Did we ever find out why Senator Sanders blocked Pres. Obama's three Dem nominees

[KitSileya]

For the board of the US Postal Service? I mean, I doubt they could have stopped DeJoy, but it sure would have been nice to have someone in position to leak things, wouldn't it?

[DeeDeeNY]

1. They were Republicans

Bush holdovers who wanted to privatize the Postal Service.

[KitSileya]

6. Two of them were Republicans. Three were not.

Senator Sanders put a hold on all five. I couldn't find a reason why, other than that he accused all five of them of being Republicans, which were patently untrue.

[Hortensis]

16. Obama is 100% OPPOSED to privatizing our magnificent USPS.

So protecting the USPS from privatization is NOT why Sanders voted against. Also, his willingness to throw our government to a GOP long determined to privatize it suggests it was never a big concern.

Republican control of the senate allows him to vote against Democrats whenever he wants to posture as taking a phony stand against nonexistent Democratic Party "corruption" without it making any difference.

If I'm telling you anything you don't already know all too well, I apologize for misunderstanding your post.

OUR FIRST POSTMASTER GENERAL:

[KitSileya]

23. I knew that Benjamin Franklin was the first Postmaster General

(He must be rolling in the grave seeing DeJoy in his chair). I didn't know about the politics behind President Obama's nominees, however. According to what I could find, Senator Sanders blocked all the nominees because ha claimed they were all Republicans, which cannot be true since three were Democratic donors and the restrictions on the board with regards to party affiliation.

And what I cannot understand is also, if President Obama couldn't nominate only Democrats because of the party affiliation restriction, why put a hold on all his nominees? What's to stop the Republicans from doing the same? I mean, if any Senator can put a hold on a candidate, what's to stop them from blocking every Democratic nominee? I know we've bemoaned the breakdown in norms and etiquette in Congress perpetrated by the Republicans since Reagan and Gingrich, but how is this not more of the same?

[Hortensis]

27. +100. There've always been good, honorable and competent conservatives,

and most if not all of our liberal presidents have brought some of them into their administrations as part of what you allude to, and often because they believed they were the best choice for a position. As it should be.

It can also be a way of moving up people who are blocked by corrupt conservative leaders because they're good and honorable.

[George II]

38. Some were republicans, three were Democrats. There is a requirement that there be no more than 5....

....Democrats or republicans. Obama was required to appoint some republicans.

So now, instead of Obama's appointees still on the Board of Governors for at least four more years (they're 9-year terms) we have only SIX members, all six appointed by trump.

Big win for Sanders, eh?

[Doremus]

51. And if he had voted for (Rs) the media and his detractors would never have let him forget it.

Face it, the guy can do nothing right according to some.

[George II]

52. The fact is Obama HAD to nominate republicans. It's just that simple. There could not be....

...any more than five Democrats on the board.

Better to vote for three Democrats and two republicans than block a vote on them. He didn't vote for or against them, he BLOCKED the vote on them, big difference!

[NurseJackie]

53. That seems short-sighted to me.

[Sienna86]

2. They were republicans. Pressing privatizing Postal Service.

[KitSileya]

8. Five nominees, two were Republican

Three were not. All were stopped by Senator Sanders.

[Politicub]

12. Then all five should have been democrats

Love Obama. Loved his administration.

Did not love his continually thwarted attempts at trying to appease republicans.

[KitSileya]

14. Well, he had to try to get around Senator Sanders somehow.

I mean, when Senator Sanders blocked Democratic donor Stephen Crawford, he had to go find support somewhere else, didn't he?

[Politicub]

15. Who is Stephen Crawford?

What does that have to do with anything?

[KitSileya]

18. The first Dem nominee.

The reason there were three Dems and two Reps were of course because only 5 out of 9 on the board can belong to the same party, so President Obama couldn't nominate only Democrats to the board. Every other nominee has to be Republican. Senator Sanders put a hold on all of them. That's why all 6 of the appointees today were nominated by Trump, even though at least one of President Obama's Dem nominees would have been on the board until 2022 if Senator Sander's hadn't blocked them.

