Jon Chait explains the political strategy behind the "recess" appointment of Richard Cordray as leader of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Reuters looks at the Constitutional question of recess appointments.
Politico and Todd Zywicki look at the specifics of the Dodd-Frank law that may pre-emptively neuter recess appointments. From Prof. Zywicki:
...Section 1066 of Dodd-Frank provides that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to perform the functions of the CFPB under the subtitle transferring authority to the CFPB from the other agencies “until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with Section 1011.” It turns out that section 1011 is a defined term which provides: “The Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
This seems to suggest that even if the President might be able to appoint Cordray under the recess power the full grant of statutory authority wouldn’t transfer to the Bureau unless the statutory language was fulfilled as well.
This was mooted a year ago. The Inspectors General of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve prepared a report for Congress. The law firm of Ballard Spahr delivered the highlights, from which I excerpt this:
The designated transfer date (DTD) under the Dodd-Frank Act is currently set for July 21, 2011. Certain Bureau authority that can be exercised by Secretary Geithner (or his designee, Professor Warren) terminates on the DTD, and other authority terminates when a Bureau Director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. (Although the report does not directly address whether the President could make a recess appointment of a Director, without Senate confirmation, we note that his authority is not limited merely by the U.S. Constitution—as with other appointments—but also by the Dodd-Frank Act, which expressly speaks in terms of Senate confirmation.)
Under Section 1066 of the Dodd-Frank Act, after the DTD and before the confirmation of a Director, the Secretary (and his designee) can continue to exercise authorities transferred from other federal agencies, such as the authority to: (1) adopt regulations under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and other enumerated federal consumer financial laws; and (2) examine large depository institutions for consumer compliance. However, the Secretary and his designee cannot perform new functions during this period. For example, the report states that the Secretary (and any designee) may not during this period adopt rules prohibiting unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in connection with consumer financial products and services, or supervise or examine nondepository institutions. The report does not detail the full extent to which the Bureau can exercise its enforcement powers during this period, but, under the report’s logic, it appears that it could not bring an enforcement action based on its authority to prohibit unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.
Presumably someone who objects to a new rule will seek to have it overturned on this basis.
2. “We can’t wait.” Obama began his second two years by trying to bargain with the new Republican-controlled Congress, figuring that if he could find middle ground with the opposition party, Americans would see progress in Washington. The strategy was a total political and policy failure, as Republicans repeatedly turned down compromise offers on every front, and Obama found his approval ratings sinking.
I couldn't make it beyond this point.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 05, 2012 at 02:53 PM
--So Obama tried the audacious and legally indeterminate move of simply declaring the pro-forma session a sham, insisting Congress really was on recess, and appointing his man.--
So Congress does something entirely within it's power, and in Chait's view, this allows Barry to do something entirely without his.
And moreover the only dangerous precedent is not the one Barry doesn't have legal cover to do but the one Congress does.
What a partisan hack.
And being a partisan hack leads one to believe that setting up a class warfare reelection bid by Goldman Sachs' favorite president is somehow a brilliant trap.
Despite their faux anger, he's already got the OWS vote Johnny. It's everybody else he's having a problem with.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 05, 2012 at 02:54 PM
From ThinkProgress:
Neo says: January 5, 2012 at 2:53 pm
It’s nice to see a Progressive web site acknowledge that under Barack Obama that American families now pay the highest average annual gasoline price ever.
Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Neo | January 05, 2012 at 02:58 PM
This has a simple solution. You just make it a felony to take a position in the federal government by an illegal appointment, punishable by 10 years in jail and a $10 million fine.
The most likely outcome, the NLRB is defunded.
Posted by: Neo | January 05, 2012 at 03:06 PM
Chait does not address that the Corday appointment likely violates the enabling statute -- which I think is the bigger deal. I think it's OK to pick a constitutional fight with GOP over this. But clearly violating the law is as much a campaign issue as whatever consumer populism Obama has in mind.
Posted by: Appalled | January 05, 2012 at 03:24 PM
CNN: "As for those who say his recess appointment is illegal, Cordray said he'd "leave those details to others," during a forum at the Brookings Institution."
Legality, that's just a detail.
Posted by: PD | January 05, 2012 at 03:30 PM
Jon Chait? Jon Chait? wasn't there a Jon Chait back in 1998 who co-authorized Natl Review stories with fabulist Stephen Glass?
