O Tenenbaum! President Obama to Nominate SC Dem to Head Beleaguered Consumer Product Safety Commission
EmailABC News’ Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report:
Seeking to strengthen the embattled Consumer Product Safety Commission, President Obama today announced he was nominating former South Carolina Education Superintendent Inez Moore Tenenbaum to head the beleaguered agency, with added inspectors and tens of millions in additional funding.
The president will also seek to quickly expand the CPSC from three seats to a five-seat panel this summer, as President Bush signed into law last year, to “revitalize the agency," and he has nominated Robert Adler, a former lawyer and adviser to the panel to fill one of those two new positions. The president will also ask Congress to pump an additional $107 million to into the agency -– what the administration says is a 71 percent increase from the fiscal year budget of 2007.
“It is a top priority of my administration to ensure that the products the American people depend on are safe,” President Obama said in a paper statement. “We must do more to protect the American public -– especially our nation’s children -– from being harmed by unsafe products.”
The agency was severely criticized in 2007 when millions of Chinese toys were recalled because they were covered in lead paint. On the campaign trail at the time, then-candidate Obama said he would double funding for the CPSC and increase the number of inspectors.
In Concord, NH, on December 17, 2007, Obama harshly criticized President Bush for making big cuts in the CPSC’s budget and staff, calling the moves a “dereliction of duty on the part of the president and the administration… We could set up a system that has a strong standard. We have just a handful of people that are inspecting all the toys that are flooding in from China.”
And then, quite controversially, Mr. Obama said he "would stop the import of all toys from China. Now I have to say, that’s about 80 percent of toys that are being imported right now."
The proposal wasn’t taken seriously, and was assailed by China’s Foreign Ministry as "irrational and unobjective."
A few days later, then-Sen. Obama backed off the call for a ban on all Chinese toys, saying in Greenfield, Iowa, on December 23, "Now, don’t get me wrong: As president, I’ll work with China to keep harmful toys off our shelves."
Tenenbaum, a key early endorser of then-Sen. Obama’s South Carolina primary campaign, was elected South Carolina’s State Superintendent of Education in 1998. She launched an unsuccessful bid as a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in 2004, losing to Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC, and has practiced health, environmental, and public interest law with the firm Sinkler & Boyd.
Adler, currently a professor of Legal Studies at the University of North Carolina, previously served as Counsel on the Committee on Energy and Commerce where he advised on CPSC legislative and oversight issues.
– Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Go SC!
Posted by: Fox News Light | May 5, 2009, 10:40 am 10:40 am
Losing a Senate race isn’t so bad after all…
Posted by: matt | May 5, 2009, 10:56 am 10:56 am
I suspect Obama has a list of low cost, widely supported policy moves that he is moving through slowly to keep a steady stream of popular actions in the media. I wonder if Republicans will catch on that saying no to absolutely everything is starting to paint them further and further into an extremist’s corner? We’ll have to see how they react to this common sense proposal.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 5, 2009, 10:57 am 10:57 am
I’m trying to figure out how expanding the commission to 5 seats is any kind of solution.
Posted by: MayBee | May 5, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am
“I suspect Obama has a list of low cost, widely supported policy moves that he is moving through slowly to keep a steady stream of popular actions in the media.”
Military tribunals are relatively inexpensive.
“”I wonder if Republicans will catch on that saying no to absolutely everything…”
I wonder if jwh539 will catch on that the republicans are irrelevant in Washington.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 5, 2009, 11:36 am 11:36 am
Hey Jake, are you going to ask Gibbs about the now classified fly-over pictures? In a world gone mad, pictures of service men’s coffins are declassified and pictures of staged photo-ops become classified. Ask him about it. Double dog dare you.
Posted by: Axey | May 5, 2009, 11:47 am 11:47 am
The UK Times reports that a trashy and wholly unnecessary campaign stunt is coming home to roost:
“BARACK Obama is on the verge of breaking two key campaign promises in his troubled attempt to shut Guantanamo Bay, with plans to revive the military tribunal system set up by George W. Bush and to continue the indefinite detention of up to 100 inmates.
