I have a window in my kitchen and, in the mornings, if you wake up early enough, you can see two squirrels having sex outside the window. I watch them, not because I like watching squirrels have sex, but because it’s interesting. I mean, I can’t tell if they are male or female, if they are mated. And I can’t tell if they are enjoying it. It looks a lot like they are just going through the motions. We are squirrels. We have sex in the morning and then we look for acorns. This is a metaphor, children, of why I read Jennifer Rubin’s columns every day. If you don’t know, Jennifer Rubin is a Political columnist for the Washington Post. She’s of the Conservative/Republican persuasion. She also, if you didn’t already guess, hates President Obama. She doesn’t dislike the President because of anything in particular. She just hates the guy. Like, wants to see him explode. Her latest column highlighted this for me. Here is some set up. The President needs to appoint certain directors for certain agencies. These directors have to be approved by the Senate. The Senate refuses to do this, however, because they hate Obama too. So, on Tuesday, President Obama used his power of recess appointments to appoint a guy to the Consumer watchdog agency thingy. Here is what the New York Times had to say about it:
Last year, Senate Republicans refused to consider any nominee to run the bureau unless the White House first agreed to drastically curtail the bureau’s powers. Mr. Obama refused to weaken the bureau, but he did throw the opponents a bone by passing over Elizabeth Warren, who had developed the idea for the bureau and was vehemently opposed by the banks and their Republican defenders. After Mr. Obama nominated Mr. Cordray, the Republicans blocked a confirmation vote.Congressional Republicans are calling the appointment “unprecedented” and “illegitimate” — that is rich given that they are determined to use any and all tactics to thwart the bureau and the Dodd-Frank reform law that created it.
Yes, the New York Times is no fan of the Republican Party. However, what is missing in their assessment is the venom and rancor that Jennifer Rubin tends to glaze her column with. For example:
The courts will get a chance to consider the issue, and Obama may well be rebuked. But it’s not clear this is even a smart political move. As the erudite Democrat Mickey Kaus observed, simply because the Senate won’t confirm his picks is no justification for the president’s end-around the Constitution. He deemed the move “Chavez-y” and “distasteful [and] risky.” It also gives the Republicans the upper hand in their argument that Obama is interested not in governance, just in naked partisan power plays. That may send a tingle up the legs of the left, but to average voters it may well seem like bad faith by a president who has long since proved unable to work within the system of separation of powers. And the hypocrisy here is a bit much to bear. As a senator, Obama excoriated the practice of recess appointments (George W. Bush actually waited for a real recess) and joined the lefty lawyers in yelping that Bush was shredding the Constitution by, among other things, making signing statements and refusing to implement parts of legislation. It turns out the constitutional law professor’s respect for the Constitution was only a campaign talking point.
I don’t really care what Jennifer Rubin thinks, or what the New York Times thinks or what President Obama thinks (I sort of care). This is about me, not them. I read Jennifer Rubin every day not because I want to agree with her, or that I think I ever will agree with her. I read her because I find her interesting, something to look at, and vaguely odd. Just like (wait for it) two squirrels having sex outside my kitchen window. You probably doubted that I could thread together Squirrel coitus and Political commentary. That will teach you not to doubt me.
For these columns and more of the stuff I’m reading, peep my Reader Archive. It’s all right there for you.