This is a surprise that could reverberate for months.
Even though he voted in favor of the nomination when it was considered by his committee, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), announced this morning that he would vote against confirming Jim Nussle, to replace Rob Portman as director of the Congressional Budget Office. Conrad said he voted for Nussle in committee to keep the process moving forward but is voting against him now because he wants to stop his nomination and prevent the White House from saying that it shows the Senate approves of its budget policies. The money quote:
“This is not a vote against Mr. Nussle personally. But I refuse to have my vote for Mr. Nussle portrayed as a sign of support for the President’s failed fiscal policy. Unfortunately, we have seen this administration repeatedly cite the vote in favor of confirming General Petraeus as an indication of support for the administration’s policy in Iraq. That is wrong.”
Conrad's statement and position will make it far more politiclaly acceptable for other Democrats to vote against Nussle as well. At the very least it will make the vote far closer than it would otherwise have been. But it could also sink it completely.
That will leave the White House both with no general to lead in its war with Congress on fiscal 2008 appropriations, and with substantial hard feelings.
Regardless of whether Nussle is approved, it clearly shows that Congress is far more willing to engage the administration than had been anticipated.
In Later News...The Senate confirmed Nussle 69 to 24.
"At the very least it
An ounce of prevention is
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Answer a fool according to his folly.
张家界旅游
OMB a non-factor
If Congress appropriates on a continuing basis for 09, and prepares a supplemental more to their liking for the next president in January, would Nussle be relevant?
Post new comment