« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Dems Work to Foil White House Recess Ploys
Perhaps a little wiser after seven months in the majority, Democrats have strategized to prevent the White House from utilizing some of its sneakier powers while Congress is in recess.
There'll be no recess appointments this time around, Roll Call reports (sub. req.), meaning the White House won't be taking advantage of Congress' vacation to install any contested nominees. That's due to a deal between Bush and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
Last recess, the White House made a number of controversial recess appointments, including Swift Boat backer Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium. In order to prevent that sort of thing from happening again, Reid had plotted to keep the Senate in "pro forma" session during the recess -- whereby the Senate floor personnel show up every three days to make it an official session. But now Reid and Bush have made a deal, according to Roll Call. Bush won't make any recess appointments and Reid has promised to move some of his nominees when Senate gets back in session.
Roll Call also reports that there's a similar game being played over the ethics and lobbying reform bill that Congress passed last month.
Simply put, back-channel negotiations have given hints that Bush might veto the bill. He's unhappy about a couple things, but it seems one particular thorn in his side is a new rule that would force lawmakers and the president to pay charter rate for campaign flights. That "would create a significant cost for the president, given the expense of operating Air Force One," Roll Call reports, since he "currently pays the cost of a first-class ticket when using Air Force One for political purposes."
The bill passed overwhelmingly in both houses, but if Congress sent the bill to Bush now and he did nothing within the required 10-day period, the bill would die a quiet death -- what's called a "pocket veto." To avoid that, the Dems have decided to hold it until Congress gets back in session. That way if Bush vetoed the bill, Congress could override with a two-thirds vote.
Comments (63)
BlueInTexas wrote on August 13, 2007 4:10 PM:"...Bush won't make any recess appointments..."
yea, right. More likely, nobody lined up to take any of the openings.
Even more likely, Harry Reid is going to learn that Bush can't be trusted on anything.
regular lurker wrote on August 13, 2007 4:13 PM:I've gotta bridge for sale....
C-vingt-douze wrote on August 13, 2007 4:14 PM:The costs of air charters is not insignificant.
Air Force One cost (in 2000, according to the GAO) roughly $39,000 an hour to operate.
Currently the White House pays the first class ticket equivalent for each political traveler. So if Bush, Rove, Bolten, two assistants, two Members of Congress and a citizen (say from DC to Texas), the political campaign would have to pay 8 x the airfare. A first class fare to TX is probably $2,000. $16,000 is a whole lot less than $100,000 (roughly a 2 1/2 hour flight).
The White House doesn't pay for "official travelers" like Secret Service or the military people. And the White House press corps are charged back.
There's a lot of money in politics, but you'd probaby see many less Presidential trips stumping for Congressmen if this change is made.
John MacNeill wrote on August 13, 2007 4:25 PM:A "deal" with Bush, so that everyone could go home on vacation. There goes another five points on the approval rating.
nisleib wrote on August 13, 2007 4:25 PM:I figured Gonzales would resign during this recess and Bush would immediately appoint a new lackey, er, Attorney General.
I guess I was wrong.
OCPatriot wrote on August 13, 2007 4:29 PM:Regular Lurker and BlueInTexas both have their points. I have come to believe that Reid is a fool, plying by old rules, and Bush will run rings around him. Reid needs to be replaced, as does Pelosi and a number of the other impotent and cowardly Democratic Senators and representatives. We need people who know how to play hardball with a President like Bush.
za wrote on August 13, 2007 4:33 PM:Looks like Schumer's threat of "no approval of nominations" took root in the last remaining brain cells of Dear Leader? Either that, or Bush is lying.
Oh, wait...............
petewsh61 wrote on August 13, 2007 4:35 PM:What kind of appointments are we talking about? What did Reid trade away?
Are we going to get a bunch of ultraconservative judges installed because Reid wouldn't hold pro forma sessions?
