Gingrich misdirects anger on Obama that should be for DeMint.

Modbert

Daydream Believer
Sep 2, 2008
33,178
3,055
48
Think Progress » Gingrich gripes that Obama doesn’t have an ambassador to Brazil yet (because he’s being blocked by DeMint).

“If you want to live in the most productive, creative, and prosperous nation in the world, what is it you have to do?” Gingrich asked. “The answer is to reform litigation, regulation, taxation, health, education, and infrastructure.”

“Bureaucracies just don’t work,” he said. “When you build a bureaucracy, the bureaucracy ages, and the bureaucracy develops self-interest. We still don’t have an ambassador to Brazil, for example, eight months into the new administration.”

The South Carolina senator has said that he “will not lift the hold on these nominations until the United States works out an arrangement with the Honduran government to recognize the outcome of the elections in Honduras and restores the U.S. foreign aid that has been cut by the Obama administration.”

This brings me to my question for this thread. Should DeMint lift the hold on these nominations so the United States can have an ambassador to Brazil?
 
This brings me to my question for this thread. Should DeMint lift the hold on these nominations so the United States can have an ambassador to Brazil?

What I think should happen is Sen. DeMint publicly getting a good swift kick in the ass and being made to sit in the corner for other crap he's been spewing out.


As far as the subject of his thread is concerned, are you talking procedure here? IOW, are you asking if he should release his hold because of a separation-of-powers issue? Or do you mean from some kind of moral standpoint regarding the right- or wrongness of the Obama admin's and DeMint's postions?

Procedurally I'm inclined to say it's his prerogotive to keep the holds from what I understand about the Senate and its role in foreign policy.

From a moral standpoint, I don't know, because I don't know what the majority of the Honduran people feel about what happened and if they themselves want to go on without the leader that was just ousted.
 
Thus far the logic expressed is vapid and devoid of any intellectual quality.

First the case presented in the OP clearly indicates that like it or not we can have an Ambassador to Brazil any time Obama restores foreign aid to the legitmate government of Honduras which basically means Obama is indeed the culprit.

Second, the quote given does not support the charge made in the OP.
 
Thus far the logic expressed is vapid and devoid of any intellectual quality.

First the case presented in the OP clearly indicates that like it or not we can have an Ambassador to Brazil any time Obama restores foreign aid to the legitmate government of Honduras which basically means Obama is indeed the culprit.

Second, the quote given does not support the charge made in the OP.

Not really gonna argue the first part because, as I said earlier, I don't know how popular this coup and the upcoming elections are to the Hondurans. Neither The Prez Nor the Senator are doing anything illegal by their actions and positions so it really just comes down to what position one agrees with.


As for the second part, you're kinda right in that he doesn't blame Obama directly and maybe he doesn't really intend to blame him at all, just "beaurocracy" in general. However, he's still spectacularly wrong to be blaming the lack of a Brazillian ambassador on "beaurocracy" when it's obviously not the case here.
 
Last edited:
DeMint is of course absolutely right. Obama's policy in Honduras is a joke, a sad one at that. It is time for America to hold Obama accountable for his missteps there. Drawing attention to it in any way possible is good.
At least the GOP isn't putting holds on judicial nominees because they can.
 

Forum List

Back
Top