This past summer, I emailed Sen. Vitter what I thought were two simple questions: "Could you please explain your reasons for voting NO on the nomination of Richard Cordray for Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Who do you think would have been a more appropriate choice for this position, someone you could have voted for?"
A little over two weeks later, he responded:
Dear Friend,__________________________
Thank you for contacting me in opposition to Majority Leader Harry Reid's planed "nuclear option" to change procedures in the Senate. I appreciate hearing from you, and I completely agree with you.
As you know, Senator Reid was advocating ending the 60-vote threshold currently needed to confirm Executive branch nominees. He was considering a "nuclear option" to lower the threshold to 51 votes, which would have drastically changed the rules and norms of the Senate. I am vehemently opposed to this hypocritical idea that would severely hamper a minority party's constitutional right to advise and consent. A last minute deal was reached to defuse this current crisis, but Democrats could still attempt this maneuver in the future.
If Senate Democrats insist on changing how the Senate operates, it will not be because Senate Republicans have forced their hand. Of the 1,564 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate over the past four and a half years, only four have been rejected. Also, according to the Congressional Research Service, President Obama's cabinet nominees are, on average, moving from announcement to confirmation faster than nominees from the last two previous Presidents. Majority Leader Reid's plan is based on false premises, not on facts. Democrats would do permanent damage to the Senate for immediate and temporary political gain. Rest assured that I will hard to oppose this "nuclear option."
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about other issues important to you and your family.
Senator Vitter,_________________________
I do appreciate your taking the time to respond to my message. It appears, however, that you responded to questions different from the ones I asked. My questions were:
Senator Vitter, Could you please explain your reasons for voting NO on the nomination of Richard Cordray for Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Who do you think would have been a more appropriate choice for this position, someone you could have voted for?
Could you please answer those questions? Thank you.
That was two months ago.
Could the appropriate staffer please reboot the Senator in order to complete the installation of his most recent talking points? It's not like y'all are doing anything else.
