Democratic Senate Approves Fewer Obama Nominees than it Did Bush Choices

[The Straight Story]

Democratic Senate Approves Fewer Obama Nominees than it Did Bush Choices

What good is a Democratic majority if it does a worse job of confirming your nominees than your Republican predecessor?

This question has probably crossed the mind of President Barack Obama as he has watched nominee after nominee of his not get approved by the Senate, even though Democrats are in charge. Republicans, although in the minority, have used delaying tactics to stall many of the nominees, particularly judicial appointees. Their strategy appears to be to leave court positions vacant in hopes that a Republican will be elected president in November.

Last year, the Senate confirmed 57% of Obama's appointments. From 2007 through 2009, however, the Democratic-controlled upper house approved 67% of President George W. Bush's selections.

Currently, 181 of Obama's nominees are awaiting confirmation. Among these are his choices to lead the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Democratic_Senate_Approves_Fewer_Obama_Nominees_than_it_Did_Bush_Choices_120119

[BlueCaliDem]

1. Congress is definitely the problem

and it made President Obama note sometimes he had more friends within the GOP than he does in his own party, or something to that effect. Of course, some immediately pounced on that as President Obama being a Republican in Democratic clothing, but as the stats show, he wasn't so off the mark, was he?

It was very frustrating to watch as so-called Democratic congresscritters didn't go out, en masse, and campaign for health care reform or bankruptcy reform or anything else that benefited the American people.

In addition to the obstructionist GOP in congress, he was battling with members of his own party who weren't really behind him. It also explains why Democrats joined the GOP bloc and voted down the funds to allow the president to close Gitmo and even wrote into law and passed with a veto-proof majority to prohibit the president from bringing detainees into the United States to be tried.

We need to vote in true Democrats into Congress and quit voting for them just because they have a "D" by their name.

In light of the above, I doubt President Obama was all too sad when Democrats were voted out of power, and Harry Reid was struggling to keep his seat, almost losing it.

[rfranklin]

2. Republicans are abusing their minority status....

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans are blocking a wide range of presidential nominees as a means of reshaping and restraining the Obama administration’s economic policies on prominent issues like housing, finance, foreign trade and offshore drilling...
....Senators have long exercised their constitutional prerogative to derail nominations. And, for just as long, the party in the White House has accused its opponents of abusing that power. But several of the current standoffs differ in at least one respect: Republicans have said they are not opposing a particular nominee but rather any nominee, whoever it may be.

Republicans say the blockade reflects their frustration with the White House and the last Congress for passing broad policies without winning broad support. Republicans are consigned to defensive tactics because they lack the votes to pursue their own agenda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/us/politics/20nominate.html?pagewanted=all

Remember when they were screaming about the Dems blocking a few absolutely crazy court appointments under Bush? We never seem to see those 24/7 campaigns that were a frequent occurence under Bush.

[libinnyandia]

3. The Senate is totally dysfunctional. In theory the Senators from the 20 smallest states, with 10%

of the total population can determine what happens in the Senate.