If I were in the Senate, I would vote "no" on every Obama nominee. I would do so for two reasons, first a practical and rational one, then one of principle.

1. The practical and rational reason is that it is destructive to give Obama any appointees at all. The records of his and their results in office are records of nothing but damage to the nation. Whether from incompetence, malice, some bizarre deep-rooted antipathy to whatever is immaterial. Let pointy-heads debate it on their own time, after we get him out of office.

2. The insurmountable principle for opposing his every nomination [etc.] is that he is not legally the President. With every passing day, the morass that will have to be dealt with grows more huge and more tangled. It is criminal, IMHO, to aid that one iota.

Any nomination coming from the WH means the person must always fit the first criteria: corrupt thug who believes in turning the country into a marxist or communist utopia.

Capitalone just merged with ING direct and no a peep was said about it. 6 months ago or so Obama blocked a merger between 2 telecom companies that would have bought 1000´s of jobs back to this country,under the guise of too big to fail.

As with everything with Obama,if your on the approved crony list,you get what you want,if not, you get to pound sand.

Obama´s main background for a political model wasn´t governing at all but sophisticated racketeering schemes he learned in Chicago.

The biggest too big to fail model ever created is Obamacare where we´ll spend 100´s of billions,where 10´s of billions could have done the job.He´ll find a pressure card somewhere to get GOP governors to comply.

For Reuters, prominent is reserved for someone that is known and earned some respect. Few people know this person, and those that do don´t like him.

Isn´t this Anita Dunn´s hubby? The lawyer who spent time, our money, and Leftist influence to bury Bari´s b.c.?

From last September:

"Senate Republicans May Ask for Secret Meeting to Discuss DOJ Nominee"

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/09/senate-republicans-may-ask-for-secret-meeting-to-discuss-doj-nominee.html

An excerpt:

Senate Republicans are considering taking the unusual step of discussing a Justice Department nominee in secret later this week.

The Senate Judiciary Committee might close its business meeting to the public Thursday as they prepare to vote on William Baer´s nomination to lead the DOJ´s Antitrust Division, said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee´s ranking minority member, during a September 13 hearing. Baer heads Arnold & Porter´s antitrust practice in Washington.

Republican committee members "have concerns with issues that were brought forward in the standard background investigation," a spokeswoman for Grassley, Beth Levine, said in an email seeking clarification on the reason the discussion might be closed. She said no more details could be provided on why the committee would need to discuss the matter in private.

Writer wonders whether there was something in his FBI investigation report.

Re #5, Anita Dunn is married to Bob Bauer.