. Um, I am staying on the OP topic you started. Still avoiding the questions, I see.

:rofl:

Guess you can't very well object to potential first openly gay justice from TX, eh?

[brentspeak]

63. How come you're not answering the question?

The question was: "How does your link refute the truth that the bill is weak?"

[ClarkUSA]

67. Did you know one of the attorneys nominated by Obama might become TX first openly gay justice?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=698620&mesg_id=698787
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=698620&mesg_id=698802

What a strong pro-LGBT president Obama is. That's Change I Can Believe In! :)

[brentspeak]

68. That's nice. What about the question posed to you?

[ClarkUSA]

72. Guess you can't very well object to potential first openly gay justice from TX, eh?

If I had posted this ridiculous OP, I would try to change the subject, too.

:rofl:

[Jakes Progress]

95. Guess you can't defend your own "evidence".

Did you even read you own link?

By the way. It is a low and stupid form of argument to answer the question "Why did you shoot my dog?" with a reply like "Look how pretty the clouds are today."

You aren't fooling anyone. Keep rolling and laughing in your own shit. That's the image I get from your illiterate use of the smilie.

[Enthusiast]

113. "That's the image I get from your illiterate use of the smilie."

Me too.

[TheKentuckian]

122. Yeah, I do. I don't care who anyone fucks. His being gay changes little.

Where is he on civil liberties? Is he a champion for civil rights or another in a seemingly endless parade of hypocrites. Is he a corporate enabler?

What is his philosophy?

[Jakes Progress]

126. For some here, principles and philosophy don't matter.

All that matters is the Obama did it. That's all they need.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

81. That's ridiculous. Moderate Republicans have positions that are virtually the same as moderate Dems.

I'm not a fan of simplistic demonization because it stereotypes individuals into caracatures. Teabaggers do it to liberals and Democrats, for example.
Racists do it to blacks and other people of color. I aim higher. I would like to know the substantive reasons for objecting to these nominees. In this case, one of the attorneys Pres. Obama has nominated is openly gay. Somehow, I doubt this Republican is a wingnut.

Many Democratic administrations have had such Republicans in their cabinets and vice versa. Your viewpoint is one which flourished under BushCo (see their DoJ hiring practices then) but again, I am relieved President Obama will not to follow in Bush/Cheney's footsteps.

Take the example of the recent decision by the Sixth Circuit Court to uphold HCR. There are three judges on that court. Two are Republicans and one is a Democrat. All voted to uphold the constitutionality of HCR:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x699028

There's a lesson here for you if you choose to find it.

[Jakes Progress]

93. So you would support moderate republicans over lefty Democrats?

Good to know.

[tekisui]

98. He made it very clear. Glad to know its laid on the table.

[Exilednight]

110. I always had my suspicions about him, but now he just openly admitted to them. n/t

[Exilednight]

111. dupe.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

103. I think you have it backwardish

'Moderate' Democrats hold some republican positions, not the other way around. Not sure how that makes them 'moderate,' but that is what they call it.

[polichick]

47. Thanks - you beat me to it.

[vroomvroom]

15. Obama meetings with Wall Street CEOs -- Saying "see i didn't change anything for u guys"

A get together where OBama was raising campaign cash for 2012.
Remember that little gem from some time back?

[ClarkUSA]

20. Is that why The Chamber of Commerce and the Koch Brothers support his policies so much?

:sarcasm:

[brentspeak]

26. Why the 'sarcasm' smiley? The Chamber of Commerce really does applaud Obama's efforts

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/28/news/economy/trade_deals/

Congress moves forward on free trade deals

By Jennifer Liberto @CNNMoney June 29, 2011: 8:32 AM ET

snip

Despite Obama's effort to tie the trade pacts to something the unions want, the AFL-CIO and other labor groups continue to oppose the treaties -- which they say don't do enough to protect workers' rights.

But business groups from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the Business Roundtable applauded the move forward.

"With our economic recovery stalling, the time is now for Congress to act on these deals," said Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber. "We simply cannot afford to put American jobs at risk any longer."