Veritas78 wrote on August 13, 2007 4:43 PM:Why? Why give Bush anything? Just do the pro forma staffing thing, keep the Senate in session, and don't agree to move on any of Bush's nominees! Sheesh. Reid has no idea how to play hardball.
phil james wrote on August 13, 2007 4:44 PM:Okay. If Reid were playing tennis with Dubya, at this point in the match the score would be love:750. Why can't Bush just go ahead and make a recess appointment? What is Reid going to do? Impeach him or something?
drational wrote on August 13, 2007 4:44 PM:Is this payment for Hans Von Spakovsky at FEC?
Dr. Zaius wrote on August 13, 2007 5:05 PM:Yeah, it will work like this:
Gonzo quits under intense objections from Bush. Bush, having no alternative really, will simply then have no other alternative than to appoint someone. How can he not? We're at war. We MUST have an attorney general to keep the nation safe. It's not his fault, he's forced into it.
Reid, you're such a tool.
paul wrote on August 13, 2007 5:24 PM:I would have preferred to keep the Senate in pro-forma session -- and Reid NOT promising to move Bush's nominees.
paul wrote on August 13, 2007 5:26 PM:I would have preferred for Reid to keep the Senate in pro forma session -- and NOT to promise to move Bush's nominees.
elwood wrote on August 13, 2007 5:29 PM:So: if Bush decides he wants to name a few recess appointments, he does that, then Reid refuses to move on nominations? But wait -- Bush would have already appointed them. This is entirely one-sided.
The thing is, I don't trust the Hill on this story. This "3 day" business they've been spouting has no basis in law or precedent.
Bushie wrote on August 13, 2007 5:40 PM:I read elsewhere chef caver in charge Reid changed his mind. Which report is correct?
Punchy wrote on August 13, 2007 5:45 PM:Reid just got played like a rented mule. Being from NV, you'd think he could smell a rigged game a mile away...
jeffgee wrote on August 13, 2007 5:47 PM:Harry, count your fingers after shaking Bush's hand.
Anonymous wrote on August 13, 2007 5:48 PM:Is Reid cutting deals because he's afraid of what investigations Bush might prompt because of his $1 million land deal windfall? http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8KMJ8I00&show_article=1
This set of Democrat party leaders appears to have too many skeletons in their closet to do anything meaningful that would offend Bush.
johnnydoughey wrote on August 13, 2007 5:58 PM:Apparently, tranparency and ethics in government are two more little items our new democrat leadership has decided to do away with.
If Reid has made a deal with Bush to allow appointees to go through, he is either aware of whom Bush will be attempting to appoint (in which case, he is keeping it a secret... heaven forbid the common folk have any advance warning... in simple layman's language, this action is known as plotting-used a lot when committing fraud) or he is simply stating that he really doesn't care who is appointed... it could be Attila the Hun for all he cares... as long as he looks good by stopping appointments while Congress is in recess.
Looks as though we peons are winners again, doesn't it folks...
I think it's a good time to see what earmarks and other pork Bush will not be vetoing going to California (Pelosi) and Nevada (Reid)...
badger wrote on August 13, 2007 5:58 PM:I think TPMmuckracker needs to do some digging here because this story doesn't make any sense. Why does the Senate Majority Leader need Bush's permission to do his little pro-forma session trick? Why is it worth trading permanent appointments for acting appointments, especially if you can prevent the acting appointmentents by keeping the senate in session? Are any of these appointments judicial? Can't we trade them for something more useful (RNC e-mails, FISA legal opinions, etc.)?
phil james wrote on August 13, 2007 6:07 PM:Marquis of Queensbury rules dictate that Reid not hit below the belt or in the back of the head or after the bell. Bush's rules dictate that Bush decides whatever the rules are at whatever time they are convenient and when inconvenient there are no rules. Reid continues to bring a knife to a gunfight.
pointus wrote on August 13, 2007 6:18 PM:My guess is that Reid's quid pro quo for BushCheney was passage of the GOP FISA expansion bill.
