I thought this was supposed to be the most “transparent” Presidency. (I will post at the end what this story brings to mind.) In this video you will see this biased view explained here coming out from Bernard Whitman and also note Obama again inserting a czar in order to usurp proper protocol:
The Times reported:
Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said the “recess appointment” was needed to carry out the new health care law. The law calls for huge changes in the two programs, which together insure nearly one-third of all Americans.
Mr. Pfeiffer said the president would appoint Dr. Berwick on Wednesday. Mr. Obama decided to act because “many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could, solely to score political points,” Mr. Pfeiffer said.
The Daily News echoed:
Berwick supporters scoffed at GOP complaints and accused them of stonewalling.
“Republican lockstep stalling of Don’s nomination was a case study in cynicism and one awful example of how not to govern,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). “Republicans screamed that these federal programs were in trouble, then tried to deny the Administration the capable guy the President had chosen to oversee them.”
The Globe printed Kerry’s statement, and noted that “Obama…blamed Republicans for forcing his hand.”
President Obama said in a statement that “It’s unfortunate that at a time when our nation is facing enormous challenges, many in Congress have decided to delay critical nominations for political purposes.”[…]
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., echoed the president’s suggestion, saying that “Republican lockstep stalling of Don’s nomination was a case study in cynicism and one awful example of how not to govern.”[…]
But Republicans were not delaying or stalling Berwick’s nomination.
Indeed, they were eager for his hearing, hoping to assail Berwick’s past statements about health care rationing and his praise for the British health care system.
“The nomination hasn’t been held up by Republicans in Congress and to say otherwise is misleading,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which would have held Berwick’s hearing.
Grassley said that he “requested that a hearing take place two weeks ago, before this recess.”
Berwick’s nomination was sent to the Senate in April, and his hearing had not been scheduled because he was participating in the “standard vetting process,” a Democratic aide on the Senate Finance Committee told ABC News.
But speaking not for attribution, Democratic officials say that neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., nor Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, were eager for an ugly confirmation fight four months before the midterm elections.[…]
You can argue – and White House officials and Senate Democrats are, in fact, doing so – that Democrats were delaying Berwick’s hearing and the vote on his nomination because Republicans were going to play politics with it.
But a) that’s not the same as delaying or obstructing his nomination and b) some might argue that there’s also something to be said about combating policy arguments with better policy arguments.
This reminds me of all the times the Democrats said bush was cutting veteran benefits, when in fact he was increasing them. How? Because they would call for a 6-billion dollar increase in the proposal, but the Republicans and Bush would say their budget could only cover, say, 4-billion dollars. The net increase was 4-billion, but all you read in the papers and heard on MSNBC was that Bush cut 2-billion dollars in veteran benefits. Here is the comparison between Bush and Clinton in regards to veteran benefits, you tell me if the media was as mainstream as some purport?