Michael Histzik is giving Senate Democrats a tough time for abandoning Carolyn Colvin's nomination for a term as Commissioner of Social Security. I'm with him.
As best I can understand what happened, Senate Republicans threatened to drag out cloture on Colvin's nomination as long as possible which would have delayed the start of the Christmas break for all Senators. Their real reasons for making this threat are unclear but their stated reasons are ridiculous, as Hiltzik demonstrates. All Senate Republicans could do was delay since they lacked the votes to prevent confirmation. Would Republican Senators have actually insisted on hanging around the Capitol for a losing battle to prevent Colvin's nomination when there was no real reason to oppose her in the first place? We'll never know since Senate Democrats simply gave up on the nomination instead of taking the risk that they would be forced to delay their holiday break. No wonder Democrats are about to be in the minority in the Senate.
As a footnote, the two Democratic Senators from Colvin's home state, Maryland, Mikulski and Cardin, went to the Senate floor yesterday to pointlessly ask for unanimous consent for the consideration of Colvin's nomination. Of course, a Republican Senator objected. Neither Mikulski nor Cardin spoke up Saturday night when Senator Reid asked for unanimous consent to withdraw cloture on Colvin's nomination. No one spoke up then. That's how Colvin's nomination died.
As a footnote, the two Democratic Senators from Colvin's home state, Maryland, Mikulski and Cardin, went to the Senate floor yesterday to pointlessly ask for unanimous consent for the consideration of Colvin's nomination. Of course, a Republican Senator objected. Neither Mikulski nor Cardin spoke up Saturday night when Senator Reid asked for unanimous consent to withdraw cloture on Colvin's nomination. No one spoke up then. That's how Colvin's nomination died.
I'll go for maximum alliteration paraphrasing the story:
ReplyDeletePachyderm party's pointless political posturing prevents proper public parlance pertaining to preferred political appointee
;)
ANON 6;46 AM - Poorly parsed and politically pompous.
ReplyDelete6:46 You get a 9/10. Next time, don't tell us your rhetorical strategy. We're big boys and girls ;)
ReplyDeleteJustin
Thus proving that both parties are pointless.
ReplyDeleteI wonder about the quality of the nominee, myself.
ReplyDeleteAt 73 years old, she is representative of the agency of 20+ years ago - inflexible, old line managerial stock lacking even one iota of imagination, little tolerance for change, and even less incentive to accept the need for change.
She has been pretty much invisible since becoming the acting commissioner, and I honestly don't see her doing a single thing which has a snowball's chance in hades of improving the situation at SSA.
Instead, I see her serving as a placeholder until the next presidential election cycle. Not making waves, parroting the party line, and taking the opportunity to pad her senior executive pension check with a few more years of service before she toddles off into the sunset.
Halls' post from Dec. 13 on her confirmation: "So it's going to happen." Seldom right and wrong again Hall. Better call Hall!
ReplyDelete8:53 has it exactly right. This lady is not a leader, and the failure to confirm her is not something to fret about. It's about time that the White House put some real effort into finding a truly qualified--and exceptional--candidate for this post.
ReplyDeleteWhatever happened to the idea of FDR's grandson?
ReplyDelete