RayGavin wrote on August 13, 2007 6:19 PM:Ried is a wussy!!! He can't decide so the decider decides for him. The arogance in the white house has been well documented and now sadly so has the lack of back bone in the Democratic leadership. Rove reminded me today of Porky Pig at the end of his cartoons..."thats all folks." We have been totally screwed!
Semidi wrote on August 13, 2007 6:23 PM:Harry Reid is going to make it harder for the next president to campaign for his or her party using Air Force One, and this is a GOOD thing? Does Reid not realize that the next president is more than likely going to be a Democrat? Reid is hurting his own party with this.
And to top it off, he's going to "move" some the latest group of America-hating, right-wing activist radicals that Bush wants to install in our government?
Harry Reid may be in charge of the Senate now, but it feels like Bill Frist still runs things. The Green Party looks better to me every damned day.
Anonymous wrote on August 13, 2007 6:29 PM:Reid is a fool. He could have prevented bad appointments, now he has agreed to allow them.
Duckman GR wrote on August 13, 2007 6:44 PM:Yes, it's a good thing. After the 2008 election the bush crime syndicate will, I pray atheistically, be gone, and we can get back to more normal politics, in which case things that even the campaign field for challengers is a good thing regardless of party. That's why we get stuck with people like Hoyer and Jay Rockefeller (a nice enough guy but totally ineffective) and Feinstein and what not, ineffective congressmen who can't do much, but are good at getting re-elected.
As for the deal, moving a nomination is not the same thing as approving one, although given the rubber kneed actions of many Democrats in the Senate, that may be a moot point. Of course, when Bush breaks the deal, Harry should do one of two things, resign with a mea culpa about how wrong he was to trust the 3 headed snake of Bush/Cheney/Rove and how right the DFH were, or two, declare total war on Bush; bury the Senate Republicans for the perfidy of their party; push the House to start impeachment against any and all - judges, Cabinet, Executive; start passing bills, and passing them, in conjunction with the House and excluding Republicans from any conference bills, and so on.
But what he should do is one thing, what he will do will be to say, bad President Bush, bad, and dash off a strongly worded letter condemning the betrayal.
The Skeptical Cynic wrote on August 13, 2007 7:08 PM:I bet I could get Reid take over the "outside down" payments on a 1976 Dodge Dart.
Bush promises Reid that he won't fXXk over him during a recess with a-hole appointments so long as Reid agrees to let Bush fxxk over him following the recess as Reid moves along the vote on a-holes Bush has already nominated.
I've got a tiny mixed breed Persian cat (the original runt of the litter). I'm going to send it to him in a baby shoe sized box. This little pussy will tear up that pussy Reid in a cathouse minute.
Tim Welsh wrote on August 13, 2007 7:35 PM:Why make recess appointments when Reid has already agreed to "move" Bush nominees as soon as recess is over?? He's getting his way either way. If the Dems really wanted to do our will and resist the Bush fascist push he would have stuck with his original plan and told Bush to get f****d. The way it is we have bargained our way to nowhere.
Tim Welsh wrote on August 13, 2007 7:37 PM:Why make recess appointments when Reid has already agreed to "move" Bush nominees as soon as recess is over?? He's getting his way either way. If the Dems really wanted to do our will and resist the Bush fascist push he would have stuck with his original plan and told Bush to get f****d. The way it is we have bargained our way to nowhere.
Yossarian wrote on August 13, 2007 7:48 PM:Uhmmm, what is the point of this whole bullshit? Reididiot is promising to allow Bush's nominee to move through congress if King Bush won't make any recess appointments. I mean what difference would it make now even if Bush picks Stalin to be one of the appointees. His term ends in 17 MONTHS! So Reididiot thinks he has achieved something? Go figure!
Yossarian wrote on August 13, 2007 7:57 PM:Nancy Pancy Pelosi and Harry Kari Reididiot need to go and commit Hari-Kari.
http://www.win.net/ratsnest/archive-articles21/fog0000000384.html
sc: grip as in Nancy and Harry have lost a grip on their minds
breakspear wrote on August 13, 2007 8:26 PM:The big news this recess period is Karl Rove cutting and running. Bush wont do any recess appointments, as he wont have Rover boy there to advise him on what to do anymore or whom to select. Good, now if only Bush would resign and go back to Texas too. Oh after Cheney is taken care of.
tekel wrote on August 13, 2007 9:25 PM:Even if Bush keeps his side of the bargain, Reid should break the deal once it's too late for Bush to retaliate.