[ClarkUSA]

28. The Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street spent billions fighting Wall Street reform.

As for the trade agreements, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Senator Levin, who opposed IWR, is on the same page as President Obama. They both only favor two of the three agreements because the third one has no protections for union members.

[brentspeak]

29. The Chamber is "right" about sending even more American jobs overseas?

Well, then you, the Chamber, the GOP, and Obama are on the same page regarding http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/free_trade_agreement_with_korea_will_cost_U.S._jobs/">killing what's left of the American middle class.

[ClarkUSA]

30. That's a strawman fallacy. Quote where I said that and detail the terms of the trade agreements.

:eyes:

Then quote the terms of the two out of three trade agreements Pres. Obama & Sen. Levin approve of so I can figure out what you're outraged about.

I suppose you think we shouldn't have any trade agreements with any country at all? Do you think other countries should end their trade agreements with this country and put millions of Americans out of work here?

[brentspeak]

33. No strawman at all in my post, but you illustrated the concept beautifully in your response

It's kind of like you just read about the concept of the strawman fallacy today, then decided to create one yourself while simultaneously accusing the other person of using one. Sad, but not surprising.

"I suppose you think we shouldn't have any trade agreements with any country at all?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_fallacy

Straw man

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

[ClarkUSA]

35. Wrong. I asked questions you have yet to answer. --->

Your strawman fallacy = "The Chamber is "right" about sending even more American jobs overseas? Well, then you, the Chamber, the GOP, and Obama are on the same page regarding killing what's left of the American middle class.":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=698620&mesg_id=698710

1. Where did I say, 'The Chamber is "right" about sending even more American jobs overseas'? Quote me.

2. Detail the terms of the trade agreements. Then quote the terms of the two out of three trade agreements Pres. Obama & Sen. Levin approve of so I can figure out what you're outraged about.

3. Do you think we shouldn't have any trade agreements with any country at all?

4. Do you think other countries should end their trade agreements with this country and put millions of Americans out of work here?

[brentspeak]

39. Question 2) The link which provided the answers for you was already provided

Here it is again:

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/free_trade_agreement_with_korea_will_cost_U.S._jobs/">Free Trade Agreement with Korea will cost U.S. jobs

Question 1: a) Since even Obama admits the deals will send US jobs overseas (his push for futile TAA funding); b) the Chamber is on board with Obama's deals; and c) you are on board with Obama's deals; it follows that d) you are in agreement with the Chamber in passing these deals which will send American jobs overseas.

Q.E.D.

As for questions 3 and 4 -- I don't respond to strawman questions.

[ClarkUSA]

41. For the 3rd time, what are the specific reasons for your objection to these nominees?

Why won't you answer the question, as it actually pertains to your OP. You seem desperate to avoid answering. Is it because you haven't got any answers?

I'd like to know if you have any facts to base your opinion on beyond the fact they are :scared: Republicans.

I repeat:

The Sixth District Court which just held up HCR as constitutional was composed of two Republicans and one Democrat. They all voted to uphold President Obama's signature effort.

There are some moderate Republicans who have positions indistinguishable from moderate Democrats. In Texas, that's about as liberal as you're going get and be approved.

You are also avoiding these questions:

Do you think we shouldn't have any trade agreements with any country at all?

Do you think other countries should end their trade agreements with this country and put millions of Americans out of work here?

[Jakes Progress]

96. For about the tenth, what is your response to post 23?

[TheKentuckian]

123. How the fuck is upholding a government dictate that citizens be forced to purchase

a product sold on the open market, at the sole whim of their employer evidence of good jurisprudence?

You like the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act but it isn't a carve out but rather a vehicle to elevate the Commerce clause to such power that the corporately captured government can dictate virtual indentured to their employers.

You are cheerleading an unsavory to the point of evil and de facto slavery precedent that is open to extreme abuse.

Short sighted and stupid. The mandate, as designed, by using employers as the middle man with the decision making authority over the individual's options when the individual is mandated is fucking absurd.

