Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Obama Picks Romney Aide Who Knocked His Social Security Plan for Social Security Board [View all]grantcart
(53,061 posts)71. The composition of the board and the designation of the party representatives
is explained in detail.
You are correct that Mr. McConnell's name is actually not listed in the legislation. For the Speaker's and Majority leader it can designate "ranking minority member" because that is a fixed position within the structure.
They can't do that with the President because the ranking minority member equivalent might be a Senator or Congressperson depending if they are the same party or differeing parties. To avoid needless and listing every possible permutation they didn't define who the 'ranking minority member' was but it is obvious that is the intention and currently McConnell is the "ranking minority member" in the party opposed to the President.
Now if you are going for the most obtuse possible observation why don't you extend your logic and state that the name "Republican" isn't listed and only tradition requires him to pick a Republican, why didn't he pick a member from the "Green Party" instead.
This is for a bipartisan board that has no voting or legal power at all. It is simply a way for the party structures to remain "in the loop" on key areas so they can appoint technocrats who are more familiar with the actual working than the elected representatives who are usually not experts in the particular field. It has been going on for decades with no real problems or conflicts of any kind.
What this shows is just how deep the animus against the President is by a few "so called" Democrats who will search out any possible excuse to make a wild criticism against the President without any regard how reckless the charge, how it lacks foundation or historical context. The only thing that matters is to fluff some possible arcane bizarre charge against the President.
You may now proceed with that task M/M Merrily.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
129 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Obama Picks Romney Aide Who Knocked His Social Security Plan for Social Security Board [View all]
Newsjock
Sep 2013
OP
Geebus. Obviously, I meant in a situation like the one being discussed on this thread.
merrily
Oct 2013
#57
It's stupid to ignore rules while telling Republicans they should follow them.
SunSeeker
Oct 2013
#73
Who are the other members of this board? Which two were nominated by the President?
Scuba
Oct 2013
#93
Careful -- the apologist brigade is already out in force saying what a great GOP pick this is,
villager
Sep 2013
#4
Well, it would appear that of the 3 Presidential picks one does have to be from a different party
villager
Sep 2013
#28
I agree it's not the most important battle. One blog makes this an extra Senate pick.
villager
Oct 2013
#63
So, two blogs (NY Times and Time) are wrong, but only the blog favorable to your view
villager
Oct 2013
#70
Can you not read the explanation of how this broken *bipartisan* system works since
Amonester
Sep 2013
#12
Wow. You seem hostile. I simply asked a question. Is the President obliged to nominate who
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#21
I understand your anger, but this is the broken *bipartisan* system that is in place
Amonester
Sep 2013
#26
Obama had to nominate a republican and deferred to the leading republican Senator
tammywammy
Sep 2013
#13
A bit over the top. Cha's just said that now she understands the choice( I didn't either ....
marble falls
Oct 2013
#42
I'm with you on that. There is also no doubt that there are some here that would support ...
marble falls
Oct 2013
#98
The composition of the board and the designation of the party representatives
grantcart
Oct 2013
#71
It's okay to admit you were wrong, it's actually a sign of strength not weakness
snooper2
Oct 2013
#104
I don't see the insult and I don't think he meant one. I also think he got his facts right...
marble falls
Oct 2013
#117
Thanks for the facts and the law. I have to admit it made me angry with the President on the ....
marble falls
Oct 2013
#118
Crap. I'll have to find something else to stomp my feet over in a petulant manner.
LanternWaste
Oct 2013
#111
He's just following the law by appointing a republican to fill the republican spot. n/t
tammywammy
Sep 2013
#19
I hate it when people don't know what an "independent and bipartisan board" is
Carnage251
Sep 2013
#24
Specially when the same type situations didn't make anyone claim Clinton and Carter were ....
marble falls
Oct 2013
#43
You mean because FISA and the deregulation of the banks and NSA e-mail and phone intercepts?
marble falls
Oct 2013
#103
Won't that interfere with his Presidency? (as if), insert sarcasmicon here.
marble falls
Oct 2013
#44
I think experienced people who give Congress, President others ADVICE is a good thing.
Sunlei
Oct 2013
#94
Appointments like this will leave an indelible mark BHO's legacy by indisputably telling the public
indepat
Oct 2013
#110
Oops! I goofed, but there have been so many going back to Simpson and Bowles, it has become so easy
indepat
Oct 2013
#121
No....posts like this will indelibly prove that you didn't read the thread. nt
msanthrope
Oct 2013
#119