Will Republican Sen DeMint Apologize For Endangering U.S. Air Safety?

Republican Jim DeMint Continues to Endanger American Air Safety by Refusing to Confirm TSA Administrator

Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has been busy doing what Republicans do when they’re not filibustering legislation these days; he’s been blocking Obama’s appointment of the TSA administrator, Errol Southers, who is a well-regarded counter-terrorism expert.

“Marshall McClain, the president of the Los Angeles Airport Peace Officers Association, said that the Senate should have acted sooner to confirm Southers.

“Friday’s terrorist attack on U.S. aviation makes it all the more imperative that there be no further delays in filling this crucial position,” he said.”


DeMint claims he his concern over whether or not the TSA workers will join a union justifies his putting America at risk by leaving the TSA administrator appointment open.

“(Harry) Reid spokesman Jim Manley said Monday that the majority leader is working with the White House to get Southers confirmed “as quickly as possible” and charged that “Republican obstructionism has prevented TSA from having the leadership in place that the organization deserves.”’

DeMint’s obstructionism has forced Reid to file a cloture motion as soon as the Senate reconvenes the week of Jan. 19. in order to overcome the Republican’s “cheap political points”.

After the foiled Christmas attack on an international Detroit-bound Delta flight, Republicans quickly took to TV land, gleefully denouncing Obama weak on terror. They ratcheted up Americans’ fears by pouncing on their catnip terror fest with blatant disregard for this country’s welfare, never once mentioning in all of their criticisms about the alleged TSA failure to check Watch Lists that they were holding up a key appointment in the TSA.

Joe Lieberman (I-CT) did his Joe & John cable show bit (will someone please give these two “mavericks” a show of their own finally so we know what NOT to watch?); Joe’s traitor dance consisted of “questioning” why passengers flying into US weren’t checked against broader terror data base as well bringing up the failure to use whole body scanning technology.

Maybe ‘cuz, um, we need someone to coordinate that, Joe. Eh? Ennnh?

‘Course, we’re still waiting for Johnny to tell us where Bin Laden is. Remember, he promised to tell us if he got elected?

Joe, John and especially Jim are really putting it to Americans right now. Yes, boys, America really does need a person in charge of the TSA. That person will coordinate important things like terror watch lists. See? No, they won’t be like your FEMA director, because Obama actually appointed a counter-terrorist expert instead of merely a loyal friend, capiche?

Republicans address a problem through organization and logic? Naw, they would rather continue playing a reckless game of chicken wherein they attempt to destroy the Obama presidency by creating a huge void in so many appointments that Obama’s administration can’t function well.

Do they care that lives are at risk? When has that stopped them before? Would Jim have apologized for holding up the TSA appointment if the attempt had been successful?

I’m sure he would have made the same Apology Tour that Bush did after Bush spent the entire first year of his presidency ignoring the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council, Richard Clarke (aka, counter-terrorism Czar – yes, Glenn, a Bush “Czar”!), whose intel warned of an imminent attack on the US by Al-Qaeda.

Clarke, who served in the same capacity under Clinton, tried desperately to get a meeting with Bush, but he was denied access to the cabinet after Bush took office after Condoleezza Rice made a decision in early 2001 that his position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. From that point on, all of Clarke’s desperate pleas for a meeting regarding Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were bounced back to him.

See, Republicans just don’t like government. That’s why they do it so badly.

And now they want to set Obama up to be just as bad at it as they are, only they know they can’t rely upon him to ignore intel and fail to coordinate team members, so they have to keep him from having nominees confirmed in order to produce results that they can crow about on cable.

Jim DeMint should be ashamed that he put politics over Americans’ safety. And not just Americans’ safety; there were people from all over the world on that flight. When will Republicans realize that we had an election in 2008 and we do not CARE what they think about unions in the TSA? We wanted a functioning government and to that order, we roundly voted them out of the majority! A desperate mandate for Democratic approach to government occurred on Nov 4.

“Even Republicans who oppose the nomination believe Southers would be confirmed, and sources tell TPMDC he is highly qualified on counterterrorism issues and would have been useful had he been in place before the Christmas terror attempt.”


The public should demand that DeMint and all Republicans stop playing politics with our lives. Had Democrats refused to confirm a National Security Nominee under Bush, the media would have crucified them.

As it is, we’re left with the Joe and John show, with occasional dabbles of “dithering” Dick. Even elections can’t get these clowns to move out of the way of the real work that needs to take place.