Posted by: NK | January 05, 2012 at 03:31 PM
'co-authored", I am am the worst typist.
Posted by: NK | January 05, 2012 at 03:41 PM
NK,
Do You mean The New Republic? And wasn't Sully part of the menage a trois back then before he went completely bonkers.
I hope Boehner and McConnell call the JEF's bluff on this and the NLRB appointments. And if Romney doesn't hammer it hard then both Gingrich and Santorum have to in the upcoming debates. Do. Not. Backdown. This. Time.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 05, 2012 at 03:51 PM
Marco Rubio is blasting Obama. Now Palin needs to step up to the plate and maybe my co-workers will know we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. ::sigh::
Posted by: Sue | January 05, 2012 at 03:51 PM
From the comments:
Posted by: Extraneus | January 05, 2012 at 03:53 PM
This act, in and of itself, should be enough to start impeachment proceedings. Mr. Big Time Congressional Scholar clearly knows that what he is doing is un-Constitutional, and he is doing it anyway, violating not only his oath of office, but undermining the structure of government itself.
But it won't be challenged because our Republican Congressional leadership are all cowards.
Where, by the way, is that Grand Defender of the Constitution, Ron Paul? Why isn't he banging the drum for impeachment?
Posted by: Soylent Red | January 05, 2012 at 03:56 PM
Soylent,
I think Paul is resting before heading into NH. You know, priorities.
Posted by: Sue | January 05, 2012 at 04:01 PM
Progressives know real facts, such as that increasing tax rates will cause revenue to increase. It's really tough for them to resist taking totalitarian control when there are so many idiots in the country who vote and believe voodoo, such as that reducing tax rates can cause revenue to increase. You really have to feel for them. It's like living on an island with only retarded, superstitious people whom you're required to treat as competent. It must be maddening. Plus, there's so much money and glory in totalitarian control. Hard to resist. I really do feel for them.
Kudos to Barack for wresting as little control as he has from the benighted public under the circumstances of there deplorable ignorance.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | January 05, 2012 at 04:02 PM
JiB-- you can't blame Glass on Sullivan, he left TNR in '96, before Glass wrote any of his fables. I was a big Sully Fan 1991-2003, he was one of the writers that made me a conservative. I met Sully in the mid-90's -- great guy. Post 2004? who knows? I haven't emailed with him since 2005 or so when John Paul II was dying.
Posted by: NK | January 05, 2012 at 04:02 PM
Teeth, floss you must.
(cheering)
Posted by: MarkO | January 05, 2012 at 04:06 PM
Is Obama flouting the actual Constitution or hundreds of years of convention, which to normal and respectuful representatives is as binding as the written law?
Posted by: Chubby | January 05, 2012 at 04:06 PM
Do You mean The New Republic? And wasn't Sully part of the menage a trois back then before he went completely bonkers.
Yes. Even TNR's Tim Noah can't imagine this not being unconstitutional.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 05, 2012 at 04:07 PM
Obama is Nixon:
Frost asked Nixon about the legality of the president's actions. Nixon replied: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." ...
Posted by: MarkO | January 05, 2012 at 04:07 PM
JiB-- sorry The New Republic, not National Review, thanks for the correction.
Posted by: NK | January 05, 2012 at 04:07 PM
Crisis, what crisis?
Scott Brown (Repub Mass) says " the political system is "completely broken" in Washington", so screw the Constitution, "I support President Obama's appointment."
Posted by: daddy | January 05, 2012 at 04:13 PM
MarkO -- excellent snark.
CaptH-- I think we are missing the REAL point and opportunity here -- and certainly the REPUBS are missing the point. How does 'BAM justify this illegal power grab? He says we have a jobs emergency (true BTW), so the POTUS has go to do what he's got to do! But what has 'BAM done? he's hired bureaucrat flunkies who will make it more expensive for small businesses and consumers to get short term loans (Cirdray), and make it harder for businesses to defend themselves against bogus snap union elections (NLRB flunkies). How does that help get anybody hired -- OTHER THAN DC bureaucrats and Union organizer thugs? that's the point, 'Bam cites the "jobs emergency" as the reason to torch the constitution, but what he's done won't create any real jobs. Everything he does is for the Unions and to expand government power, not to help workers or business owners. he is a fascist state ruler like Mussolini, te Perons, Chavez and the Bavarian house painter.