“The moves, which have not yet been signed off by the US President but look increasingly likely, are a result of his promise on his second day in office to shut the Guantánamo Bay prison within a year.
“Since then, officials charged with working out how to shut down the prison concede that up to 100 of the 241 detainees remaining are either too dangerous to release or cannot be tried in a military or civilian court.
“The evidence against many of them is tainted because they were tortured, or involves sensitive issues of national security that cannot be revealed.
“The latest Administration thinking has been decried by human rights groups who point out that as a presidential candidate, Mr Obama called the military tribunal system an enormous failure and condemned the indefinite detention of detainees as a gross breach of the US Constitution.
“In addition to his pledge to shut Guantánamo, Mr Obama ordered a 120-day suspension of the military tribunal system, pending a review. Officials say that they now want a three-month extension, and have indicated that the hearings are likely to be restarted, with some modifications.”
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 5, 2009, 11:48 am 11:48 am
“I wonder if Republicans will catch on that saying no to absolutely everything is starting to paint them further and further into an extremist’s corner?”
Perhaps they’ve been reading all those bumper stickers that say “Question Authority.” Perhaps they’re following the exhortation to “speak truth to power.” Perhaps they recall that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”
Or maybe those nostrums only apply when a Republican is in the White House.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 5, 2009, 11:52 am 11:52 am
The pictures are not classified, but are being kept from public view. Photos supposedly that were to be used on souvenirs in the WH gift shop. Anyway, the WH spokesman (not Gibbs) will have no further comment.
So how ya likin’ the most transparent WH evah?
I hope you go after this story Jake.
Posted by: Axey | May 5, 2009, 11:54 am 11:54 am
Jake,
Can you ask the President how he hopes to succeed in Af/Pak when we are prohibited from attacking safe havens in Pakistan with ground troops?
What makes it different than Cambodia in 1969?
Why are we fighting the war with limited means?
It must be asked…why isn’t Obama’s strategy being questioned?
Posted by: J House | May 5, 2009, 12:02 pm 12:02 pm
Poll Finds Freeloaders Enjoy Freeloading:
“We found that there is much more support for a socialist economy among the ranks of nontaxpaying voters, whereas taxpayers, by far, prefer a capitalist economic system. The poll asked:
“Which of the following do you think is a better economic system: A or B?
“A: A system in which the public or the state has ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
“B: A system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth are privately owned and controlled rather than state owned or controlled with the state regulating them.
“An overwhelming majority of taxpayers (76%) prefer statement B, a capitalist system — however, only a slim majority of nontaxpayers side with B (55%). In addition, nearly one-third of nontaxpayers agree with Statement A, which describes a socialist system, while only 12% of taxpayers prefer A.”
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 5, 2009, 12:20 pm 12:20 pm
Let’s recap the Greatest Transition Ever:
–Bill Richardson – Original Commerce Secretary appointee, had to withdraw when Obama administration found out that federal investigators weren’t joking around about a pay-for-play probe that had been public since last August.
–Tom Daschle – Original HHS Secretary nominee, withdrew when he admitted not paying taxes on lobbyist bennies, a double-whammy on Obama’s stated ethics standards.
–Tim Geithner – Confirmed as Treasury Secretary despite evading tens of thousands of dollars in income taxes, despite having been reimbursed by his employer to cover them. Blames TurboTax, and the Senate somehow buys the excuse.
–Judd Gregg – Obama’s second abortive attempt to appoint a Commerce Secretary, who bolts when Obama tries undermining his authority on the Census and ignores his budgetary concerns.
–Hillary Clinton – Pay-for-play allegations almost derail her confirmation as Secretary of State.
–Hilda Solis – The Labor Secretary has to explain tax problems of her own.
