How does this work? A number of Obama's political appointments have been placed on hold by an array of different Senators with totally distinct agenda's. When Senator Menendez places a hold on an appointment because he disagrees or is upset with President Obama's Cuba Policy I understand, but disagree not only with his tactic but his view. Then there is our two distinguished Senators from Oklahoma. There must be something in the water there because I'm positive and I'm sure many here at the Daily Kos agree with me that both Senator Inhofe and Coburn are Luney Tunes. I know Senator Coburn has some fiscal conservative rationals that can be followed, but I'm not sure what planet Senator Inhofe is from and what is thought process is.
My question is twofold:
Why do we have a system where one person with an agenda is able to hold up an appointment? Holding up an appointment for the Treasury Department really doesn't make sense especially during a time of financial crisis. In the case of Senator Menendez from the Presidents same political party - isn't there a better way? I know the Financial Crisis is at the top of the agenda, but I happen to believe foreign policy issues are just as important.
Next - This question is more about the mechanics of government - When an appointee is place on hold do they go to work at the position they're appointed to or do they have go sit in the corner and wait? I know the President can make an temporary appointment when Congress adjourns has President Bush often did, but I don't believe President Obama wants to operate in this manner. I'm not naive enough to believe he won't if forced.
I'm particularly concerned about the battle to appoint Chas Freeman to the Chair of National Security Council. Steve Clements over at the Washington Note has an article written by Chas Freeman's son Charles Freeman on his Facebook page. The following passage explains why I want this Chas Freeman working for us now!
"As the smartest person I know said about my Dad: "oh, he's scary smart." He's a curmudgeon with a stiletto for a mind. He has the capacity to force the intelligence community to begin asking the questions that need to be asked, as opposed to the questions that they think will generate the answers that best suit the political framework that may have generated the question. Just the kind of person who should be asking the big questions about intelligence."
He goes on to state:
His appointment is being challenged these days by a small cabal of folks that believe first and foremost in the importance of allegiance to Israel as a core U.S. priority. Putting aside my natural instinct as a son to want to punch some of these guys in the face for some of the things they are saying about my father, for heaven's sake, I'm more deeply angry about the lack of guile some of these people have."
I want Chas Freeman working for us now!