Posted by: NK | January 05, 2012 at 04:16 PM
Speaking of trashing the Constitution:
Megyn Kelly on FOX this morning had an excellent segment with Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Hope it becomes linkable. Sheriff Joe remains one of the true bedrock heros we have in this country standing for the Rule of Law and this Administration is hell bent on breaking him.
Posted by: daddy | January 05, 2012 at 04:22 PM
Exactly NK; El JEFe is counting on the out of work voters to be too stupid to recognize where the source of their joblessness is. As always, I have to trust the voters to be smart enough but it would be nice if some of the candidates could make it crystal clear instead of spending their time being patted on the back by an economic dunce like McCain.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 05, 2012 at 04:23 PM
I was starting to warm up--ever so slightly--to Mittens...until McCain endorsed him.
It's abundantly clear you're part of the problem, Sidney.
Posted by: lyle | January 05, 2012 at 04:32 PM
CaptH-- Cordray came out of Ohio, would Ohio Indysget the connection that Cordray won't add a single Ohio Job? Ohio is ---eh-- kinda relevant come November.
Posted by: NK | January 05, 2012 at 04:43 PM
I've got the answer.
Let's pay to put Solydra Solar Panels on the roof of Chevy Volts.
Whats not to like?
Posted by: daddy | January 05, 2012 at 05:02 PM
This may just be testing the waters to see whether Obama can govern in a Chavez like decree matter. If Axelplouffe decides it's necessary, expect a POTUS decree re mortgage principal write downs. Seizing private retirement accounts is probably not going to happen before the election, because that might wake up too many credentialled morons in the key states. However, it is clear that Axelplouffe has determined that Obama being true to the leftist core of his being is the only way to keep the POTUSey.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 05, 2012 at 05:05 PM
As I read this, it sounds ever so like Beck made it up and yet, it's real. What?
Posted by: MarkO | January 05, 2012 at 05:10 PM
Jon Chait? The guy who was nicknamed Chaitred for his all on all the time Bush hatred? LOL
If that is the strategy, I say bring it. What is it about libruls, that makes them so tone deaf? That has as much chance of working as Chevy has of making consumers want to buy a Volt...
Posted by: GMAX | January 05, 2012 at 05:17 PM
Professor Stephen Hawking finally confronts the Real Mystery of the Universe.
Posted by: daddy | January 05, 2012 at 05:23 PM
Let's pay to put Solyndra Solar Panels on the roof of Chevy Volts.
Priceless!
I'll walk up a few floors and give the teams this new direction...
Posted by: PDinDetroit | January 05, 2012 at 05:23 PM
I'll say this for the Chevy Volt--it's put Edsel out of the running for the worst American car in history.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2012 at 05:28 PM
Scanning Yahoo comments on the Cordray stories. The morons, of which there are many, think this is perfectly okay because it's a recess appointment and Bush did it all the time.
Going to be an uphill slog to fight this one.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 05, 2012 at 05:30 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Chait
married to a Soros tank analyst, justified his contempt for Bush, as Hewitt dubbed him,
big Obama fan,
Posted by: narciso | January 05, 2012 at 05:36 PM
Here is that AP article (sorry it's at DU) on the Senate blocking Bush recess appointments.
from the article - ""I'd much rather be doing this than allow the president to skirt the confirmation process in the Senate," Webb said in a statement. "This is an exercise in protecting the Constitution and our constitutional process.""
Posted by: Janet | January 05, 2012 at 05:37 PM
The smartest thing to do politically appears to just defund both the NLRB and the CPA. When Bambi whines says that the law requires a congressional hearing and there are no names in front of them.
I'd drool over impeachment, but we would lose the election and the spineless politicians would not convict.
Posted by: Jane | January 05, 2012 at 05:49 PM
Bush recess appointments = Stupid warmonger with a blatant disregard of Constitutional powers and an affront to all right thinking people.
Obama recess appointments = Hard edged realist confronting an intransigent Congress and much needed rebuke for the benefit all right thinking people.
Posted by: lyle | January 05, 2012 at 05:49 PM
He says he Senate is blocking him--but its a dem majority there.And re the NLRB he only sent the names in days before the break,
It should not be so hard to explain for the Reps. Surely someone there with all those law degrees can argue in English.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2012 at 05:53 PM
Surely someone there with all those law degrees can argue in English.
