tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post4174878663202989522..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: When Commissions Can WorkJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-86559684290669902422010-07-15T23:15:47.510-05:002010-07-15T23:15:47.510-05:00David,
Yeah, I know what you sound like when you&...David,<br /><br />Yeah, I know what you sound like when you're really dismissive of an idea...<br /><br />I think you underestimate the problem. If a president-elect Pawlenty just unilaterally decided not to worry about conflicts of interest, or whether a nominee had ever been a lobbyist (oooh, scary), Democrats would go to town on it, and the press would eat it up -- they love stuff like that. OTOH, if the commission reports back with guidelines, and Obama implements them without Common Cause complaining, then if Pawlenty follows the same procedures I think he'd be pretty safe. And then, over time, things would get worse again, but from a much better starting point.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-83045596190186437352010-07-15T22:52:49.200-05:002010-07-15T22:52:49.200-05:00I was half-joking. But actually, even after readi...I was half-joking. But actually, even after reading your posts on the subject, I'm not sure what problem a commission is supposed to resolve. A commission can provide bipartisan cover for something unpopular (such as tax hikes or social security reform); it can also make comprehensive decisions that would get Congress bogged down in pork-filled horsetrading (e.g. the BRAC) or just ideological infighting (the Sentencing Commission).<br /><br />But the process of nominating people? What would a commission do about that? Recommend that people not be forced to fill out so much paperwork or disclose so much? That doesn't make sense; you don't need political cover for meta-decisions like those. You need political cover for when you nominate someone with a skeleton in his closet -- but a commission making recommendations about the nomination process won't provide such cover. (Now, if the commission were actually nominating people, it might provide cover -- but the president isn't going to turn that perk over to a commission.)David Nieporenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06437009739704663939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-67205312484050516182010-07-15T14:58:52.100-05:002010-07-15T14:58:52.100-05:00I would think that the buy-in is the problem.
Und...I would think that the buy-in is the problem.<br /><br />Under Obama, the GOP is delaying and stalling because its no skin off their back, and they might find something to win a few news cycles with, and, as one commenter in the last thread noted, it dovetails with their no government = good government philosophy.<br /><br />What would it look like under Pawlenty? (I would do Palin, but then we really have to be concerned about true incomptence in nominees also entering the picture) I gotta figure that the Dems would also look to win news cycles, so they'd still delay hoping to find dirt. I also have to figure that the interest groups on the left would insist that nominees x, y, and z be opposed because they once said something that vaguely hinted at abortion/unions/minorities/take-your-pick in an unflattering light. The only pushback is that Dems actually think that having somebody competent but biased in the job is better than having nobody in it. Probably enough to get a number of assistant deputy under sub vice secretaries (acting) appointed. But the judges (a truly awful situation): not really. Heck, I figure Dems might actually let a Pawlenty staff the "Republican" departments like Commerce, Treasury and Defense. But get into the ones where the nominees could do any kind of damage to the groups on the left? I don't see it.<br /><br />So, I think that the nomination commission would make recommendations, but for a lot of positions, I'm not sure there'd be that agreement between the parties beforehand. And, try convincing Senators to stop blackmailing 1600 Penn Ave to get unrelated (or even related!) concessions. The parties might agree, but that doesn't yield FAA approval of drones on the border (to take Cornyn's supposed reason for holding up the FAA guy).Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.com