[George II]

47. There were already two Democrats on the Board. There could be no more than five Democrats...

...so three had to be republicans.

Plus they would have been republicans vetted by the Obama administration, what some might call "republican-lite"?

Now we have five republicans and one "democrat", ALL appointed by trump. And he's left three seats open.

[Greybnk48]

26. This. They were privatization zealots. Bernie was right, after all. n/t

[FBaggins]

3. "Socialism"... and postal unions

The post office is supposed to fund itself it off fees charged. Essentially “run like a business” because it is one. That was on track to mean large cuts in staffing.

Sanders... like any good “socialist”... considers postal services to be a core public function that should be delivered by (and funded by) the government. NOT run “like a business”.

[octoberlib]

4. The Postal Union was against the nominations from what I've read.

[JHB]

5. Did you try looking it up?

As other people have noted above, they were pro-privatization Bush holdovers.

Don't be so sure they would have leaked anything. It's more likely they'd have sloshed something, like their drinks as they toasted DeJoy.

[KitSileya]

7. Three of them were Democrats. n/t

[JHB]

13. Where did they stand on privatization?

What did the postal unions have to dismay about them?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

20. That the union didn't support.

I stand with my union brothers and sisters.

[Autumn]

9. Why do you think they would leak anything? The Republicans would have gone along

with whatever Trump's appointee DeJoy wants to do and the Dems would have been fired. If they had been appointed I doubt there would be a post office today. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings here are no decent Republicans who believe in doing the right thing that will be riding to our rescue. But yeah, it's so much easier to blame Bernie than any fucking Republican.

[KitSileya]

11. But three of them were Democrats.

Stephen Crawford, David Michael Bennett, and David Shapira were Democratic donors. So why are you calling them Republicans?

[Autumn]

17. And those three Democrats would have been fired. And your two Republicans would go along

with whatever Trump and DeJoy wanted. The last 12 fucking years have proved that. I called no Democrats Republicans

You might want to read this from my response to you .

The Republicans would have gone along with whatever Trump's appointee DeJoy wants to do and the Dems would have been fired.

[KitSileya]

19. Fired? They have 7-year terms.

Trump could nominate every last member on the sitting board because so many of the spots were vacant, thanks to Senator Sanders.

[Autumn]

22. When did Trump ever give a shit about the rules? And when were there any repercussions

to him when he broke them? There wasn't. Sanders did the right thing.

[BainsBane]

31. that's a cop out

That they would have been fired is not a reason to block their appointment. And claims that Obama would have privatized the postal service are false, to put it as nicely as I can.

[Autumn]

32. The postal union was against the appointment. That was enough of a reason. nt

[BainsBane]

37. Do you have evidence of that?

Because I'd love to see it.

[Autumn]

39. I remember it being discussed at the time. Try google nt

[BainsBane]

40. Years of turmoil at Postal Service governing board fueled political firestorm, critics say A years-o

Senate standoff contributed to the current controversy, experts say.

As President Barack Obama's second term came to a close, a dispute erupted between two of the Senate's most polarizing figures.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., squared off over Obama's nominees to the U.S. Postal Service's Board of Governors -- the powerful panel that oversees post office operations. When the two politicians failed to reach an agreement, all nine seats were left unfilled, laying the foundation for a controversy that now engulfs one of America's most beloved institutions and, some are alleging, could threaten the 2020 election.

"The unions were involved, presidential politics were involved," said Stephen Crawford, a former nominee to join the board of governors. "Politically, it was a very interesting microcosm of American special interest group politics ... and here we are now."

