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

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
71. The composition of the board and the designation of the party representatives
Tue Oct 1, 2013, 02:48 AM
Oct 2013

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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

What happened? Simpson and Bowles were too Liberal? MannyGoldstein Sep 2013 #1
See post #7 Cali_Democrat Sep 2013 #17
It had to be a republican Carnage251 Sep 2013 #22
Not exactly. Not technically, anyway. merrily Oct 2013 #48
Bullshit!! DocMac Oct 2013 #58
Really? Here's what the statute says. merrily Oct 2013 #64
No shit, Manny. Enthusiast Oct 2013 #88
Me too. NealK Oct 2013 #91
WTF?!!! Eddie Haskell Sep 2013 #2
See post #7. This is a misleading OP. SunSeeker Oct 2013 #47
When Bush had to appoint someone, did Harry Reid get to choose? merrily Oct 2013 #49
It depends. Appoint someone to what? SunSeeker Oct 2013 #55
Geebus. Obviously, I meant in a situation like the one being discussed on this thread. merrily Oct 2013 #57
Yes. The practice goes back to the civil war. SunSeeker Oct 2013 #65
So? They were not shutting down government then. Please see Replies 56 and 62. merrily Oct 2013 #68
It's stupid to ignore rules while telling Republicans they should follow them. SunSeeker Oct 2013 #73
pubicons don't need advisory boards RandiFan1290 Oct 2013 #83
Clarence Thomas was a choice reddread Oct 2013 #90
Who are the other members of this board? Which two were nominated by the President? Scuba Oct 2013 #93
The article says Obama is nominating this man. tblue Oct 2013 #106
Read post #15. nt SunSeeker Oct 2013 #113
Post removed Post removed Sep 2013 #3
Careful -- the apologist brigade is already out in force saying what a great GOP pick this is, villager Sep 2013 #4
The truthists say that It had to be a republican Carnage251 Sep 2013 #18
Well, it would appear that of the 3 Presidential picks one does have to be from a different party villager Sep 2013 #28
Because Obama is not a dictator. SunSeeker Oct 2013 #51
I agree it's not the most important battle. One blog makes this an extra Senate pick. villager Oct 2013 #63
That blog is wrong. Obama had no choice in the matter. SunSeeker Oct 2013 #66
So, two blogs (NY Times and Time) are wrong, but only the blog favorable to your view villager Oct 2013 #70
Yes. And grantcart was citing the applicable law, not a blog. nt SunSeeker Oct 2013 #74
"Yes" because... of what, exactly? villager Oct 2013 #76
See post #7 and 71. nt SunSeeker Oct 2013 #115
No, going all "blue linky" doesn't actually answer the question villager Oct 2013 #116
Please see Reply 48. merrily Oct 2013 #50
Please see replies #72 and #77 n/t intaglio Oct 2013 #79
Who are the truthists? bobGandolf Oct 2013 #125
How dare anyone disagree treestar Oct 2013 #96
Really? alarimer Sep 2013 #5
No, not really. See post #15. nt SunSeeker Oct 2013 #67
Meow. blkmusclmachine Sep 2013 #6
Too bad you didn't post the WP story and explain the actual facts grantcart Sep 2013 #7
Stop trying to explain how this broken system doesn't work... Amonester Sep 2013 #9
They say ODS doesn't exist around these parts. LOL!! Liberal_Stalwart71 Sep 2013 #31
Are you saying that the President didnt have a choice in the matter? nm rhett o rick Sep 2013 #10
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
She wasn't angry, you were. marble falls Oct 2013 #41
I totally agree with you. NealK Oct 2013 #82
Me too. Enthusiast Oct 2013 #89
Me too. tblue Oct 2013 #105
Obama had to nominate a republican and deferred to the leading republican Senator tammywammy Sep 2013 #13
The President had absolutely no choice in the matter. grantcart Sep 2013 #15
tut...tut...*Bad* Obama defender ;) Amonester Sep 2013 #25
Winner of the thread.. I figured it was something like this.. thanks grant! nm Cha Sep 2013 #30
This message was self-deleted by its author rhett o rick Sep 2013 #39
A bit over the top. Cha's just said that now she understands the choice( I didn't either .... marble falls Oct 2013 #42
Maybe a bit over the top, but seems to me like some here would defend rhett o rick Oct 2013 #95
I'm with you on that. There is also no doubt that there are some here that would support ... marble falls Oct 2013 #98
I agree. nm rhett o rick Oct 2013 #101
apologist! joshcryer Sep 2013 #33
Yeah, "Winner" of the thread because it's loaded with FACTS instead Cha Oct 2013 #45
Thank you, grantcart. nt SunSeeker Oct 2013 #46
We don't do "Civics" here at the new DU. Tarheel_Dem Oct 2013 #53
With the Republicans holding the shutdown hostage, he could have merrily Oct 2013 #56