Please don't let it be Lindsay Graham.
Posted by: lyle | January 05, 2012 at 05:54 PM
Cordray came out of Ohio, would Ohio Indysget the connection that Cordray won't add a single Ohio Job?
Don't forget that Independents are low/no-information voters. Unless Ohio Indys are different from the nation's, most can't name their congressional rep, and a shocking percentage is unable to identify even our country's vice president.
I'd be surprised if the number of Ohio's independents aware of Cordray's appointment went above a single-digit percentage.
Posted by: (Another) Barbara | January 05, 2012 at 06:00 PM
"Going to be an uphill slog to fight this one."
Beckel's doing a completely adequate job on "The Five" beating back the Donna Perino opposition. I think she "screwed up" (I'm allowed to say that right Rush?) retorting "What if a Republican President in 2016 does the same thing?"
Beckel, wry smile upon hearing Repub Prez in 2016---(I think I heard this correct---fact check me please) responded something like a Repub Prez in 2016 attempting to do the same thing is fine with him
Am off now with the dogs but just a question?
Does Senator Scott Brown, Republican Mass, standing up and endorsing Obama's Extra-Constitutional appointment, now appear in the overall measuring scales to have been worse for the country than if his Democratic opponent had been elected?
I think Jane and the boys thought not a few weeks back but now I'm not so sure. Screw Chait et al, It seems to me that a Republican Senator endorsing and enabling anti-Constitutional power moves by this Administration is as damaging to a Constitutional Republic as it gets.
Posted by: daddy | January 05, 2012 at 06:00 PM
The difference is that Bush was a Unitary Executive.
I have to trust the voters to be smart enough
I think I may have found a flaw in your argument, CH.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 05, 2012 at 06:01 PM
daddy, you ought to call your Solyndra panels/Volt suggestion in to Dennis Miller. Hilarious, and exactly the sort of thing he loves.
Posted by: (Another) Barbara | January 05, 2012 at 06:03 PM
Chait? -- did Chait ever fess up to the fables TNR published from that liar Scott Beauchamp? Chait WAS an editor then, his hatred for Bush came through clearly when he published those obvious lies. Anybody have details about that? We should pound Chait every chance we get to remind the public that he is either a moron of the highest order, or a willing accomplice to lies.
Posted by: NK | January 05, 2012 at 06:05 PM
I thought partisan hack summed it up ok.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 05, 2012 at 06:09 PM
More Chait-- I watched Shattered Glass last week. Good flick. after watching I looked up Chuck Lane -- the TNR editor who outed Glass and fired him-- (went to WaPo) and he said said some straight up things when the movie came out in 2003. Lane said the most humiliating thing about the Glass lies was that the smarty pants at TNR ate them up (including Lane and Chait) because Glass played on their bias and sterotypes about conservatives and other political opponents. Lane clearly had done soul searching and showed real remorse. Chait? still a complete left wing douche.
Posted by: NK | January 05, 2012 at 06:10 PM
If one were cynical, one suspects something else were going on with Dana Perino' comments;
http://www.zimbio.com/Dana+Perino/articles/BtQ1nBcneMN/Alna+Harridan+Dana+Perino+No+Ainsley+Hayes
Posted by: narciso | January 05, 2012 at 06:11 PM
Daddy, I give Brown extra slack, because I think he is in big trouble in his race against Warren. On the basis of my conversations over the holidays, I am convinced that the MetroWest Boston part of the Bay State is becoming more and more removed from reality. Many of my friends think that a Eurostyle health care system will not degrade health care. The ones concerned about Solyndra type policies don't pin those kind of policies on Obama. It is a wonderland here. Brown has to deal with that. I'd rather have a super-RINO Scott Brown than Elizabeth Warren.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 05, 2012 at 06:13 PM
Ex-- I think Chait is far worse than a partisan hack. He is a liar and a cheat and an enabler of liars and cheats. far worse than a mere hack.
Posted by: NK | January 05, 2012 at 06:14 PM
TC-- I reluctantly agree. better a RINO Brown than that commie harpie lizie "Borden" warren.
