Recess appointment stinks to high heaven

[FishHooks]

I agree, but usually when people point out things like this that aren't about his ideas and are just trying to attack him on an issue like this usually means their liberal. If you attack him on the war, then I wouldn't necessarly think oh he must be liberal.

[coffeecrazy1]

I was merely attacking what is a very "politicky" move...like something Ric Flair would do if he were President. I am not saying that the Democrats wouldn't or haven't done things like this in the past, and I would feel the same way about that, too...it's just that I got my head out of my butt politically for the first time last year. I don't like any of these Robert's Rules of Order-type manuevers because they are just so devious.

I am not saying whether or not I think Mr. Bolton is a worthy nominee; he may very well be a good man for the job. But, the investigation and confirmation process has raised some issues with his character that need to be addressed and satisfied before he is installed into such an important position...and doing an end-run around the process is just a crappy move, in my opinion, and it makes the President look like a creep.

[FishHooks]

I dont think most people in this country care about bolton and know what the president even did, it proboly wont hurt him much, thats proboly why clinton did it so much. I agree it could be wrong is some circumstances, but that fact they woudln't give him a vote is crazy.

This stinks because there is significant bi-partisan -- I repeat, bi-partisan -- opposition to Mr. Bolton. To suggest that this is simply the Democrats unjustifiably blocking the president from an appointment is incorrect. It stinks, whether it's Bush or Clinton.

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
like something Ric Flair would do if he were President.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I got a laugh out of this.

BTW, the reason people don't talk about the moves Clinton made is because HE HASN'T BEEN PRESIDENT FOR 5 YEARS. Him doing something similar to Bush doesn't make either move more or less appropriate.

[Broken Glass Can]

I see nothing wrong in general with recess appointments.

The President was elected by the American people to make decisions. Appointing people is a decision that we have invested in him. Just because the Senate from time to time politicizes the process does not diminish the people's granting of this power to the President. And these appointments have an automatic time limit anyway.

This is sort of like the exectuitve order. Do we complain that executive orders are evil because they cover topics that congress could have passed a law about?

Clinton's recess appointments didn't bother me at all. If the guy is President, he has the right to appoint who he wants, that's how our system works.

[mmbt0ne]

This opinion works too. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Either accept them in all cases, or speak out against them in all cases.

[coffeecrazy1]

I think I'm being pretty consistent.

[Felix_Nietsche]

He's sidestepped a Democratic party Senate filibuster. He'd be confirmed on an up or down vote in the Senate.
**************************************************
Yep, plus one or two RINOs (Republicans In Name Only).

Bolton deserved an up or down vote. Using procedural technicalities they prevented the process from continuing. Bush did the wise thing. The dirty little truth is the democrats WANTED Bush to appoint Bolton via the recess appointment. This way they avoid voting publically against Bolton which would alienate their constituents. If you have noticed Robert Byrd of West Viginia has done a 180 in his criticism of Bush/Bolton. Why? He fell below 50% in the polls in West Virginia. I can't think of anything more delicious than for Byrd to be defeated in his relection bid.

But lets face facts. The ambassador to the UN is just a glorified errand boy. He takes his orders from the president and does not hold any real power. My dream is for Bolton to tell the UN to [censored] off and give Kofi Annan an "atomic wedgie" on the UN floor. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, the reason people don't talk about the moves Clinton made is because HE HASN'T BEEN PRESIDENT FOR 5 YEARS. Him doing something similar to Bush doesn't make either move more or less appropriate.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is not that people don't talk about Clinton's recess appointments now, it is that they didn't talk about them at the time. It is about consistency. If people are outraged over Bush's recess appointments, but they weren't about Clinton's, then they have no credibility.