SmarterthanYou
rebel
does the white house chief of staff answer to anyone but the president?
does he get confirmed through the senate/congress or whomever?
does he get confirmed through the senate/congress or whomever?
chief of staff answers to?
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
It is a Staff position, those do not require confirmation by the Senate.
Here is a list of positions that do not require confirmation.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/presidenc1/a/WH_2008_appt.htm
Here is a list of positions that do not require confirmation.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/presidenc1/a/WH_2008_appt.htm
SmarterthanYou
rebel
well doesn't that suck.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
why?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
because he needs to be held accountable for his chicago style politics.
http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=625
So calling bullshit = "Chicago style politics?" OK. We need more Chicago style politics then.
And maybe you can explain why you think it appropriate for the President's selection for Chief of Staff to be subject to Senate approval but I don't there is a very good argument to support such a proposal. It's the President's Chief of Staff and the President should have unfettered discretion in deciding who he wants to hold that important position.
It is his staff. If he does something unethical and illegal he can be held accountable like any other citizen. His advisers are also his staff and appointed directly at his discretion.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
quite defensive, aren't we?
what bullshit was called? and if so, then dems had no call to bitch during the republican years, but lets also be fair, I thought it was wrong then as well. Don't forget to keep it in your head that i'm not republican or democrat when you attempt to belittle any of my post.
as for the CoS being subject to senate approval or not, if said individual has the ability or power to influence elected representatives of the people, then he most certainly should be answerable to the people. I say this for the very same reasons I think that scooter libby should have been held accountable to the people.
Scooter Libby committed several criminal acts. Emmanuel (allegedly) directed cabinet secretaries to write letters to governors in states where Republican congress members were poo-pooing the stimulus funds and asking if the governors want the money that their elected federal representatives apparently think is useless. I'd call it apples and aardvarks but the comparison isn't even that close.
The idea that anyone that "has the ability or power to influence elected representatives of the people" should be subject to Senate approval (which is what it appears you are saying) is laughable. The President gets to pick his staff and the Constitution makes clear which persons must be subject to the Senate approval process. Granted, presidents over the years have taken advantage by hiring staff that serve the function of cabinet officers without going through the approval process, but Chief of Staff is not one of those positions.