"I agreed to move some of your nominees... but I changed my mind. And if you don't like it, Pat Leahy will tell you what you can do about it."
midwestblue wrote on August 13, 2007 9:34 PM:If Reid really did work out that tit-for-tat with the White House, I can only say I hope Leahy, Conyers, and Waxman have more intregrity than Harry Reid. Hopefully, a few people up there are taking their roles seriously and aren't so lazy, they'd compromise their Constitutional duties and responsibilities.
brandane wrote on August 13, 2007 9:52 PM:By the way, why are these Democrats socializing with the White House, with breakfasts and lunches and crap? Democrats should barely be on speaking terms with those criminals, in my opinion.
The Dems have boxed themselves in, by supporting Lie berman he now controls their destiny. Whenever he wants to he can switch parties and throw all the committee chairmanships back to the republicans, End of story, no more senate investigations, no oversight.
brandane wrote on August 13, 2007 9:53 PM:The Dems have boxed themselves in, by supporting Lie berman he now controls their destiny. Whenever he wants to he can switch parties and throw all the committee chairmanships back to the republicans, End of story, no more senate investigations, no oversight.
larry wrote on August 13, 2007 10:34 PM:We need people who know how to play hardball with a President like Bush.
Posted by: OCPatriot
Date: August 13, 2007 4:29 PM
Reid is probably a direct descendant of General Braddock of Fort Necessity, whose vivid example of ignorance of Indian warfare taught a lesson to George Washington that we are still profiting from....
Richard Smith wrote on August 13, 2007 10:44 PM:Um...Brandane...you might want to stop using Fox News for your fact checks. If Joe switches, the chairs remain with the Democrats. Nice try, though.
Dr. Wu wrote on August 13, 2007 10:50 PM:Tell you what, George. How about if I bend over, and you promise not to fuck me up the ass?
"Give 'em head Harry" strikes again. The only place Bush nominees should be "moving" is to prison.
Mike wrote on August 13, 2007 10:56 PM:I don't get it. Why would Harry Reid make any deal with Bush?
He should have kept the Senate in 'pro-forma' session to prevent recess appointments and told Bush that he'll need to get his other crony nominees approved on their merits.
kaven wrote on August 13, 2007 10:58 PM:damm!
promised to move some appointments!
crap!
don't give an inch..
Anonymous wrote on August 13, 2007 11:23 PM:damm these moderates
The upside of going into recess is, the previous recess appointments expire. If they'd had a pro forma session, the recess appointments would be able to continue on.
steambomb wrote on August 13, 2007 11:35 PM:If I were in congress I wouldn't be cutting any deals with Bush. Ever again.
acf wrote on August 13, 2007 11:48 PM:Bush has a deal with Reid not to make any recess appointments? Yeah, that's something you can depend on. Where has Reid been these past 6 1/2 years? Bush plays these games all the time. In fact, he's lived his entire life, saying whatever it takes to extend the game beyond the final buzzer in order to eke out a win. Trust him on this? I don't think so.
Suzie-Q wrote on August 14, 2007 12:58 AM:Who is Arthur Scheuerman?
The Oracle wrote on August 14, 2007 2:19 AM:http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2007/08/11/who-is-arthur-scheuerman/
Too bad Reid didn't name names, although I'm certain we'll find out soon enough who these Bush nominees are that Reid has promised to move on.
To put it simply, if these Bush nominees are judicial related in anyway and not someone nominated to be a dog catcher, then we'll all know that Reid sold out again...making deals with the worst and most corrupt administration in American history again instead of doing what is right for our democracy and our nation's children.
