We're Still Waiting For Bridenstine (Update)
President Trump still pushing NASA pick Bridenstine despite slim path to Senate confirmation, USA Today
“The White House is standing by their NASA man. President Trump remains firmly behind his choice of Oklahoma GOP Rep. Jim Bridenstine to be the next administrator of the space agency, even though he does not appear to have the votes for Senate confirmation. “Senate Democrats should stop their pointless obstruction, and confirm our eminently qualified nominee immediately,” said Lindsay Walters, deputy White House press secretary, said in a statement to USA TODAY. “The President looks forward to Rep. Bridenstine’s swift confirmation by the Senate, and is confident he will ensure America is a leader in space exploration once again.”
McConnell sends warning over nomination votes, The Hill
“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) hinted Monday that he’s willing to keep the Senate in town through Friday, or even into the weekend, as Republicans work to confirm a slate of President Trump’s nominees. “We have a number of nominees to consider in the next several days. … The Senate’s workweek will not end until all of these amply qualified nominees are confirmed,” McConnell said from the Senate floor.”
Keith’s note: Sources report that NASA is hopeful that NASA Administrator nominee Jim Bridenstine’s nomination will be part of a batch of nominations being pushed forward through the Senate. Right now the math for Bridenstine is still precarious. Sen. Rubio is still seen as being in the “no” column and Sen. McCain is in Arizona. If the vote was taken today it would likely be 50 against, 49 for Bridenstine. Either McCain or Rubio needs to support the nomination or (unlikely at this point) a Democrat needs to break ranks and support the nomination. In case of a 50/50 spli, Vice President Pence could break the time in favor of Bridenstine. Stay tuned.
I thought it was little Marco who was holding this up.
Rubio, yes, last I heard, plus the 49 Democratic Senators as a partisan bloc.
This White House actually seems to be doing the diplomatic thing in calling out the Senate Democrats for partisan bloc obstructionism while being quiet about Rubio.
Everybody expects that sort of thing in the runup to the midterms, nobody’s actually much offended, and who knows, it might eventually shake loose a vote or two depending on those Senators’ local electoral conditions.
Meanwhile, calling out Rubio publicly would likely just firm up his opposition. Behind the scenes is where that sort of disagreement is best worked out.
I know, it’s quite shocking to see this White House doing something the diplomatic way. But there it is.
Being “diplomatic” would not be to just claim everything that does not work is the fault of the other guy. In this case the Administration has made no attempt whatsoever to get support among Democrats and little or no attempt among Republicans. Instead this “diplomatic” party has said nothing at all to show leadership and has refused to take responsibility for failure.
Diplomacy is a relative thing, the standard shifts with context. And we are talking about current US domestic politics here, where the standard is, uh, not stellar. (Depending on context “diplomatic” can translate accurately to “fewer bombs actually exploded today”)
No argument here on your contention about a low WH level of effort in this case. But nobody should be surprised that any WH treats civil space as a secondary or tertiary concern. No matter who the occupants, they’ll always have far more urgent fires to fight. (The 1960’s were the one huge exception, as civil space almost accidentally got linked to superpower nuclear diplomacy.)
My prediction: Bridenstine will continue in limbo until something happens behind the scenes to change a vote or two. Could be anytime between tomorrow and after the midterms.
Do I approve of this? No, but it is what it is.
Completely unacceptable. Political crap by the senate which is bi-partisan here. This is no longer about NASA but the personalities of senators and not allowing the President his choice to lead NASA.
This makes the chief executive and the legislative branches look like complete fools.
Actually, if all of the Republicans support him, he’s in. Do the math. 🙂
I did do the math. Ever since Bork the senate has become increasingly partisan and it gets harder and harder to get people in. It is a bi-partisan problem. Both sides do it.
You shouldn’t have to whip the senate over the NASA Administrator.
Then pick a non-partisan choice. It isn’t hard.
No Trump gets to pick his nominee just like Obama gets to pick his. The only reason a nominee is denied is if the choice has criminal problems.
Bridenstine has no such problems. He is a good guy.
If what you claim is true, then why have the Senate provide “advice and consent” at all. Just submit to a police background check to see if there are any “criminal problems” and if the nominee passes, he/she gets in. Sorry, but I don’t think that it works that way, per the Constitution.
No such problems? Someone who rejects scientific consensus on climate change to head an agency who does a lot of the research in this area. Oh great, someone to help Scott Pruitt undo all our environmental protections.
Obama did not get to pick his choice. I heard at the time that his first choice was Garver. I feel she would have been a better choice than Bolden because of her technical understanding, political acumen, and strategic vision, but there was too much resistance. I don’t want to be critical of Bolden, he was dedicated, but I believe he was chosen because he had bipartisan appeal and was not controversial.
You do not get nominated unless you are politically compatible and ready and willing to implement the Policy set forth by the White House. As for Obama’s process, lets just say that you are several thousand miles away from what actually happened.
Yep.
And while others here think that the WH should simply ‘get’ who they want, I’d point them here:
https://www.usconstitution….
As a Democrat, I’ve been frustrated, too, by Senate Silliness. But looking deeper it’s simply our system working as expected. Our current malaise is simply explained by failure to respect the folks who voted for the other guy.
And as Mr. 87 suggest (I think), there must be thousands of non-controversial choices.
And each no doubt more qualified but that is a different story.