Posted by: NK | January 05, 2012 at 06:15 PM
harpie=harpy (dang it's greek mythology as well)
Posted by: NK | January 05, 2012 at 06:18 PM
Brown should have said...An illegal appointment of Cordray is better than a Legal appointment of Elizabeth Warren
Posted by: BB Key | January 05, 2012 at 06:19 PM
[applause]
I wonder if he wishes he'd said that, BB Key. Hope so.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 05, 2012 at 06:25 PM
daddy,
Perino is dumb as a box of rocks. Such a disappointment after the stellar performance of the late Tony Snow as GWB's Press Secretary.
Posted by: Barbara | January 05, 2012 at 06:33 PM
Jane,
I'd start by jerking Holder into a House committee and having him read the pertinent section of the statute. Then have a few lawyer members chew off his legs with questions about the plain text meaning followed by questions concerning the illegality of any disbursements arising from actions taken by an illegitimate appointee.
I'd follow that with a House resolution finding the President's action contrary to the clear meaning of the statute and informing all employees of the Executive that any actions taken as a result of the President's actions are at their own legal peril.
Follow that with a notice to the OMB that any disbursements made pursuant to the President's action will be regarded as completely unlawful and subject to citation for Contempt of Congress.
There are many games which can be played without going near impeachment.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 05, 2012 at 06:39 PM
Jane and other NRO cruisers, did you meet this Michael Walsh fellow or attend any events that he was part of:
Posted by: centralcal | January 05, 2012 at 06:40 PM
Heck, Rick just cut off funding to MO's retinue and deny her use of AF 1 or 2 for travel--MO at home 24/7 should be lesson enough to BO.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2012 at 06:43 PM
Jane, 5:49, re defunding those departments as an answer. See, that requires either a new law which gets a veto for sure, or else the next budget refuses to fund it. But that is the beauty of operating under CR's without passing a budget (going on three years now)...there is no opportunity to use The Power of the Purse they way the Constitution intended.
Once you start drawing outside the lines, all sorts of bad things are possible.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 05, 2012 at 06:46 PM
Uh, before (A)B and JMH come after me about the bolded part - it is NOT to emphasize the Romney losing part, it was to emphasize that he claims to have said the same thing on the most recent cruise. I was curious if any NRO cruisers heard him say it, what the reaction of other panelists might have been, the reaction of the audience - that sort of thing.
Posted by: centralcal | January 05, 2012 at 06:47 PM
Dang, rse's link to the Sen article reminded me of why I never enjoyed philosophy (let alone leftist abuse of Adam Smith) and Chait's lying carp has left me so riled, I'll have to hit the cooking wine early.
Well played, BB Key.
Posted by: Frau Bauchrednerin | January 05, 2012 at 06:49 PM
"The results last night make it clear that Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history"
I think that analysis is flawed; his strength or weakness is only tested against his six competitors. It tells us nothing about his strength or weakness vs. Obama. Does Podhoretz think one of the other candidates is stronger? Which one?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 05, 2012 at 06:50 PM
NK @ 6:14 has Chait nailed. Is a person born that way or is it learned?
Posted by: Frau Bauchrednerin | January 05, 2012 at 06:51 PM
Clarice: Actually, I think if Her Excellency Michelle Obama were to be denied the perks to which she feels entitled she would insist they pack up their bags and get out of the W.H./D.C. hell hole. Just look at her face on any given day - hell hole is what she truly views it as.
Posted by: centralcal | January 05, 2012 at 06:51 PM
I wish I knew more about this defunding business. So far it doesn't seem to have been used much.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 05, 2012 at 06:52 PM
Raz todat:
"Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney remains the most competitive Republican presidential contender as far as President Obama is concerned, with the two men running even again this week.
"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Obama and Romney each earning 42% of the vote. Eight percent (8%) prefer some other candidate, and another eight percent (8%) are undecided."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 05, 2012 at 06:54 PM
There will be no defunding. The congressional GOP are afraid of Obama. So deferential. I was happy to hear Mitt say Obama was in over his head. More of that, I say. Bloodletting, just not ours.
Posted by: MarkO | January 05, 2012 at 06:56 PM
DoT: Podhoretz's quote was the most logical place for me to clip the Walsh quote so that it made sense, and I didn't read his column or whatever it was taken from. Have no idea the basis of his analysis.
Again, the above is not to argue Romney with anyone here - I would like to know the reactions of other panelists, JOMers, and cruise attendees to such a strong statement.