–Kathleen Sebelius – Doesn’t tell the entire truth about her connections to late-term abortionist and has a pay-for-play scandal on the horizon. Confirmed, but probably shouldn’t start working with an interior designer just yet.
–Third choice at Commerce Gary Locke’s unanswered ethics problems.
–On the lighter side, Energy Secretary Stephen Chu’s belated realization that oil production falls under his purview.
Plus, we have the sub-Cabinet appointment fiascoes:
–Approaching two dozen waivers for the no-lobbyist pledge in the first two weeks of his presidency.
–Sanjay Gupta, CNN celebrity.
–Vivek Kundra’s criminal record.
–Nancy Killefer’s tax problems.
–Chas Freeman’s intemperate 9/11 comments and connections to China.
–Urban czar Adolfo Carrion.
–Annette Nazareth at Treasury.
–Auto czar Steve Rattner’s alleged involvement in a kickback scheme with a New York pension fund.
Posted by: Who Vets Obama's Appointees?? | May 5, 2009, 12:22 pm 12:22 pm
Jake,
Please ask Gibbs this: Is there any truth to the rumor that Air Force One and the F-16s flying over New York City last week were being used for the filming of a George Lucas movie about the Tuskegee Airmen? (Note: the F-16s are from an Alabama ANG squadron that once included the Tuskegee Airmen.)
Posted by: Ronnie VZ | May 5, 2009, 12:50 pm 12:50 pm
Strangely you don’t even the mention of the near catastrophic impact of the CPSIA legislation passed last year.
It mandates the elimination of lead and some other toxins from anything sold to kids. Good, huh!? Yeah, but books, especially second hand have trace amounts in the paper. Some bicycle parts and especially the off road motorized vehicles for kids have some lead. None of these items are likely that children would chew on or have been shown to be dangerous in that manner.
But all of these and more – clothes and toys – must be tested – down to the “lot” level in most cases – even for handicrafts and secondary markets. Can you imagine the testing, regulatory paperwork, liability impact on children’s retail IN A MAJOR RECESSION – ahh, its just billions – but billions are a lot of small businesses of manufacturing and retailing closing down rather than take the risks and costs!!
Posted by: robertb | May 5, 2009, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
“Jake,
Please ask Gibbs this: Is there any truth to the rumor that Air Force One and the F-16s flying over New York City last week were being used for the filming of a George Lucas movie about the Tuskegee Airmen? (Note: the F-16s are from an Alabama ANG squadron that once included the Tuskegee Airmen.)”
Lol! Yep, the Air Force is now renting out the VC-25s to the highest bidder. I can’t tell if you know you’re flat-out lying or if you’re just that gullible.
Posted by: Silky | May 5, 2009, 1:16 pm 1:16 pm
Fascist Hyena:”Perhaps they’ve been reading all those bumper stickers that say “Question Authority.” Perhaps they’re following the exhortation to “speak truth to power.” Perhaps they recall that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”"
There is a difference between questioning power and being obstructionist. The issue at hand is will the Republicans obstruct a pretty non-controversial issue strictly to shore up their personal standing with their base who hates Obama? Try to be specific rather than literally spouting bumperstickers: In this specific case, what is the truth they are speaking to power? That the CPSC shouldn’t be ‘revitalized’ as the law passed and signed under the last administration dictated?
Posted by: jhw539 | May 5, 2009, 1:19 pm 1:19 pm
Silky:” Yep, the Air Force is now renting out the VC-25s to the highest bidder. I can’t tell if you know you’re flat-out lying or if you’re just that gullible.”
Careful with that line of snark. The military is VERY accommodating with Hollywood when they want to portray the military in a positive light (think Topgun). It isn’t a rental, it is a free exchange of support for publicity. And frankly, it seems an exceptionally reasonable policy that is an excellent use of dollars as long as the need to recruit for our armed forces exist. Or even as long as the need to honor them exists – HBO’s recent movie “Taking Chance” should be required viewing for every honest leftie.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 5, 2009, 1:24 pm 1:24 pm
“The military is VERY accommodating with Hollywood when they want to portray the military in a positive light (think Topgun).”