sigh grantcart Oct 2013 #59
No, having McConnell pick is not the law. It's a tradition. merrily Oct 2013 #62
The composition of the board and the designation of the party representatives grantcart Oct 2013 #71
Keep your condescension to yourself. merrily Oct 2013 #72
Considering you are spending your time denying what is law intaglio Oct 2013 #77
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
Its not condescension but a repulsion to those who will use any thin reed grantcart Oct 2013 #120
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
Yeah I figured must be this. lonestarnot Oct 2013 #100
Freak out first, read later. JoePhilly Sep 2013 #14
Yep, knee-jerk hits DU once again davidpdx Sep 2013 #34
Well, hard to tell. He did appoint Penny Pritzker. nm rhett o rick Sep 2013 #40
The Combustible Hair Club ... JoePhilly Oct 2013 #84
Be careful truth seems to be lost in the internet Carnage251 Sep 2013 #20
Thank you, grantcart. pacalo Sep 2013 #32
Crap. I'll have to find something else to stomp my feet over in a petulant manner. LanternWaste Oct 2013 #111
Raise your hand if you're surprised. NorthCarolina Sep 2013 #8
Raise your hand if you are easily snowed by a misleading OP. SunSeeker Oct 2013 #69
The board has "no decision making authority.". tammywammy Sep 2013 #11
I hate it when Obama looks like a stealth Republican. olddad56 Sep 2013 #16
He's just following the law by appointing a republican to fill the republican spot. n/t tammywammy Sep 2013 #19
Please see Reply 48. merrily Oct 2013 #52
Please see replies #72 and #77 n/t intaglio Oct 2013 #78
I hate it when people don't know what an "independent and bipartisan board" is Carnage251 Sep 2013 #24
Technically, it's not bipartisan. merrily Oct 2013 #54
Specially when the same type situations didn't make anyone claim Clinton and Carter were .... marble falls Oct 2013 #43
You don't think Clinton was called a DINO? Doctor_J Oct 2013 #97
You mean because FISA and the deregulation of the banks and NSA e-mail and phone intercepts? marble falls Oct 2013 #103
worked for Gibson, Dunn, Crutcher -- as did Kenneth Starr, Theodore Olsen grasswire Sep 2013 #23
Seems to me there are 6 people too many on the board... mpcamb Sep 2013 #27
... Scuba Sep 2013 #29
This is not heaven05 Sep 2013 #35
Who is Obama? blkmusclmachine Sep 2013 #36
He is our President. Get used to it already. SunSeeker Oct 2013 #60
What's a McConnell pick? NealK Oct 2013 #92
See post #7 and 71. nt SunSeeker Oct 2013 #114
Lol! NealK Oct 2013 #124
Understandably, I did not realize you were trying to make a funny. SunSeeker Oct 2013 #126
Thank you for confirming that you're such a clueless borefest. NealK Oct 2013 #127
Right back atcha. nt SunSeeker Oct 2013 #128
Oooh, I'm so sorry about your fragile ego. NealK Oct 2013 #129
self delete sarcasmo Sep 2013 #37
Won't that interfere with his Presidency? (as if), insert sarcasmicon here. marble falls Oct 2013 #44
Great. More Third Way bullshit. jsr Sep 2013 #38
This is Obama at his worst. Makes me ashamed of him. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #61
You should be ashamed of the OP. Read post #15. nt SunSeeker Oct 2013 #75
I stand corrected. Thanks. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #107
Please see grantcart's replies #72 and #77 intaglio Oct 2013 #80
I stand corrected. Thanks. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #108
You might want to read the article. JoePhilly Oct 2013 #85
I stand corrected. Thanks. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #109
I'm glad we're all doing some reading after the OP... MrMickeysMom Oct 2013 #81
It's REQUIRED BY LAW that there be Republican members. Zynx Oct 2013 #86
My God, listen to yourselves! Like a bunch of whining children, save for a few. 7962 Oct 2013 #87
I totally agree. NealK Oct 2013 #102
I think experienced people who give Congress, President others ADVICE is a good thing. Sunlei Oct 2013 #94
Just what the fuck is this about. What the hell! lonestarnot Oct 2013 #99
Appointments like this will leave an indelible mark BHO's legacy by indisputably telling the public indepat Oct 2013 #110
too bad you didn't actually read the articles in the thread. grantcart Oct 2013 #112
Oops! I goofed, but there have been so many going back to Simpson and Bowles, it has become so easy indepat Oct 2013 #121
NP grantcart Oct 2013 #123
No....posts like this will indelibly prove that you didn't read the thread. nt msanthrope Oct 2013 #119
Ouch! indepat Oct 2013 #122
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Obama Picks Romney Aide W...»Reply #71