Posted by: centralcal | January 05, 2012 at 06:57 PM
I do not see how defunding happens with just the House wanting that to happen?
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 05, 2012 at 06:59 PM
Haven't got time to read the whole thread so don't know if this has been posted. If not, meet the Navy seal who punched out Jesse Ventura for saying that the current seals deserved to lose a few members in Iraq. And this was said at a wake for a slain SEAL.
Language warning.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 05, 2012 at 07:03 PM
The CFPB statute provides that the CFPB gets a share of the Federal Reserve's operating budget. To defund the CFPB, a law would have to be passed prohibiting the Fed from allocating any of its resources to the CFPB. If such a law is not passed, CFPB gets its funding with an appropriation from Congress.
I am leaving aside for the moment the issue of whether the constitutionality of the CFPB's funding process could be challenged.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 05, 2012 at 07:05 PM
Defunding is unfeasible. Holding OMB/Treasury legally responsible for disbursements made pursuant to illegal instructions is very feasible.
Refusing to allow any further appointments pending the President's acknowledgment of his error is completely feasible. McDonnel knows how to play this game and I expect him to keep the pot bubbling.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 05, 2012 at 07:06 PM
Here is how defunding works. First we elect 8 to 11 new Republican Senators, and a Republican President.
Shake and bake.
Viola!
For those of you who like recipes, here you go just clip and save.
Posted by: Gmax | January 05, 2012 at 07:07 PM
I posted it on the other thread Ignatz;
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/10/audio-dana-perino-not-sure-what-the-cuban-missile-crisis-was/
Posted by: narciso | January 05, 2012 at 07:07 PM
Ignatz,
I tried to post it, but Typepad ate it, I guess.
Wasn't that just wonderful? Such a soft-spoken guy.
Posted by: PaulL | January 05, 2012 at 07:09 PM
As I said on the most recent NR cruise, if Romney is the nominee, he will lose.
Maybe. But Obama is a pretty weak incumbent. Mitt seems to be willing to go negative, and that will probably be pretty effective this time around. The last thing we need is a positive campaign against a commie in the White House.
I don't like him much, but I think Romney can kick Obama's ass.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 05, 2012 at 07:10 PM
lyle:
"I was starting to warm up--ever so slightly--to Mittens...until McCain endorsed him."
Geez. A Republican primary candidate would have to be crazy to rebuff a McCain endorsement in New Hampshire.
You sure nailed the Bush/Obama double standard on recess appointments though.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 05, 2012 at 07:10 PM
Rick Ballard:
I totally agree with your solutions to this illegal appointment. Cordray was also appointed interim Attorney General here in Ohio when we had to get rid of a democratic crook they had in office. He lost re-election to Mike DeWine our former Senator that dumbo Brown beat.What is it about the name Brown that makes you a bad senator?
Defund NLRB and The Cordray Consumer Board. Revamp or get rid of it. Idon't believe the repubs will let us down this time. Obama will be hoisted on his own petard,
Posted by: maryrose | January 05, 2012 at 07:12 PM
MarkO:
"There will be no defunding. The congressional GOP are afraid of Obama."
When your knee stops jerking, you might be interested in knowing that Paul Ryan, who is clearly no political coward, says defunding is one hell of lot harder to do than people think it is.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 05, 2012 at 07:14 PM
Make that without a new law prohibiting the Federal Reserve from allocating any of its moneys to the CFPB, CFPB gets funded WITHOUT a Congressional appropriation.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 05, 2012 at 07:17 PM
OL and NK,
I answered your guys comments about life expectancy at 65 and SS on that last thread.
Links are worth a look I''d say.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 05, 2012 at 07:37 PM
Is this even slightly surprising?
New Pentagon strategy stresses Asia, cyber, drones
I'll take Dem presidents who found anything else to cut besides the military, Alex.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 05, 2012 at 07:41 PM
What is distressing is even the Washington Times write up didn't mention Section 1101 of the law, do they just do press releases and do no original research
Posted by: narciso | January 05, 2012 at 07:42 PM
--Ignatz,
I tried to post it, but Typepad ate it, I guess.
Wasn't that just wonderful? Such a soft-spoken guy.--
Paul,
I can't imagine the fortune to be made had someone filmed it. I suspect most of America would pay a considerable sum to see that blowhard Jesse V knocked on his can for real by a real hero not some stunt by a Hollywood bonehead like Ahnuld.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 05, 2012 at 07:43 PM
Again, the above is not to argue Romney with anyone here - I would like to know the reactions of other panelists, JOMers, and cruise attendees to such a strong statement.