The employer as gatekeeper is an indefensible position, the mandate is individual. The only rational way to mandate is to give each citizen access to the exchanges and make their own election, removing employers from the loop. If you want them to contribute then levy a fucking tax but making them IRS enforced dictators of our individual choices is fascist in nature, the collusion of corporations and state. A wicked partnership of employer, cartel, and government that cuts the individual in only to fork over their money for whatever the incestuous triad decides.

The mandate as structured is purely a far right machination and has been championed by these dumpsterfucks for decades.

Every possible configuration of a mandate isn't a violation of Constitutional principles and self determination but this one surely is and is truly fucking stupid anyway.
Like candidate Obama stated, this is like trying to fix homelessness by dictating everyone buy a house.

Supporters of this bullshit love to conflate this form of mandate with any possible mandate and that is completely myopic and dishonest.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

128. It must really suck having to defend stuff like this

Obfuscation is about the only defense left.

[Jakes Progress]

94. Show me where you get your figures.

Let's see the evidence of the billions spent by the Chamber of Commerce. Please try to be specific.

In other words: Prove it.

[Enthusiast]

112. The crazy 'far right' is just out there

to distract us. It's working well.

[Marnie]

125. Spot On

He is not a Democrat.

[indepat]

11. Raises the question is BHO even further to the right than thought practically

by the day? :shrug: :patriot:

[ClarkUSA]

13. What are the specific reasons for your objection to these nominees?

Do you have any? Does anyone objecting to these nominees have any? Just curious. I'd like to know if anyone has any facts to base their opinions on beyond the fact they are Republicans.

BTW, the Sixth District Court which just held up HCR as constitutional was composed of two Republicans and one Democrat. They all voted to uphold President Obama's signature effort.

There are some moderate Republicans who have positions indistinguishable from moderate Democrats. In Texas, that's about as liberal as you're going get and be approved.

[KeepItReal]

16. What a nice gesture. And the TX GOP Senators will return the favor how?

By continuing to vote against, filibuster, and stall most legislation originating in the Senate?

Obama is reminding me of former LA Gov. Buddy Roemer more and more. Roemer came in on a wave of change as a Democrat and ended up turning GOP.

[vroomvroom]

19. Easy: By Demanding he Kill Medicare. Giving Obama the cover to go along with them.

[ClarkUSA]

25. Wow... sounds like an Agatha Christie plot!

:eyes:

[StarsInHerHair]

89. yes & now this: over in the UK the Labour Party is acting weak, helpless,

wringing its hands, can't do anything to help the people..............sound familiar?

[Enthusiast]

114. International fascism.

We are fucked.

[vroomvroom]

17. No Surprises -- Analysis showed Obama is More Right-Leaning than Regan, GW, and Nixon.

[ClarkUSA]

22. "Analysis" by whom? You?

:rofl:

[Enthusiast]

115. By anyone with their head out of the sand........nt

[vroomvroom]

21. Good Luck with ELIZABETH WARREN

[ClarkUSA]

24. You do know they've been good friends since Harvard and she admires Pres. Obama, right?

As for the GOOD LUCK, you'd better be directing any outrage to Republicans, who have said they'll keep blocking any attempts to appoint her during recess.

[Common Sense Party]

34. Does HE admire HER?

Enough to fight for her?

[ClarkUSA]

37. WTF do you think he's doing now? But he can't circumvent Senate rules, can he?

McConnell has promised his teabagger base that he will continue to block Warren's recess appointment using an arcane Senate rule.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren is doing her job and isn't complaining, is she? She's no shrinking violet, either, I wouldn't second-guess their relationship, if I were you.

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. He could nominate her to the position. What is he waiting for?

[ClarkUSA]

48. I'll let her respond to you in her own words...

Elizabeth Warren says her 'nomination was on the table'

Washington (CNN) - Consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren, appointed today by President Obama to launch the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, tells CNN Chief National Correspondent John King that her "nomination was on the table" but would have meant "spending a lot of energy fighting" to get the votes necessary in the Senate to secure her nomination as the agency's first official director.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/17/elizabeth-warren-says-her-nomination-was-on-the-table

If you have further questions, direct them to her.