Not with Air Force One they’re not.
Posted by: Silky | May 5, 2009, 1:28 pm 1:28 pm
“The issue at hand is will the Republicans obstruct…”
You are reading from old talking points. Please explain how a party with only 40 senators can obstruct. I’m sure the republicans don’t have a clue.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 5, 2009, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm
I hope Mrs. Tenenbaum has paid her taxes and has a good accountant.
Posted by: Dan | May 5, 2009, 1:39 pm 1:39 pm
what the administration says is a 71 percent increase from the fiscal year budget of 2007.
====================================
What was the funding level for 2008?
Posted by: mad | May 5, 2009, 1:51 pm 1:51 pm
===Lol! Yep, the Air Force is now renting out the VC-25s to the highest bidder. I can’t tell if you know you’re flat-out lying or if you’re just that gullible.===
How about that knowledgeable?
[snip]
“LOS ANGELES, June 8, 2007 – When the DreamWorks/Paramount Pictures live-action film “Transformers” opens at movie houses nationwide July 4, the scenes with F-117 Nighthawk aircraft, CV-22 Osprey troop transports and airmen running across the scene will look so convincing, viewers will swear they’re the real deal.
And they’ll be right.
…Phil Strub, who heads the department’s film and TV liaison office at the Pentagon”
Google it. I don’t know if they allow links here.
Posted by: Axey | May 5, 2009, 1:55 pm 1:55 pm
Foghorn Leghorn:”You are reading from old talking points. Please explain how a party with only 40 senators can obstruct. I’m sure the republicans don’t have a clue.”
One, the Democrats do NOT have 60 votes in the Senate yet and won’t for at least another month. Probably more now that Coleman has been given a blank check and intense pressure to keep stalling the certification of the MN senate race.
And second, unlike the Republicans, the Democrats are not an ideologically pure block the votes strictly party line. If every Republican votes against every bill, they are obstructing. Moreover, if Republicans refuse to participate in crafting legislation they are simply refusing to do their job. As a sidenote, they haven’t gone completely on strike yet – Republican written amendments were approved and included in the stimulus bill for example (yet it is pretty telling that with over 10% of the bill funding changed to apease Republicans not a single one voted for it in the House).
Posted by: jhw539 | May 5, 2009, 1:56 pm 1:56 pm
“A few days later, then-Sen. Obama backed off the call for a ban on all Chinese toys…”
==================================
Human rights in China was another issue to back off from.
Posted by: mad | May 5, 2009, 1:57 pm 1:57 pm
jhw, Senator Kennedy is not doing his job, either.
Posted by: mad | May 5, 2009, 1:59 pm 1:59 pm
Axey:”How about that knowledgeable?
…
When the DreamWorks/Paramount Pictures live-action film “Transformers” opens at movie houses nationwide July 4, the scenes with F-117 Nighthawk aircraft, CV-22 Osprey troop transports and airmen running across the scene will look so convincing, viewers will swear they’re the real deal.
And they’ll be right.”
He’s already backed off and stated explicitly that just the VC-25s are not lent out in that fashion. I still wouldn’t be surprised if he’s wrong, but I could find no record of it ever having been done so he may be right (for example, the movie Air Force One with Harrison Ford painted up a 747 to use as a look-alike).
But I think his argument is a bit pointless. So WHAT if this was for some movie? That kind of massive publicity and hearts and minds play is invaluable but doesn’t really seem to be relevant.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 5, 2009, 2:01 pm 2:01 pm
mad:”jhw, Senator Kennedy is not doing his job, either.”
Kennedy is still showing up for key votes – what do you mean?