Will Sen DeMint Apologize For Endangering U.S. Air Safety? We’re waiting.


10 Replies to “Will Republican Sen DeMint Apologize For Endangering U.S. Air Safety?”

  1. […] Republican DeMint Continues to Endanger American Air Safety by Refusing to Confirm TSA Administrator http://www.politicususa.com/en/node/7403 – view page – cached / Republican DeMint Continues to Endanger American Air Safety by Refusing to Confirm TSA Administrator […]

  2. So basically when a person is appointed/approved we will have no attacks nor attempts? Your premise and logic is very faulty and elementary. Certainly having a qualified person would be better than not, but concluding that having questions concerning a person’s credentials & qualifications lead to the attempt is quite a stretch!

  3. Please quote where I suggested that we would have no attacks if a TSA admin were finally confirmed?

    In the meantime, I suggest you consider if you really want to support “questions and concerns” over this particular appointee, who is highly regarded by both sides of the aisle.

    And you seem to have missed the point about elections. See, the “union” scare doesn’t scare the majority of Americans. We already voted on what we care about. And at any rate, it’s a safe bet that most Americans would prefer to have a qualified candidate confirmed than to have the TSA position left vacant.

    I hope Republicans are ready to explain to the citizens of the world how they thought that the possibility of a union was more scary than a terrorist attack which could kill hundreds or thousands of people.

  4. There is a current acting administrater in place, capable of acting and fulfilling the capacity of the position. Where were pointing fingers when it took Obama 8 months to even nominate someone for the post? Was the position not that important…or just not a convenient political football when the “responsibility” could have been seen to fall with the Obama adminstration. For nearly 250 days it was no big deal, but magically you are up in arms over it in the last 4?
    Demint’s concern is over the unionizing…which Southers will not answer to. Perhaps many others would also share the same concern if he would merely answer the questions regarding his stance. To assume that Obama’s victory is a be all, end all and that means we “voted” to adopt all his policies, idealogies, laws and policies is ignorant. There are still 3 branches of govt and there are still process for appointments and laws, etc.

  5. I’m not for either party, nor am I against unions but you did forget to mention that the TSA has an acting director and isn’t completely operating as a headless wonder like you make it out to be.

    Secondly, DeMint has a legitimate concern about unionizing the TSA. Look at what unions have done to the auto industry. Look at what unions do to travel (bus, trains and air planes) when they feel that they’ve been wronged. They have the power to choke the life out of whatever it is they represent, and can wield an amazing amount of power unilaterally. Do we take the chance of a walkout or a sickout when the TSA employees feel they’ve been wronged? Those concerns don’t negate the petty BS politicians play but it is something we should all be aware of.

  6. You are for a party if you think unions are dangerous. One only party thinks that, and it’s the party of big business.

    Unions were designed to balance the power between the people and the powerful business owners. Unions helped create a safe working place, reasonable hours, and many other things that most workers take for granted these days — even if they aren’t in a union, their work life has been impacted positively by the influence of unions.

    It doesn’t get any more American in principle than a union. To be against unions is to be against freedom, opportunity, respect and dignity for your fellow man.

    Yes, unions have some problems- there will always be corruption when there is a large group of people amassing power. However, if that small bit of corruption is reason to close unions down, I guess every corporation in America needs to shut down, and I have a feeling you’re not for that idea at all:-)

    There are thousands of unions in this country; from teachers unions to nurses unions to trucking unions. However, you choice to use the obviously failed auto industry as the example for how unions operate is the equivalent to my choosing Enron as the example for how all corporations operate. And I think we all know where that would go, and it’s not pretty.

    Unions didn’t ruin the auto industry. If you want to discuss the auto industry, I’d be more than happy to. Let’s talk about how much the top execs were being paid. Let’s talk about how bloated and absurd the decision making process became for everything from the advertising to the car design. How many people were drawn into these meeting, from around the world, as fear griped the execs?

    You know what did? Refusing to compete with European cars, not understanding certain markets, not designing for smaller gas usage — and guess who was at fault for some of that?

    The auto companies in America refused to compete with Europe and Asian car companies, blocking legislation regarding fuel efficiency at every turn, in a willfuflly blind bid to manage the future. Since 1996, Congress– operating at the behest of the auto industry and the oil industry — has used riders to prevent DOT from developing new and improved CAFE vehicle fuel efficiency standards. The oil companies were right there helping block the “wacko environmentalists” who were lobbying for better CAFE standards.