[Common Sense Party]

69. Why not a recess appointment?

That was then, this is now.

[ClarkUSA]

73. I already answered that. Did you not pay attention? McConnell pledged to block them.

Besides, Reid cancelled July 4 recess.

[Common Sense Party]

74. McConnell doesn't have squat. If and when the Senate takes a recess,

Obama can and should do a recess appointment. What can McC do at that point? Let him try. He's got nothing.

[ClarkUSA]

75. Wrong. Go back into the archives and read up on what McConnell did during the Memorial Day recess.

I wish you were right, though.

[StarsInHerHair]

90. I doubt it now, VERY much

[Tarheel_Dem]

83. Hmmmm.....Wonder what Mayor Bloomberg would do?

:rofl:

[Dr Fate]

36. America is and will always remain a center right nation. I applaud Obama's courageous centrism. n/t

n/t

[Carolina]

40. Centrism means

never having to stand for anything.

Good thing FDR, Truman, Kennedy and LBJ weren't centrists on SS, Civil Rights, Medicare...

[ClarkUSA]

42. FDR's original SS plan didn't cover most women and minorities.

Exclusions exempted half the population. It was designed to cover white males.

FDR was not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination by the lefties of his day. Quite the opposite. Kennedy nearly got us into WWIII with his Bay of Pigs fiasco and hated Chinese Communists. LBJ started Vietnam and approved napalm. Neither of them were considered liberals by the lefties of their day, either.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. How did it exclude African-Americans?

Was it specifically written into the law that blacks were ineligible?

[ClarkUSA]

46. Exclusions exempted nearly half of the working population aka. most women and blacks.

At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=697617&mesg_id=697645

[Dr Fate]

50. Liberals dont understand that we have to imitate the bad things FDR did...

...before we can imitate the "good" things he did.

[ClarkUSA]

52. Mega-wealthy FDR was no liberal to the leftists of his day. Quite the opposite.

[Dr Fate]

55. Exactly- we must tear down FDR and other fake liberals so people will understand

how great they got it these days.

The far left socialists who opposed the moderate/conservative New Deal are just as misguided and far left as the modern day voters who oppose off shoring, subsides for multi-national corporaions, un-declared trillion dollar wars, tax cut extensions for the Koch Brothers, a public option, etc.

[ClarkUSA]

57. That must be why President Obama has been favorably compared to FDR by top presidential historians.

[Dr Fate]

78. Glad we agree. FDR was a CENTRIST. He hated the professional left too.

Us centrists know that FDR would have agreed with today's centrist and conservative policies, not that wacky socialist stuff.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

116. Colbert, is that you?

:rofl:

[Carolina]

59. and centrism STILL means

standing for NOTHING!

[ClarkUSA]

66. Did you know one of the attorneys nominated by Obama is openly gay?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=698620&mesg_id=698787
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=698620&mesg_id=698802

If he is approved, he will be Texas' first openly gay justice.

Does that stand for NOTHING too?

[Dr Fate]

80. Shame on the far left for wanting a Party approved leftist instead of a gay GOP pick.

LOL! looks like the far lefts are just homophobes. Not to mention their questionable party loyalty (LOL! They are just mad that Obama did not choose Nader's picks)

So now we get the WHOLE story-Obama is not selecting real republicans.

[StarsInHerHair]

91. oooh quickly go over to the thread asking what is a 'far leftist' since you seem to

know

[Hand_With_Eyes]

118. Far Leftist means anyone left of center

FYI

[Hand_With_Eyes]

117. It stands for nothing when they have an R next to their name

Gayness does not make his political beliefs acceptable.

[ClarkUSA]

44. self-delete

[Dr Fate]

49. Liberals will never make centrists compromise their core values and beliefs.

Whatver they may be at any given moment.

[ClarkUSA]

51. Independents were the reason "we got shellacked" in 2010.

Hate to tell you, but swing voters are centrist and they're the ones who decide elections. President Obama has passed far more liberal policy into law than DINO Bill Clinton but he's wise enough to know that electoral fact.