Sanders' decision in 2015 and 2016 to block two of the Obama administration's nominees -- made at the behest of powerful union leaders -- and McConnell's decision to block the rest in retaliation created a unique opportunity for President Donald Trump to appoint a full slate of picks to a panel that is meant to be comprised of bipartisan members serving staggered, seven-year terms.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/years-turmoil-postal-service-governing-board-fueled-political/story?id=72482926

[lapucelle]

54. There's nothing on Google about the Democratic nominees wanting to privatize the postal service.

Then, as now, the Postal Service proposed steep service cuts that included closing post office branches and mail-sorting plants and eliminating Saturday delivery.

Sanders decried the cuts. Buoyed by the politically potent postal unions, he led the charge in the Senate to forestall them.

Foremost among his actions was a Senate hold to block Obama’s slate of five nominees to the board. The senator’s aides said at the time that he thought that the two Republicans, a lobbyist for the payday loan industry and a former Reagan administration official, would slash jobs and outsource one of the country’s oldest institutions to private companies.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E8l8LDDhnRQJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/postal-service-trump-dejoy/2020/08/18/a9b4dd18-e14c-11ea-8181-606e603bb1c4_story.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-d

[Autumn]

55. I didn't say there was anything about them wanting to privatize the P.S. I said the postal

union was against it.

Autumn (39,270 posts)

32. The postal union was against the appointment. That was enough of a reason. nt

[lapucelle]

56. Obstructing the slate gave Trump free reign to remake the entire board.

A true leader strategizes wisely and then meets with allies to plan next steps. A self-own generally demonstrates incompetence.

[Autumn]

57. As our friend George is fond of saying, that's nothing to do with what I posted.

[lapucelle]

59. Yes it does.

See your own post 32.

[George II]

29. Actually they're 9-year terms, and the President can't fire them. Plus there can't be more than....

....five members from the same party.

That's why Obama nominated republicans in his group of five, he was bound by the rules to do so.

In addition, if the reasons being put forth by people here are true as to why Sanders blocked them, he was going on the assumption that a republican would be elected president more than a year later. Either that or he was hoping he'd be the Democratic nominee, be elected president, and make his own appointments.

[George II]

24. So you're telling us that Sanders KNEW in 2015 that trump would win a year later and fire........

....Obama's appointees?

By the way, the President can't fire USPS Board Members, and of the nine members there can be no more than five of the same party. So even if he could fire three Democratic members, he'd have to appoint three Democrats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Governors_of_the_United_States_Postal_Service

At the time President Obama made those five appointments, there were already two Democrats on the Board, so Obama HAD to nominate two republicans in that group of five that were nominated. Sanders' excuse that some were republicans doesn't hold water.

Republicans would go along with whatever Trump and DeJoy wanted. The last 12 fucking years have proved that.

trump and DeJoy have been in office for 12 years?

Bottom line, there would have been three more Democrats on the Board today had Sanders not blocked President Obama's for a specious reason.

[Autumn]

25. Yeah, anyone who has paid attention to what the repigs did to Obama knew what they do.

There are rules and laws a president has to abide by. But not Trump and the Repigs. Bernie had every right to block them. Just like Manchin can be all over saying he will not support the GND, or changing the courts.

[George II]

28. So Democratic nominees are preemptively blocked because some day sometime in the future....

....they might be fired by a republican president should one ever be elected.

Based on that I guess Sanders knew the as yet undetermined republican Presidential nominee would win.

I don't buy that.

PS - Manchin isn't the subject of this discussion, blocked members of the USPS board, and who blocked them, is the subject.

[Autumn]

30. The subject is whatever I want to bring up in my response. You can complain about a Senator

and his actions I can complain about another Senator planning to do similar. The Union supported Sanders in that so that's the way it goes.

[George II]

33. The raw, cold fact is he blocked the nominations of DEMOCRATS by a Democratic President and....

....now we're left with only SIX Governors, not the full complement of nine. And they're running rampant over the USPS.

And people are condoning his action.

