Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

“Bipartisan” doesn’t make S.679 right, just a two-partied wrong

Response from Tennessee’s U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander on S.679 not encouraging

On April 29, I sent the following letter of concern and disapproval to my U.S. Senator, Lamar Alexander (Read here…) over his co-sponsoring of Senate bill S.679, or “The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011.”

If you haven’t heard of this insidious side-stepping of procedure, one which would grant the president even greater unchecked power by removing Senate approval from more than 200 appointed posts, you can find it here ->> S.679 at www.OpenCongress.org.

I was stunned to find an alleged Tennessee Republican senator would co-sponsor this bill, but even more so by his response to my letter, posted below.


Reply from Sen. Lamar Alexander, on S.679 (Bold emphasis mine…) :

May 2, 2011

Thanks very much for getting in touch with me and letting me know what’s on your mind regarding the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011.

This bipartisan legislation which I have cosponsored would eliminate the need for the Senate to vote on roughly 210 full and part-time junior-level executive nominations. These positions are part-time advisory board or commission positions, or full-time positions that are not involved in policy making or already report to multiple senior-level Senate-confirmed officials.

This legislation would free up the Senate so that it can focus on our country’s most urgent needs of reducing spending and debt, rather than on confirming hundreds of junior positions in a president’s administration, like the public-relations officer of a minor department. The Senate will still continue to confirm about a thousand presidential nominees – nearly four times as many appointees as President Kennedy had – and I will continue to support legislative efforts to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans.

I’m grateful you took the time to let me know where you stand. I’ll be sure to keep your concerns and comments in mind when the issues surrounding presidential appointees are discussed and debated in Washington and in Tennessee.




Apparently, I didn’t communicate the danger well enough in my letter to the senator. He either doesn’t see it (in which case, we need a senator in D.C. who does), or he’s too involved in the Beltway Game to defend our best interests (in which case, we need a senator in D.C. who will.)

To reiterate what I expressed in the April 29 letter:

The ‘assistant’ moniker in many of these titles should not be excuse to disregard them as trivial. As a reminder, those in secondary tiers are often the next to fill the top position. As such, their backgrounds and intentions should be no less scrutinized than those who fill the top posts, just as the candidate for Vice-President of the U.S. must be qualified to assume higher office if necessary.”

As for “bipartisan legislation”, maybe someone can explain to me:  how does foolishness from  senators of two parties improve on foolishness from one party alone?

Throwing a “bipartisan” label on faulty, unconstitutional and dangerous legislation doesn’t mean your course of action is right. It only means you’ve got idiots on both sides of the aisle.

And given the ability of public relations officers to direct a message, to paint a foul situation in a positive light, that ‘public relations officer of a minor department‘ can be as influential, if given the room to do so, as any administration official.

By the way, exactly which department does Alexander deem ‘minor’? Perhaps there’s room to cull the deadwood from the overgrown governmental tree?

Admittedly, I’m no great fan of the current regime. But the threat to our liberty from S.679 goes deeper than republican, libertarian and democrat. It reaches deeper than conservative or liberal ideologies.

Would Senator Schumer, the lovely liberal fellow who introduced S.679, be as quick to support this course of action if Bush were still in office? Or if a staunch conservative wins election in 2012? I rather doubt it.

On that score, I’m asking everyone reading this to take action:

  • Check the list of cosponsors, see if your senator’s one of the idiots;
  • Tell them to pull sponsorship of this legislation that would ‘streamline’ the American people out of the process of our governance;
  • AND tell them to vote NO if the bill comes to vote. (Sad that you have to specify that, but that’s the part that’s really crucial and this way there’s no room for side-stepping);
  • Pass this information to as many concerned citizens as possible!

Also, a little guerrilla campaigning idea…Don’t forget the liberal contingency!

Those of us on the ‘right’ and on the ‘left’ tend to snipe at one another. But we all need to remember: We’re all Americans.

We’re like a big, multi-viewpointed, oft-dysfunctional family. We may not agree, we may not like what the other ‘side’ is doing/saying. S.679 won’t benefit any of us in the long run.

Liberals stand to lose as much as conservatives, moderates and independents.

  • Remind them that next election, or the one following, could bring an ultra-conservative into the Oval Office;
  • Ask if they’d be comfortable if this power was granted to an ultra-conservative president;
  • Suggest they research the bill themselves and read the implications with an open mind (i.e., not looking for something to refute just because it came from the ‘right’);
  • Request that they contact their senators to protest this legislation.

Senate Bill S.679 cannot be allowed to pass. If a supposedly Republican senator from a crimson-red state like Tennessee not only supports but co-sponsors this rubbish, it’s going to take all of us to make sure S.679 fails.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to Technorati

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , , ,

Comments (0)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. vonnise cobb says:

    This stinks. How can any Republican possible support senate bill 679 much less co-sponsor it?

    • Thanks for the comment, Vonnise.

      I’m convinced it’s one of several reasons:
      1) They didn’t read the descriptions of which posts would be included.
      Sure, there’s several ‘junior, non-policy making’ posts like Lamar mentioned, but there’s also a few troublesome positions: like the Chief Scientist for NOAA. Given the current trend of making legislative or executive changes by crying ‘climate change’, this is one post I want Senate to have some say in! I wrote an article detailing this particular appointment, available in the link above or here: http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/05/a-deeper-look-at-dangerous-streamlining-bill-s-679-chief-scientist-of-noaa/. The administrator of NOAA said this position will ‘DRIVE POLICY’.
      If they didn’t read the job titles, they need to be replaced for not doing their jobs.
      2) Maybe they didn’t think Obama would put someone in a post that would be detrimental to our country.
      If this is the case, they’re just not paying attention. Van Jones, Eric Holder, Valerie Jarrett, Anita Dunn, Cass Sunstein, and on and on and on .. the list of his associates that are not just left of center, but outright admirers and followers of socialist/marxist teachings and leaders is a testament to what kind of people we can expect from the current president.
      If they haven’t seen BHO’s trends, they need to be replaced for incompetence.
      Or sadly, 3) They don’t care or think it’s hopeless to buck the system. In which case, they need to be replaced for laying down on the job.
      Honestly, I can’t see how any American – Republican, Democrat, or other – could think to support such legislation. For those who support this bill because they think Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread, how quickly they forget that their nightmare (another Bush or Reagan or even ultra-conservative President) could eventually take office. They wouldn’t dare give that president this kind of power. And we don’t dare sit by while the supporters say “it’s no big deal”.