Unit 4 The Presidency

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/us/senate-panel-votes-to-approve-loretta-lynch-as-attorney-general.html?_r=0

President Barack Obama had nominated Loretta Lynch to be appointed as U.S. Attorney General. The full Senate has not approved of the President’s appointment yet. Loretta Lynch is going through the Senate approval, she has already got the approval of the Senate panel and is going to the full Senate. But the Republicans are voting against Loretta Lynch approval as U.S. Attorney General for the following reason. The Republicans believe that Loretta Lynch will support and approve of the legality of President Obama’s executive action “on immigration, the same issue that has tied up the approval of funding for the Department of Homeland Security.” Additionally the Senate committee has discussed if she would or would not defend the president’s unconstitutional action and have ask her question about the previous attorney general policy and what she is planning as U.S. Attorney General. They Republicans of the Senate committee have asked these question to find a sufficient answer to vote against her nomination. The article says that if she were to get approved by the Senate panel and go through the full Senate even if a Republican filibuster the Senate would stop the filibuster with a vote.

I believe that Senate Republicans are not evaluating Loretta Lynch for her knowledge to be the next U.S Attorney General. They Republicans are accusing her of supporting the president decision like a trial and she has not been approved as Attorney General yet. But though this is a good example of how senate approval process of a presidential appointment.

http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/watch/loretta-lynch-delay--has-real-consequences--419540035764

Unit 3 article

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/14/pledges.interest.groups/index.html

Politicians' pledges show interest groups' sway

In the article, some political analyst use an example of what a pledge can do and what the advantages and disadvantages pledges have for politicians. The example used is the Taxpayer Protection pledge, which is preventing comprise for tax increase accompanying with spending cuts. This pledge is created by the Americans for Tax Reform group, there pledge is signed (mostly signed by Republicans) by 235 House of Representatives and 41 Senators. The President of Americans for Tax Reform Grover Norquist is quoted in the article that "Once you keep putting a tax increase on the table, spending cuts disappear." And that "If someone says that this makes it difficult to make a big budget deal (with tax increases), that's the point…" This cause and effect statements is what the Taxpayer Protection pledge is about. The pledge has affected the decision between the Republicans, Democrats and the President Barack Obama discussion on the deal to trim the United States’ $14 trillion debt. The administration officials mention as well that the debit needed to be raised by August to avoid partial default loan obligation.  The Republicans wanted spending cuts as there solution to the United States trim on debt. Though they needed and wanted Democrats’ approval and entitlement reform. President Obama wanted a new tax revenue, which would end tax cuts for wealthy Americans in 2013 combined with spending cuts to reduce debt by 4 trillion over the next 10-12 years. The Republicans response was they won’t sign on to any tax increase.

These example the political analyst used mentioned many advantages and disadvantages to making pledges and having them signed by politicians. The advantages to politicians for signing I they believe they gain credibility, which leads them to signing a pledge in the first place. Also signing a pledge is making a promise, which for candidates they get support by appealing to great numbers of voters. As well and most importantly signing a pledge is voters get the chance to see elected officials maintaining position and making difficult decision. The disadvantage to politicians is if they break a pledge they make to an interest group, then the interest group will be prepared to announce a ‘deviation’ of a signee to the public. Also if politician wants to be a presidential candidate, they would spend their campaign defending and moving away from the issue. Lastly if the pledge is broken, the politician will lose support and lose being elected. I believe that a politicians signing a pledge with an interest group is not a really good idea. And the reason for this is like the Taxpayer Protection pledge, it can negatively affect a compromise that can do well for the people. If the Republicans and other groups did not sign this pledge, they could have had a bipartisan and got the $14 trillion dollar trim deal done and over with.

Here is a video after the Republicans and other Congress members signed the pledge. The video is an interview of the President of Americans for Tax Reform Grover Norquist.

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/bestoftv/2011/11/21/exp-grover-norquist.cnn