Archive for December 13th, 2012

11 ill-starred presidential picks, from Abe Fortas to Susan Rice

by:

Susan Rice at the United Nations. (AP photo)

Most presidential nominations to key government posts sail through the Senate with little debate and (occasionally these days) little delay.

Not so with Susan Rice, President Obama’s first choice to serve as Secretary of State in the president’s second term. Republicans had put Obama on notice that they would do everything they can — that means threatened filibuster — to block the United Nations ambassador from becoming the nation’s top diplomat. The proximate cause of their anger: Rice’s comments on Sunday TV shows about the Sept. 11 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya.

Democratic loyalists have been outraged at what they consider the unfair attacks on an African American woman with impressive academic credentials.

That debate will continue, but Rice won’t be Secretary of State. She withdrew her name from consideration this afternoon.

Rice joins a list of ill-starred presidential picks over the past half century. Some, like Rice, were never nominated. Some withdrew before Senate consideration. Others were rejected by the Senate.

Rice joins this list of ten presidential choices who didn’t end up with the job:

Abe Fortas

President Lyndon B. Johnson’s choice to replace Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren was blocked by Republicans led by South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond. Before the battle was over, Fortas had resigned his own court seat and the GOP ran out the clock on the Johnson administration, leaving new President Richard Nixon with a chance to shift the court to the right.

G. Harrold Carswell and Clement Haynsworth.

Nixon’s choice for Chief Justice, Warren Burger, won easy confirmation in 1969. But the Senate rejected two Nixon choices for the second high court vacancy: Clement Haynsworth of South Carolina and G. Harrold Carswell of Florida. Haynsworth was tarnished by accusations of being an unreconstructed segregationist and Carswell was accused of being both extreme and underqualified. Nebraska Republican Roman Hruska may have hammered the nail in Carswell’s political coffin when he defended him this way:

“Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.”

After the rejection of Haynsworth and Carswell, Nixon picked Minnesota judge Harry Blackmun, who was confirmed.

Mildred Lillie

The California appeals court judge might have become the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Nixon in 1971 announced his intention to choose her to fill one of the vacancies created by the retirements of John Marshall Harlan and Hugo Black. But the American Bar Association deemed her “unqualified.” Nixon relented and nominated William Rehnquist (whom he once referred to as “Renchberg”) and Lewis Powell instead. Lillie, a Democrat, served as an appellate judge for 44 years until her death at age 87 in 2002.

Robert Bork

The federal appeals court judge became a verb (to be “borked”) when President Reagan chose him for the Supreme Court in 1987. Liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy led the opposition, roaring these incendiary words:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

Bork was rejected by the Senate, 58-42.

Douglas Ginsburg

Reagan’s first choice to follow Bork was federal appellate Judge Anthony Kennedy of California, but Republican Sen. Jesse Helms threatened a filibuster to prevent the “liberal” Republican from reaching the Supreme Court. Not eager for a fight with the prominent conservative lawmaker, Reagan opted instead for former Harvard law professor and then-judge Douglas Ginsburg, saying Ginsburg’s confirmation was ”vitally important to the fight against crime.” Nine days later, Ginsburg asked Reagan to withdraw after admitting that he had violated the law by smoking pot. ”I have today asked President Reagan not to forward my nomination to the Supreme Court,” a shell-shocked Ginsburg told reporters. Reagan then chose Kennedy for the high court.

Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood

Bill Clinton’s first choice for Attorney General was withdrawn after Baird acknowledged she had failed to pay federal withholding taxes for a nanny who was in the U.S. illegally. The new president’s next pick, New York federal judge Kimba Wood, paid the required taxes on her nanny and broke no law — but the controversy over her employment of an illegal immigrant led to her withdrawal. “Nannygate” changed the vetting process for a generation of presidential nominees. Clinton eventually chose Janet Reno, a Florida prosecutor who never married and had no children.

John Bolton

The fight over the feisty neo-conservative’s nomination to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations was messy and prolonged. Bush picked Bolton, one of the architects of the Iraq War, in the spring of 2005, but Senate Democrats blocked his confirmation. Bush refused to back down and gave Bolton the job temporarily as a “recess” appointee. Bolton’s confirmation hopes were dashed by the 2006 midterm election setbacks suffered by Republicans. He eventually withdrew as a nominee.

Harriet Miers

George W. Bush’s White House counsel, his former personal lawyer and a close friend, was the victim of friendly fire. While Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid hailed her nomination, conservative Republicans said she was unqualified for the high court. Under heavy pressure from his party’s right, Bush withdrew the Texas lawyer’s’ nomination. Her replacement was Samuel Alito, who has become a reliable conservative vote on the high court.

Rep. Barbara Lee blames “radical right” on sinking Susan Rice

by:

Reaction is rolling in to UN Ambassador Susan Rice withdrawing her name from consideration for Secretary of State — and East Bay Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, for one, is ticked:

“I am profoundly disappointed that Ambassador Rice, such a well qualified woman of color, would be denied the opportunity to become our next Secretary of State due to the baseless and manufactured allegations of the radical right.