Beyond your comment not jibing reality, there is also a difference between a Senator whose office is still operating under their policy leadership, and an entire party. I suspect the difference will be made clear (again) in 2010.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 5, 2009, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm
===But I think his argument is a bit pointless. So WHAT if this was for some movie? That kind of massive publicity and hearts and minds play is invaluable but doesn’t really seem to be relevant. ===
You don’t think it relevant if the flyover was for a movie? I can’t even imagine how anyone could say that and mean it, after what New Yorkers went through on 9/11. The fact that Obama won’t release the pictures speaks volumes to me. He thinks something is relevant.
Posted by: Axey | May 5, 2009, 2:14 pm 2:14 pm
mad:”what the administration says is a 71 percent increase from the fiscal year budget of 2007.
====================================
What was the funding level for 2008?”
The actual has not yet been released, but it was budgeted at $63 million federal funding, about the same as 2007. 2007 is a more relevant reference point since that is when it became a large issue and the bill was passed and signed to significantly increase funding.
Why don’t you ever look this stuff up yourself? It’s all online.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 5, 2009, 2:15 pm 2:15 pm
Axey:”You don’t think it relevant if the flyover was for a movie? I can’t even imagine how anyone could say that and mean it, after what New Yorkers went through on 9/11.”
No, it’s not at all relevant. How is it sudden worse if instead of a training flight and photo-op, it was a publicity photo-op? Heck, it’s still a photo-op, just with a bigger bang for the buck (good press in movies does far more for America around the world than some stock photos).
And since the LOCAL mayor and LOCAL police, who went through 9/11 far more than you or I (who only get into Manhattan once or twice a week), saw nothing wrong with the planned flight is FAR more relevant. I’m pretty amused at this heartfelt outpouring of support for us poor, fragile New Yorkers. Drive crosstown during rush hour a few times and you’ll get calloused right up, trust me.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 5, 2009, 2:20 pm 2:20 pm
The surface of Lake Obama always looks clear and shiny.. but the political rip current lies just below the surface.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 5, 2009, 2:26 pm 2:26 pm
Posted by: jhw539 | May 5, 2009 2:20:21 PM
So the mayor’s outrage was put on? And claim he didn’t know about it advance?
Anyway, I suspect Obama could poop on your front yard and you would figure out a way to make it great publicity.
Posted by: Axey | May 5, 2009, 2:31 pm 2:31 pm
I would also add that Obama, according to press releases, was “fuming mad” over the publicity stunt. But carry on defending it and the cover up. Meanwhile, I hope Tapper is trying to figure out what exactly happened that day. We aren’t being told the entire truth.
Posted by: Axey | May 5, 2009, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm
Kennedy is still showing up for key votes – what do you mean?
===================================
Occasionally showing up for a vote is not doing the job.
Posted by: mad | May 5, 2009, 2:38 pm 2:38 pm
“Occasionally showing up for a vote is not doing the job.”
Strom Thurmond did it for 20 years.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 5, 2009, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm
“So the mayor’s outrage was put on?”
Not at all. Bloomberg is a hothead.
“And claim he didn’t know about it advance?”
Turns out his staff was informed but his staff failed to inform him.
But hold tight to that irrelevant story as I guess it gives comfort in the face of the economy turning around and Obama’s massive popularity.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 5, 2009, 2:44 pm 2:44 pm
===But hold tight to that irrelevant story as I guess it gives comfort in the face of the economy turning around and Obama’s massive popularity. ===
It will probably go away because we have a press uninterested in anything Obama doesn’t want them to be interested in. Unless Tapper steps up to the plate again. But really, doesn’t it bother you a little bit that the pictures are not being released? Since this was all so irrelevant and all, I’d like to see the pictures we paid for.
Posted by: Axey | May 5, 2009, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
Strom Thurmond did it for 20 years.
============================
And it was just as wrong.
Posted by: mad | May 5, 2009, 2:50 pm 2:50 pm
America finally has a President of the people to who he serves. Good job, Mr. President.
Posted by: tychisum | May 5, 2009, 3:12 pm 3:12 pm
“Obama’s massive popularity.”
Sorry to disappoint you, but it’s exactly at the average for presidents after 100 days for the past forty years.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 5, 2009, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm
“No, it’s not at all relevant.”