Besides, I have yet to hear any facts from the OP as to why he has objections beyond the fact these TX nominees are :scared: Republicans.

BTW, the Sixth District Court which just held up HCR as constitutional was composed of two Republicans and one Democrat. They all voted to uphold President Obama's signature effort. There are some moderate Republicans who have positions indistinguishable from moderate Democrats. In Texas, that's about as liberal as you're going get and be approved.

[Dr Fate]

53. I blame the liberals and the professional left for all centrist failures.

If our centrist policies failed to attrack independents and other centrists, then it was surely the fault of pony wishing Liberals who would not sit down and shut up.

[ClarkUSA]

54. I blame lame rhetoric for putting me to sleep.

:boring:

[Dr Fate]

56. Sleep tight, sweet hobo.

May your bindle be heavy with treasure, but may your heart be light with song.

[Ikonoklast]

104. You're not sleepy, it's a 'shtick-coma'.

The poster plays a part, and does so rather badly.

It's boring and juvenile, and not even remotely believable.

[tekisui]

99. CLINTON!

[Cali_Democrat]

82. At least you're open and honest

...right down to your avatar.

I admire that.

Many other folks are not so forthcoming.

[Dr Fate]

87. I am a PROUD, happy centrist. N/t

...

[onenote]

58. Interesting twist

According to this, one of the new US Attys named by Obama for Texas (with the backing of Cornyn and Hutchison) is openly gay.
http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/06/obama-nominates-out-gay-mag.html

[Sheepshank]

61. bwahhh hhaaaa haa haa

Joke's on the extreme RW on this one for sure. Hear the sound of little popping? Freeper heads just hit a lightblub and exploded. Seems to me, at least this one judge will be hard put on to be labelled an extreme Republican. Seriously, people there are assuming Tx will go for a liberal LW Judge? If so, then there's a serious lack of reality going on.

[Dr Fate]

85. LOL! Just like they did with Vitter and Lindsey Graham.

Now no one can say those guys are extreme republicans either. Liberals will never see how we often use this to our advantage.

you are right- Texas would never vote for the Democrats their elected Democratic representatives choose, so why should Obama contradict the people's votes?

[AtomicKitten]

107. ironic

in a lame sort of way

[AtomicKitten]

60. Obama to nominate first openly gay US Attorney in Texas.

http://www.kutnews.org/post/austinite-could-become-first-openly-gay-us-attorney-texas

Oh dear, that doesn't fit the paradigm the OP is pushing here now does it?

[Sheepshank]

62. nope doesn't fit all all....n/t

[Dr Fate]

86. LOL! Next thing you know, the far left will have a problem with Lindsey Graham!

What homophobes they must be.

[AtomicKitten]

108. will you be here all week?

[McCamy Taylor]

76. If I recall, Obama said he would work with Republicans. The two senators from Texas are...

Republicans. I get really tired of people blaming Obama for being 1) consistent (as he is in this case) and 2) inconsistent (as they claim he is in other cases). Seems to me their only real beef with him is that he is Obama.

[Dr Fate]

79. And he NEVER said he would work with the far left or not extend the Bush tax cuts.

Yet the far left seems to have a problem with that too. They will never be happy.

They KNEW that Obama would work with gay republicans more than leftists, but now they pretend this is wrong.

[derby378]

84. At least Saldana might help Dallas deal with John Wiley Price

That guy may have finally bitten off more than he can chew. That FBI/IRS raid doesn't look too good for him.

[marlakay]

88. He keeps thinking if he is nice to them they will be nice to him

Like do unto others...but the republicans will laugh all the way to the courts these attorneys will help corporations even more.

[vaberella]

92. Please do research on the attorney's mentioned. You'd be surprised.n/t

[tekisui]

101. He snubbed his own party recommendations.

Two of the nominees were supported by the Dems and the Dems in TX offered Obama two good Dem choices. He folded to COrnyn's pressure instead of supporting his own party.