    This is a perfect example of what environmentalists mean when they claim something is “unsustainable”. The auto companies and oil companies KNEW better, but the lined their bulging pockets every step of the way and then turned around and blamed the working man for wanting a decent wage, as if it were his fault they had refused to grow up and compete.

    The auto and oil industries do not want to compete on the free market. If they did, they wouldn’t block legislation that would allow renewable energy to receive the same kickbacks as oil companies, for example. Republicans often denounce the idea of legislating fuel efficiency, but fail to address how taxing gas/imposing an emissions cap on oil companies (one of their solutions) wouldn’t really be imposing the burden on to the consumers. A favorite tactic of big business Republicans, I might add.

    Trickle down theory being the trick of trick or treat, a nasty sock in the mouth to the hard working people of this country who finally stood up on Nov 4 and shouted to the roof tops “ENOUGH!” so that we wouldn’t have to listen to “leaders” claim to be American while they sought to mistreat workers and make the distance between the haves and the have nots crater.

    As for wages, when you break down an American auto union worker’s wages and account for health insurance costs, you quickly realize that if we had universal health care in this country like many of the countries the auto industries are forced to compete with, then the actual labor cost would be on par with other countries.

    Suddenly you are concerned with potential “walk outs” of TSA employees, but you feel like it’s just fine to have a substitute in place for the chief? That makes no sense.

    And yes, there was a substitute in place for the chief, but this person isn’t a counter-terrorism expert. Frankly, it’s not comforting to have someone just holding the place, with no investment in the outcome. It’s akin to a parent giving their child to a friend to watch, and then the kid gets really sick and the parent can’t be there. It’s just not the same.

  7. is my comment; I was logged out by accident. And I’d like to add that Republicans have a habit of comparing their “what if” scenarios to something that actually happened, as if they are equal. “What if” TSA employees did a walk out is not equal to the fact that the TSA does not have a counter-terrorism chief right now.

    Republicans have allowed the Fox News paranoid style of “thinking” to taint their very brand, and they now sound like hysterical ninnies with no sense of logic or reason.

    A “what if” scenario is just that. It can be used to make any argument. And while there are times it can be used to present various sides of an issue, it shouldn’t be used recklessly to stoke paranoia – like, “Obama’s gonna take all yer guns!” When your gun rights have in fact expanded under Obama. Just an example:-)


  8. Sarah Jones, you are awesome. Plain and simple.

    I LOVE the irrational, uninformed, misguided, overgeneralized hack jobs thrown at unions. The US auto industry put no money into design and fuel efficiency b/c Reagan was bought and paid for by big oil. The Japanese have now been improving their cars for 30 years while the US just “made them bigger and more gas guzzling.” And the interior design of US cars absolutely suck. Nothing is ergonomic. Things aren’t where they’re supposed to be, ie: gas tank button in the glove compartment…

    The UAW had nothing to do with the crumbling of the industry. Union worker wages amount to about 10% of the overall cost of a car. Only 10%. R&D and marketing take up about 50%. Guess where the other 40% goes?

    You got it! Executive salaries. So gee, what killed the auto industry? 10% for hundreds of thousands of workers, or 40% for a handful of execs and their perks?

    I don’t believe in any kind of religion, but some days, I really hope there is a God because somebody’s gotta look over the dumb, brainless idiots who keep parroting the ignorance.

  9. Nicely done, Sarah and “anonymous” above.

    I’ll offer yet one more example for the “brainless, uninformed and misguided” brood to consider:

    Major League Baseball’s players union. That is probably the exemplar of a crooked, nasty, unethical union. Look what it’s done lately…all of the steroid controversies…not only did they look the other way on cheating, they gave an implicit/explicit nod (and later, defense) to harming players’ bodies and physical health.

    If there was a union that was criminal, MLB’s players union is.

    But even given all that, look what’s happened to baseball itself. Has the union “unilaterally choked the life out of the industry” like one of the ignorant, ranting fools above proclaimed?


    In fact, MLB’s profits have seen a $10 billion increase in the past couple of years.

    So much for unions kill business.

    Some people really need to do some research, and come with some actual knowledge instead of the utter misinformation that is FOX talking points.

  10. Not having the necessary leadership put the country in a position of weakness.

    Bragging about how you have put our country in this position, so very publicly, invites attempts to be made now rather than at a later time when there are no unfilled leadership positions.

    Is THAT simple enough for you?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.