Of course it’s relevant–it’s a wasteful and dangerous expenditure of public moneys, and the White House has now cloaked the photographs in secrecy.
It’s relevant, all right. You just don’t like it.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 5, 2009, 3:19 pm 3:19 pm
===Good job, Mr. President.===
Well heck yeah. Doin’ a heck of a job, Obama.
Posted by: Axey | May 5, 2009, 3:20 pm 3:20 pm
America finally has a President of the people to who he serves.
==================================
What he’s serving is incredibly unpalatable; massive debt.
Posted by: mad | May 5, 2009, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm
“There is a difference between questioning power and being obstructionist.”
Of course there is. When a Democrat does it, it’s questioning power, speaking truth to power and the highest form of patriotism. When a Republcian does it, it’s obstructionist.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 5, 2009, 3:23 pm 3:23 pm
“America finally has a President of the people to who he serves.”
Those people would be the 40 percent who don’t pay taxes and would rather stay home and watch Oprah than work. How inspirational.
Posted by: Ronnie VZ | May 5, 2009, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm
jwh539:
“One, the Democrats do NOT have 60 votes in the Senate yet and won’t for at least another month. Probably more now that Coleman has been given a blank check and intense pressure to keep stalling the certification of the MN senate race.
And second, unlike the Republicans, the Democrats are not an ideologically pure block the votes strictly party line. If every Republican votes against every bill, they are obstructing. Moreover, if Republicans refuse to participate in crafting legislation they are simply refusing to do their job…blah blah blah).
====================================
You keep using that word [obstruction]. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Characterizing a no vote on legislation as obstruction is nonsensical.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 5, 2009, 4:29 pm 4:29 pm
“Sorry to disappoint you, but it’s exactly at the average for presidents after 100 days for the past forty years.”
Actually its the highest approval ratings since Carter at this point.
Obama’s 63% first-quarter average matches the historical average of 63% for elected presidents’ first quarters since 1953. However, it is the fourth highest for a newly elected president since that time, and the highest since Jimmy Carter’s 69% in 1977. The historical first-quarter average includes two presidents whose scores exceeded 70% (John Kennedy’s 74% and Dwight Eisenhower’s 71%).
But feel free to cite Rasmussen who is so embarrassed by how off his results vs every other poll that he had to write an explanation for the gullible right winger to accept.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 5, 2009, 4:37 pm 4:37 pm
“Characterizing a no vote on legislation as obstruction is nonsensical.”
Depends if the vote is dealing with cloture.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 5, 2009, 4:38 pm 4:38 pm
“It will probably go away because we have a press uninterested in anything Obama doesn’t want them to be interested in.”
ROFLMAO!
You’re upset that a 1 day newscycle story is not discussed ad nauseum as it is Rush, Hannity and Beck.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 5, 2009, 4:42 pm 4:42 pm
“Depends if the vote is dealing with cloture. ”
Why don’t you explain to us how 40 no votes can prevent cloture if there are 100 senators.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 5, 2009, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm
Why don’t you explain to us how 40 no votes can prevent cloture if there are 100 senators.”
Because there are not currently 100 Senators thanks to the pathetic sore loser Coleman.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 5, 2009, 5:18 pm 5:18 pm
The Dems essentially have more than 60 Senators today, because they can count on the RINO’s Collins and Snowe to vote their way.
Posted by: carl | May 5, 2009, 5:21 pm 5:21 pm
===You’re upset that a 1 day newscycle story is not discussed ad nauseum as it is Rush, Hannity and Beck. ===
No one has to discuss it. Just release the trip manifest and the pictures and I’ll be a happy camper.
Posted by: Axey | May 5, 2009, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm
I wonder if the Democrats are starting to buck the Rahmster.. maybe they are looking for some political capital of their own.. politicians want power and just sharing power might not be enough..
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 5, 2009, 8:40 pm 8:40 pm