“I have known and worked closely with Ambassador Susan Rice for many years—on many global issues. From the genocide in Sudan to the ongoing violence in Syria, the humanitarian crisis in Haiti and the global HIV/AIDS crisis. Ambassador Rice works each and every day to advance the highest ideals of our country and would have been an outstanding Secretary of State.”

Rep. Karen Bass, D-LA, said “it is unfortunate Ambassador Rice had to make this decision in the face of such unfounded and unfair character attacks. If judged fairly based solely on her qualifications for the job, she would’ve made an extraordinary Secretary of State.”

Here’s what Rice told NBC’s Brian Williams tonight. (You can check out the complete interview at 10 p.m. Thursday on “Rock Center with Brian Williams.”) Short answer: She felt like she was becoming a distraction to the Administration’s priorities:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here’s the text of what Rice told Bri:

Today, I made the decision that it was the best thing for our country, for the American people, that I not continue to be considered by the President for nomination of Secretary of State. I didn’t want to see a confirmation process that was very prolonged, very politicized, very distracting, and very disruptive because there are so many things we need to get done as a country, and the first several months of a second term president’s agenda is really the opportunity to get the crucial things done. We’re talking about comprehensive immigration reform, balanced deficit reduction, job creation – that’s what matters. And to the extent that my nomination could have delayed or distracted or deflected, or maybe even some of these priorities impossible to achieve, I didn’t want that, and I much prefer to keep doing what I’m doing which is a job I love at the United Nations.

Here’s President Obama’s statement:

Today, I spoke to Ambassador Susan Rice, and accepted her decision to remove her name from consideration for Secretary of State. For two decades, Susan has proven to be an extraordinarily capable, patriotic, and passionate public servant. As my Ambassador to the United Nations, she plays an indispensable role in advancing America’s interests. Already, she has secured international support for sanctions against Iran and North Korea, worked to protect the people of Libya, helped achieve an independent South Sudan, stood up for Israel’s security and legitimacy, and served as an advocate for UN reform and the human rights of all people. I am grateful that Susan will continue to serve as our Ambassador at the United Nations and a key member of my cabinet and national security team, carrying her work forward on all of these and other issues. I have every confidence that Susan has limitless capability to serve our country now and in the years to come, and know that I will continue to rely on her as an advisor and friend. While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first. The American people can be proud to have a public servant of her caliber and character representing our country.

Susan Rice withdraws her name from consideration for Secretary of State

by:

After weeks of being under fire from various Republican Congress members, such as Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain, Susan Rice has decided to withdraw her name from consideration for Secretary of State.

Here is the letter, obtained by NBC, that she penned to President Barack Obama letting him know of her decision:

Excited George W. Bush wants grandkids to call him “sir” or “jefe”

by:

(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

George W. Bush’s wish for a grandchild is finally coming true.

After a delay of a year or ten.

His daughter Jenna Bush Hager announced yesterday while appearing on The Today Show that she and her husband, Henry,  are going to have a baby in spring of 2013.

“I am fired up! Looking forward to it,” the 43rd president said about becoming a grandfather. “I am excited for Jenna and Henry, I could barely contain the news when I found out.”

As her father joined the show’s team via phone from Texas, Bush Hager greeted him, saying, “Hi Popsicle!”

The former president didn’t take well to the suggestion that his future grandchildren continue calling him that and suggested instead that he be called “sir” or “jefe.”

Loud commercials banned last midnight after four year effort

by:

Turn on your TV. Notice anything different?

Rep. Anna G. Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, celebrated triumph Thursday as her Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act or CALM Act, took effect as of midnight, Her four-year crusade to enact the law banning loud commercials on TV began when she introduced the bill in 2008.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) led passage in the Senate. The law requires broadcast, cable, satellite and other video providers to hold the volume of commercials at the same level as regular TV programming. The Federal Communications Commission warns that it uses averages, so some commercials may still sound too loud. The agency said it will rely on consumers filing complaints to enforce the rules.

“Earsplitting television ads have jolted and annoyed viewers for decades,” Eshoo said in a statement. “With this new law, loud TV commercials that make consumers run for the mute button or change the channel altogether will be a thing of the past.”

Whitehouse said, “While this is a small issue compared to the big challenges facing our nation, it is an unnecessary annoyance in the daily lives of many Americans, and I’m glad to have done something about it.”

The law has the support of the National Association of Broadcasters. NAB chief Gordon Smith, former GOP Senator from Oregon (there is a good life after the Senate). Michael Powell (remember him?), head of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association called the new law “sensible” and promised to “continue to work closely with the FCC and the entire TV ecosystem to prevent loud commercials from being a disruption.”

Eshoo’s office said loud commercials have been a top consumer complaint to the FCC “for decades and were listed as such in 21 of the FCC’s 25 quarterly reports between 2002 and 2009. According to a 2009 Harris poll, almost 90 percent of TV viewers are bothered by high commercial volumes, prompting 41 percent of viewers to turn down the volume, 22 percent to mute the TV, and 17 percent to change the channel altogether. Prior to Eshoo’s legislation, the official FCC policy recommended that consumers mute commercials if they found them to be excessively strident.

The CALM Act passed the Senate unanimously in 2010 and passed in the House passed in December 2010. Obama signed it into law that month, and the FCC took a year to issue a final rule last year, and gave the industry another year to implement them.