Reid, haven't you learned yet? One doesn't make deals with the devil...or the Bush administration.
Paul wrote on August 14, 2007 8:16 AM:I'll believe that Bush won't make recess appointments once the recess is over and no appointments were made. And even then check twice.
Not clear to me why Reid continues to make deals. Trust? Why?
ColoradoDem wrote on August 14, 2007 8:24 AM:It seems that folks have overlooked the fact that no one in the Senate would have been *willing* to stay in pro-forma session. Each and every one of them wants to return home to raise money for their next campaign. Thus, it really didn't matter what Harry Reid *wanted* here; his colleagues were never going to go for it anyway. Campaign Finance Reform is one of the most important issues on the table today; we've got to rally to push it as hard as we can, or our elected officials will continue along these lines.
Howard wrote on August 14, 2007 8:45 AM:Is the bridge that fellow had for sale still available? Rove sold the President(?)and the public lots of bridges. Maybe now that he needs a job that fellow can hire him
Howard wrote on August 14, 2007 8:46 AM:Is the bridge that fellow had for sale still available? Rove sold the President(?)and the public lots of bridges. Maybe now that he needs a job that fellow can hire him
JerseyMissouri wrote on August 14, 2007 8:46 AM:When is a "deal" a bad deal? When its made by Reid. Bush gets his nominees pushed though, Reid gets a vacation and democratic voters get screwed..again.
Howard wrote on August 14, 2007 8:48 AM:Is the bridge that fellow had for sale still available? Rove sold the President(?)and the public lots of bridges. Maybe now that he needs a job that fellow can hire him
Anonymous wrote on August 14, 2007 10:37 AM:It's terrifically unfair that a President gets to jet around on Air Force One and his challenger has to borrow planes from rich folks or charter flights.
That should at least have to reimburse at the charter rate rather than the first class rate.
scorpio13 wrote on August 14, 2007 11:54 AM:Hah!! And you think Rover Boy is gone....why?? Don't kid yourself. He will just go out one door and come back in another. As I heard it quoted on Charlie Rose last night..."never more than a phone call away". No, he will be turn up our worst nightmare somewhere else. S*it Romney's campaign, perhaps. Trust me he's not done by a long shot.
johnyblue wrote on August 14, 2007 12:14 PM:* is trading wooden nickels for gold...Ried is a fool as is Pelosi and both need to be replaced with someone smart enough to play the GOP game of dirty rotten crooks.
scorpio13 wrote on August 14, 2007 1:45 PM:OOPS! I posted that last comment to the wrong thread by mistake. Sorry guys.
SPENCER wrote on August 14, 2007 2:58 PM:Reid knows that Bush will push these judges, using the media machine and pundits that he still controls, down his throat for the next 6 months at least, because Bush has no other domestic agenda.
jimbo92107 wrote on August 14, 2007 3:59 PM:Bush promised something to Reid? Is it in writing? Would it even matter if it was?
This will be fun to watch.
SGM wrote on August 14, 2007 5:33 PM:I have preached that the President, whatever party, should deduct the entire cost of a political trip out of the proceeds of the fund raising they have done (the cost of extra security in the towns they visit is enormous) and keep only what is left over. I have written to Lehrer News hour, all the major papers and some of their reporters, politicians, etc. and I have never received one reply or heard anyone else mutter these words.
Al Swearengen wrote on August 14, 2007 10:03 PM:It seems odd that Bush would agree to this with Reid only agreeing to push through "some" nominations. Are we certain this didn't have anything to do with the FISA bill?
articleV wrote on August 14, 2007 10:58 PM:Charley Brown was fooled every football season with the snap of the ball. Why can't the leadership see that nobody in Bushco can ever be trusted to do what they say they will do?
Not dealing with conservatives here, not dealing with honest brokers here. My own senator doesn't seem to get it. No appointments should ever be confirmed again. You can fool some of the Democrats all of the time (just enough to get your way 100% of the time).
OCPatriot wrote on August 27, 2007 1:11 PM:Reid is an impotent fool.