Unfortunately government is so polarized almost every choice is controversial. I personally feel NASA’s position as an independent agency is itself problematic. Since we do not have a department of research and technology I would rather see NASA as part of Commerce with FAA, NOAA and NIST, all of which it already interfaces with.
Many argue the exact opposite: The NOAA should be out of Commerce so they can be more independent.
Nothing in Washington these days is non-partisan. That’s why the government has been so dysfunctional for years.
Garver and Bolden got in with unanimous consent less than two months after they were nominated.
There was a discussion on CSPAN BookTV about the weak Senate. There was a time when the Senate was very strong, author (I can’t quite remember name or book) talked about in 1960s when there were many challenges but the Senate was functional (i.e. did legislation). Author pointed out how McConnell will do procedures skipping committee hearings and discussion, a far cry from what Mansfield established decades ago.
Bork followed Nixon’s orders and fired Cox. Perhaps the Senate was correct in rejecting his nomination.
I agree. When you have control over all three branches of government, it’s difficult to blame someone else when you can’t make a decision.
So you’d be fine with, say, a potential Republican majority Senate simply refusing to confirm any Democratic Presidential cabinet nominees should Trump lose in 2020?
Didn’t we just see that with the Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination last term?
President Obama being treated like crap by the entire Republican Party is still very fresh in my mind. A U.S. President being deprived of a vote for his nominee for the Supreme Court for over a YEAR is something that is beyond a travesty, and something like I will NEVER forget. So, no, I have no sympathies at all for any Republican nomination for any federal vacancy being held up.
I’m a Democrat and would rather see Garver in the job, and I absolutely agree about the Supreme Court, but two wrongs don’t make a right and we should not protest by doing further harm. I think Bridenstine would do a decent job and it would be better to have someone there who can at least communicate with Trump and Congress. I am concerned about his views on climate change but the reality is that the climate is going to change regardless of his views and (like all politicians) he will eventually deny ever denying it.
Garver is too overtly and vocal commercial over SLS/Orion to get past AL and the others on the old guard payroll.
He wrote that _he_ “would rather see Garver in the job.” He didn’t say he thought Trump would nominate her or that the Senate would confirm her. That’s stating a personal preference and how he’d do things if it were up to him. It’s not a statement of what he thinks is realistically possible.
i was trying in my roundabout way to say that even though I am from the opposition party and would have liked to see someone with very different views as administrator, I would have been happy to see Bridenstine selected over leaving the office vacant and think it an unfortunate decision by Nelson and Rubio to block the appointment. Democracy requires compromise to function.
Moreover Bridenstine and Garver are alike in one important respect, both are experienced primarily in dealing with the Washington bureaucracy yet have enough technical understanding to keep track of what NASA is saying and doing.
She wouldn’t be acceptable to the faithful for that reason.
Garver? Nah.
How on Earth would Trump pick a lifelong Democrat that Obama picked?
Sorry, I did not mean to imply the Trump would have picked Garver. :-0 . I was trying to say that even though Bridenstine would not have been _my_ first choice, I would be reasonably satisfied with having him as administrator and I think it is unfortunate that Nelson and Rubio are making such an issue of it.
🙂
Agree with this on all points. Garver’s space policy positions align on several issues, and she has many Republican supporters. Unfortunately, I can’t see her being willing to carry out these Earth Sciences cuts or serve in any capacity in this Administration.
Which was payback for Democratic treatment of President Bush. And the Republicans will then give the next Democrat President payback with their nominees for what they did to President Trump. And so it keeps escalating to what end?
President Washington warned how the emergence of strong political parties would split America apart by placing their self interest above that of the nation. It’s a pity that so many ignore it. His prediction was proven true in the Civil War between the Democrats (the South) and the Republicans (the North). And it looks like it is coming true again…
And folks wonder why so many Americans are so fed up with Washington DC, elections and political parties.
“Democrat President”
I’m sure you mean the proper term: Democratic President.
Good old Auto Correct.
Dr. M.: Seriously? It’s a serious question; our friends on the right like to refer to ‘Democrat candidates’, for instance; it’s clearly derisive. Disrespectful at least.
But if auto-correct is responsible for some portion of the phenomenon I’ll have to abandon about half of my ire over the issue! (And a trivial issue at that).
I’m clearly missing something. While it’s clearly poor grammar (using a noun as an adjective), I don’t see what’s derisive or disrespectful about “Democrat candidates.” Is there a subtle point I’m missing?
I didn’t mean to insult Democrats. Auto correct seems to be like search engines, it bases word changes on popularity based on some algorithm. It’s really annoying as you have to check and recheck if it is using the right word.
In reply to Dr. C: the term is a disparaging epithet popularized by our friends on the right. Its use, though, has revealed more about the users than they probably intended.
In reply to Dr. M.:That’s exactly what I wanted to know. I haven’t seen that behavior here, although auto spell does do many other very annoying things, particularly in writing more technical pieces.
I have found, at least on Macs and especially. Safari, that if you backspace and then retype your own spelling that it gives up.
Most of the time…
I think you should compare the number of filibusters against Bush and Obama for executive nominees.
Irrelevant, it’s not like a basketball game. Besides you would expect more if it’s a escalating spiral. Remember the good old days in the 1980’s when only a simple majority was needed to past a budget? Now because of the threat of filibusters everything has to be a super majority.