Makes sense to me although I'm open to being pleasantly surprised.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 05, 2012 at 07:48 PM
Heh.
New Hampshire Restaurant Bans Politicians
Posted by: Extraneus | January 05, 2012 at 07:51 PM
Speaking of funding--
No federal budget for over 900 days! Where are the crowds with pitchforks?
Posted by: Frau Mistgabel | January 05, 2012 at 07:51 PM
I really don't understand why so many people keep worrying about Romney playing Mr. Nice Guy with Obama, when I've lost count of the arrows he's been shooting at the Prez for months. C/O Hot Air, where Capt. Ed points out its timeliness, is Mitt's latest ad on in South Carolina. He is not playing softball.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 05, 2012 at 07:53 PM
I suspect most of America would pay a considerable sum to see that blowhard Jesse V knocked on his can for real by a real hero
Ventura was a terrible wrestler, even by fake standards, and was borderline retarded with his comments which some of the fans ate up. I thought he might make something of himself when he did a brief campaign against steroids (Mrs H met him when he visited a local school) but his overwhelming ego ultimately was his downfall. Yes, I'd pay for a DVD of him getting coldcocked.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 05, 2012 at 07:54 PM
Jesse the Body Ventura is a Paultard. Make sense now?
Posted by: Gmax | January 05, 2012 at 07:58 PM
As I tried to say before, Typepad you eater of posts, I would pay for that and to watch Rick Ballard take on Holder.
Posted by: PaulL | January 05, 2012 at 07:59 PM
henry:
Please keep us informed about these recalls. Your posts are invaluable in understanding the on the ground information. Thanks!
bgates:
I have caught up on the other threads and you sir, should head to NH as a Mitt advisor! He can also use your help in SC.
Another Barbara : You are talking a lot of common sense.
JMH: Agreed. The longer the campaign the better. I wish we had more time against Obama in 08. Hillary finally got out in June.
Posted by: maryrose | January 05, 2012 at 08:00 PM
Thanks Iggy...I will go read them.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 05, 2012 at 08:00 PM
I really don't understand why so many people keep worrying about Romney playing Mr. Nice Guy with Obama
I've heard him deal with hecklers and wasn't impressed by his inability to take command of the situation instead of repetitiously stating/pleading that it was his turn to talk. I've heard Christie deal with hecklers and he verbally smacks them down before they can get in a punch.
Maybe I'm overly concerned but I'd be a fool to ignore what I've seen and heard. I would really love for him to lay the smackdown on the Punk in Chief though. I will gladly admit my apprehensions were groundless. Will you do the same if he does poorly?
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 05, 2012 at 08:04 PM
I know. (it's the teeeechers and the Yooooonions)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/charged-investigation-related-wis-gov-15297988#.TwZIrpitszV
"The charges against Russell and Kavanaugh involve embezzlement of money donated to help relatives of veterans killed or wounded in action. Some of the money was used to pay for a trip to Atlanta for Walker's staff member to meet with one-time presidential candidate Herman Cain, the complaint said.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | January 05, 2012 at 08:05 PM
Paul:
I would love to see Rick Ballard take on Holder. When is that lying POS going to get the boot?
Posted by: maryrose | January 05, 2012 at 08:05 PM
You are welcome Maryrose. Not much new today though.
Posted by: henry | January 05, 2012 at 08:06 PM
Cordray was also appointed interim Attorney General here in Ohio when we had to get rid of a democratic crook they had in office. He lost re-election to Mike DeWine our former Senator that dumbo Brown beat.
Thanks for that info; I was pretty sure he never beat anybody because I don't remember the dipstick making a victory speech. I'm wondering why the mendacious mulatto is so hell bent on putting such an undistinguished nit that nobody in Ohio recognizes in some high exposure role.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 05, 2012 at 08:10 PM
He wants a commisar, or zampolit, and Cordray
fits the bill, just like Sotomayor, Kagan,
'Red' Herring, et al.
Posted by: narciso | January 05, 2012 at 08:16 PM
Well it fits with his tendencies to not hire anybody significantly smarter than he is, which is a pretty shallow pool.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 05, 2012 at 08:18 PM