|
Take your points -
1) ALL they could do was to demand a roll call on HRC and then lose 94 to 2. This after most Republicans - all but one on the committee, voted her out of committee with their recommendation and their praise. Did you think it wrong when Kerry and Boxer grilled Dr Rice in 2005 - and there was a roll call vote on her as well. Also, consider the result - several Republicans, including two prominent ones - McCain and Specter, took to the floor praising HRC and calling for "AYE" votes. (I don't know if the Obama team or the Chair of SFRC managing the floor had a role in coordinating this, but it made the "lemon" into "lemonade".)
2) Holder - Here, there is no reason for haste and the Senate has an oversight role. The Rich pardon really is troubling, but it was very likely a done deal - where Holder's actions were just formality. If he were nominated by Bush - we would have wanted our Senators to grill him on that. He does seem good on issues like torture though. Here again, given Obama's popularity and the number of Senate Democrats we have, he will be easily confirmed.
3) The bailout. There have been MORE reservations by Democrats on the Finance and Budget committees than by the Republicans. As OBAMA has made clear - it is a process where the legislative branch has input. Just as it was wrong for the Republicans to follow in lock step behind Bush - it would be wrong for the Democrats to do so. Those Senators are on the committees with the responsibility to design and review this type of legislation. I think it is important to do something quickly -but it needs to be the right thing and it shouldn't be railroaded through. To jump in now - a month before Obama wants it signed, is premature and NO, they are not merely supposed to convert Obama's plan to law.
You also ignore Geitner's confirmation - which will happen. It will happen because all the Democrats will back him - and for many it will because they support Obama. This in spite of teh fact that he is clearly lying to them on why he didn't pay the pay roll taxes for 2001 and 2002 until recently when he was vetted. If you worked in the same situation for 4 years and the fact that you needed to pay the pay roll taxes was found in the latter 2 years, would you immediately realize that you did this incorrectly for all 4 years. If so, would you then voluntarily correct the two earlier years - even if they were too old to be audited by the IRS? Would you do it if you were in public service?
My answer to the first question is that of course I would immediately realize that. To the second - yes, I would pay, though a dear friend I asked was not sure he would. The third question though is why my friend was surprised Geitner didn't correct it then. That and his general demeanor suggest to me that he is rather arrogant and may think the rules do not apply to him. It bothers me that he seemed arrogant when speaking about the mechanisms of the bailout. I suspect that many a Democrat will regret that they voted for him - likely ignoring their own reservations - out of respect for Obama.
|