Obama's TSA nominee withdraws!!

The Imp

Kinslayer
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
1,573
Location
Pentos
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9610631


TSA Nominee Withdraws Amid 'Political Agenda'

The Obama administration's choice to lead the Transportation Security Administration withdrew his name Wednesday.

In a statement, Erroll Southers said he was pulling out because his nomination had become a lightning rod for those with a political agenda. President Barack Obama tapped Southers, a former FBI agent, to lead the TSA in September but his confirmation has been blocked by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, who says he was worried Southers would allow TSA employees to engage in collective bargaining with the government.

Questions have also been raised about a reprimand that Southers received for running background checks on his then-estranged wife's boyfriend two decades ago. Southers wrote a letter to lawmakers earlier this month acknowledging that he had given inconsistent answers to Congress on that issue.

In an October affidavit for the Senate Homeland Security committee, Southers initially said he asked a San Diego police employee to run a background check on his then-estranged wife's boyfriend and was censured by his FBI superiors 20 years ago for what he said was an isolated instance.

But a day after the committee approved his nomination and sent it to the full Senate, he wrote to the senators and told them that he was incorrect, that he had twice run background checks himself.

The White House said Wednesday that the president had accepted Southers' withdrawal with great sadness and continued to believe he would have made an excellent TSA administrator.

The withdrawal of Southers' nomination was another setback for the TSA at a time when the government is still trying to answer questions from Congress about how a man was able to carry out a bombing attempt on Christmas Day on a Northwest Airlines flight found from Amsterdam to Detroit.

---
So Mr. DeMint would rather have a headless TSA then a qualified person heading it up who "might" support unionization? This is unacceptable, considering that an American plane was almost blown up.

I hope that Obama finds someone else quick. Speaking of which, I also find it unacceptable that Obama took half a year to nominate someone for such an important office. The man should have been nominated immediately.
 
This is just another data point proving that the Senate is stupid. Holds by single Senators -- frequently with anonymity upheld by the other Senators! -- can derail appointments to important government offices. At this point, there are something like 177 (176?) people waiting for Senate confirmation because of the indefensible hold process.

Cleo
 
Once you hear Jim DeMint's side of the story on Fox News, I'm sure you will agree with his non-partisan approach to keeping our country safe from dangerous fanatics and the evils of fascist socialism in the form of collective bargaining.


Link to video.

Politicizing security is a real problem with this administration.
:lol:
 
(Serious Question) Were democrats doing the same kind of drag-your-feet legislation process when Bush was in power?
 
(Serious Question) Were democrats doing the same kind of drag-your-feet legislation process when Bush was in power?

Nah, its well known that the dems are excellent at rolling over when push comes to shove, lol.
 
Obama should nominate Scott Brown.

Then there would be another special election... tell Biden that the stress of his office(even though quite minimal) will make his hair plugs fall out, and give Brown the Vice Presidency giving the democrats another crack at the senate seat while getting rid of Biden. Its a win win. :lol:
 
(Serious Question) Were democrats doing the same kind of drag-your-feet legislation process when Bush was in power?
There was obstruction, but not to this degree, IIRC. There was an 'up or down vote' spell for a while circa 2005, when Senate Republicans had 55 seats - enough to pass favored legislation and make appointments when voting time came, but not enough to get past a filibuster - but I'm not sure if it was as bad as it is today.
 
There was obstruction, but not to this degree, IIRC. There was an 'up or down vote' spell for a while circa 2005, when Senate Republicans had 55 seats - enough to pass favored legislation and make appointments when voting time came, but not enough to get past a filibuster - but I'm not sure if it was as bad as it is today.

That's what I thought. I feel that the Democrats are just way to diverse to pull off the kind of solidarity the Republicans have.

I mean seriously, we have the Blue Dogs, the Progressives, the Moderates, etc. all rolled up into one party.

The republicans may be diverse too, but they're all unified on one stance (not giving the Dems anything)
 
Back
Top Bottom