[vaberella]

105. Folded?! You really look at this as folding?

Maybe you should do a review on both sets of candidates and see what Obama saw as to why he made the decisions he did. Most are running on empty on this. Sotomayor was also nominated by Republicans before Obama chose her as SCOTUS and so was Elena Kagan---of course then many Repubs turned on both women later. You need to get over this left and right shit---from what I have read the lawyers chosen were good choices on both ends of the aisle.

Can you list what is wrong with the choices Obama made or is it mainly because the recommendations are from Repubs than Dems, and you feel affronted by that? Because of it's the latter---that's a personal issue you may need to work out and doesn't have any baring on the President.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

100. Obama folds again. He could have nominated 2 from each party.

He gave into Cornyn's pressure and went whole hog repuke. There were two repugs the Dems said they would support, but then got nothing in return. Obama completely capitulated.

http://www.mainjustice.com/tag/john-malcolm-bales/

[bornskeptic]

120. Yes, he could have nominated two from each party.

Then two positions would have been filled, and two would have remained empty. The Democratic nominees would have had to go through a couple of miserable months before finally withdrawing, of course. I don't see who would have benefitted from that.Appointment to the office of US Attorney shouldn't be decided based on politics anyway. A US Attorney, whether Democrat or Republican, who allows political leanings to determine the way he or she performs in the job should not have the job..

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blkmusclmachine]

106. The tent's too damn big.

[MouseFitzgerald]

109. Great

What could his reasoning for this possibly be?

[Tarheel_Dem]

119. Because he doesn't want to be accused of playing politics like the last

administration? :shrug: Remember Monica Goodling? "Progressives" have to make up their minds which Bush practices they liked, and how many of them they want this president to incorporate. Otherwise, they might be accused of hyprocrisy.

[bornskeptic]

121. The reasoning is that he wants to fill positions that need to be filled.

The Republican senators could and would block any appointment they had not approved. If the nominees were fully vetted and there were no doubts about their integrity or competence, then nominating them was the only reasonable course.

[TheKentuckian]

127. Then leave the fucking positions vacant. The only reasonable course is to remind the Senators they

have the ability to advise and consent not dictate and command.

Compromise is one thing but giving the bastards outright control and the ability to work or own judges up the chain negates much of the point of winning the White House.

If the GOP has the power to not just veto an occasional extremist but carte blanc over dictation of nominations and will reject any and all Democrats then you button the fuck up and go to war.

We might reject an extremist Bork or an inept and purely nepotism pick like Meyers but if their folks are qualified, we almost always accept their nominations, in return we are letting the bullies completely take our lunch money every motherfucking day.

The only reasonable thing is force an actual deal and a fucking deal is not four for four Republicans and acting like we got a win because one of the assholes is gay.

Like being gay means more than Alan Keyes being black. You people do understand that about a third of gay folks are hard line Republicans in spite of extremist and eliminist voices running ramped through the party. It means they care more about their pursuit of greed, authoritarian positions, fear of brown people, war mongering, the police state, or whatever insanity than their own right to love whom they will.

A gay TeaPubliKlan is less trustworthy than a straight one just as any other minority TeaPubliKlan should be regarded more dubiously than the regular majority fuckwit because the motherfuckers are either under some version of the stockholm syndrome or rotted from the roots.

The Republicans only elevate extremists anymore, they have been stinging since Souter and have been enraged since Bork, the combination has led to vetting for hardliners.

Each and every Republican choice should be rejected with extreme prejudice until they both moderate their appointments and accept ours (which mostly would have been seen as conservatives in most past courts anyway).

It is time to drop the "adults in the room" shtick because ALL it does is cede to the extreme right, a little at a time.

When they say they won't allow any Democrat then the system is broken and it cannot be repaired by bending over and planting a white flag up our collective ass. You go to war until cooler heads prevail or one side or the other is destroyed and I intend for the opposition to be the ones vanquished not for us to be fucking assimilated by the far right Borg collective.

Get some motherfucking principles and some fucking gumption.