No other Senator is "planning to do similar", i.e., block nominations by a Democratic President. At least not until after January 20, 2021.

[Autumn]

34. That is a fact, Bernie Sanders did just that. He and I are both proud to stand with the Union.

There come's a time when people must come first over politics. That was one of those times.

[George II]

36. It wasn't very far-sighted. So he blocked Governors in 2015 (and 2016) and those blocks....

....have done more harm than good. There have been no subsequent nominations and the Board is operating with only six Governors.

Long-term the union has been set back more than if Obama's nominees weren't blocked.

But previously you said trump would have fired them anyway (even though he couldn't), even though the first group were blocked almost two years before Obama's successor (Democrat OR republican) was sworn into office?

[lunasun]

10. I also support the postal workers unions so I had no problem with the block back then

Trump would have had his appointees on the board by now and done what he wanted, with or without the block and what repugs or privateers of any persuasion would be leaking I can’t imagine
Sanders acted as he did, with the support of postal labor unions, because he was determined to prevent service cuts and privatization.

[George II]

43. Not really. They are appointed to 9-year terms. The five in 2015 would still be there until 2024....

...and the one blocked in 2016 would still be there until 2025.

They can't be fired.

[George II]

21. Not definitively. Why would someone who caucuses with the Democrats block appointments.....

....of Democratic President Barack Obama?

[jalan48]

35. Why not nominate someone the Postal Union supported and avoid the problem? I thought unions

were friends of the Dems.

[George II]

41. The absolute bottom line is that if Sanders hadn't blocked the five in 2015 and one in 2016....

....there would be six Obama appointees still on the Board of Governors for several years:

5 until 2024
1 until 2025

Only FIVE can be Democrats. Period.

So now we have six members of the Board of Governors - all SIX are trump appointees and he's left three vacant. No Obama appointees.

Thanks Bernie!

[jalan48]

44. No, the bottom line is that Obama shouldn't have nominated people the Postal Union opposed.

Delegates to the APWU’s 21st Biennial Convention voted unanimously on Wednesday to endorse President Barack Obama for a second term.

In these difficult times for postal workers and for all working people, delegates expressed their clear belief that President Obama stands on the side of workers, while his opponent this November threatens the very existence of the labor movement.


https://apwu.org/news/apwu-endorses-barack-obama

[George II]

45. That was more 3 years before Obama made his choices, and even before he was....

...re-elected.

As I said, had those five (2015) + one (2016) gone through, five of them would still be on the Board of Governors for four more years, one for five more years.

Now there are only six, all of whom were appointed by trump.

Again, THAT is the bottom line - today we would have 6 Obama appointees, 3 trump appointees. Instead we have 0 Obama appointees, 6 trump appointees.

Which is better, six Obama appointees that weren't 100% "pure" or six trump appointees that are 100% anti-union?

I trust Obama's judgement. You?

[jalan48]

46. From the same article...

Delegates watched a recorded message from President Obama shortly before the vote.

“We want to build an economy that lasts,” the President said, “and that’s why we’re pushing back against the assault on unions, because the values you stand for — hard work, responsibility, looking out for one another — aren’t just union values. They’re American values.

“That’s why we’re fighting to make sure that the United States Postal Service keeps delivering for the American people.”

The delegates made clear their approval of this message.

[George II]

48. Yes, Obama is very much pro-union. But for some reason his appointees weren't "pure" enough....

...for Sanders.

I looked but couldn't find anything. Is there any statement or press release from the union regarding the 2015 and 2016 appointees? Thanks.

[jalan48]

49. I'm sure union members share your concerns about purity tests.

[George II]

50. Was the union formally against those appointments? Are they happier with the 6 trump appointments?

[George II]

42. Double post...sorry!

[Iggo]

58. Wow!

That’s some big league shit-stirring.

Just came right out swinging, dincha.

[Steelrolled]

60. 2024 primaries will be here before you know it.

[Iggo]

61. I guess so, huh!