I predict a Bush nominee will never again be confirmed by the Senate. Ambassador, cabinet secretary or Supreme Court justice, I believe the Senate will shut him out until after the inauguration in 2009. Bork 'em all. And if not, they should.
I’m a little confused by the end of this statement, but I think we agree.
I agree with most of this. The word "responsibility in the first sentence is vague. I’d say he has an ethical responsibility.
It’s a personal matter for Bush - as far as I know, ambassadorships are basically given as a reward - so I suppose it isn’t wrong for opposing Fox to be equally personal for Kerry.
Based on what, though? If Kerry has an ethical responsibility to make sure we get the best Ambassador to Belgium we can get, then so does Bush, and he shouldn’t be giving the post to a guy who gave a bunch of money to his campaign.
You know what a dictionary is, don’t you?
Use one. It will supply the answer you need.
While you’re at it, look up cronyism, and ask yourself if the term can be applied to Bush’s recess appointment. I think it can, and I think it’s shameful.
FYI, that last word, shameful, is in the dictionary too.
I didn’t say anything about ethics. But since you brought it up - you state that it is the ethical thing for Kerry to do. Why? And by who’s ethical standards? Fox’s? Your’s?
But appointments to ambassadorships are partly personal in nature. You admitted earlier that it is a reward for service to the President. It’s not the same for members of the Senate. And I’m not arguing FOR Fox, his testimony seems to be laughable. I’m only saying that Kerry should recuse himself. He doesn’t have to. But we are all judged by our actions. Bush, Fox, and Kerry, too.
Just because a Senator or a judge or someone else in a role of authority has an ethical duty to perfrom his job well, that doesn’t mean recusing himself isn’t the ethical thing to do. By your estimation no one should ever recuse themselves ever, not if they want to fulfill the ethical duty they have to do their job well.
Well, excuse me for trying to make sure I understood your question. To me, “need” doesn’t apply, except as it may go to a legal mandate. But we’re talking etics, not law. So if you want to act like a smart ass and not help the discussion, supply your own answer. Feel free to choose any words in any dictionary and arrange them as you see fit.
The story is over magellan. Bush did an end run. Perhaps you’d like to say something about that?
By the standards used by people who recuse themselves from judging others or voting in other situations. At an agency I worked at one of the Exec. VPs recused herself from voting whether her fiance should be made a VP, as well. Made sense to all and she gained respect by taking the high road.
Senator Dodd sure does…
“It is outrageous that the President has sought to stealthily appoint Sam Fox to the position of ambassador to Belgium when the President formally requested that the Fox nomination be withdrawn from the Senate because it was facing certain defeat in the Foreign Relations Committee last week. I seriously question the legality of the President’s use of the recess appointment authority in this instance. I intend to seek an opinion on the legality of this appointment from the General Accountability Office and invite other Senators to join with me in that request. This is underhanded and an abuse of Executive authority — sadly this behavior has become the hallmark of this administration…”
Explain the difference. Bush is empowered to reward Fox if he so chooses, Kerry is empowered to vote against those nominees if he thinks they’re unworthy. You make it sound like Kerry owes Bush the vote.
I have absolutely no idea where you came up with this.
Your interpretation seems to be ‘the President can nominate whoever he wants for whatever personal reason he wants, but the Senate should not consider personal reasons in evaluating his choices.’ Is that correct?
How proud the Belgians must be to know we hold them in such esteem!
Can they send him back?
Has another president ever held the legislative branch in such contempt before? It’s as if Bush doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the US Congress.
Bugs Belgium. “Of course you realize, this means war.”
Is that why he went on Spring Break? Because he’s an absolute fool?
I don’t think Kerry gets to decide when the Senate has a recess.
Kerry was elected to the U.S. Senate by the people of Massachusetts. He would be derelict in his duty to them if he recused himself. They are entitled to have him vote. Kerry has no conflict of interest in voting against a political opponent. He did not stand to get personal financial gain from the vote, in contrast to the office situation you cited, where the VP would presumably stand to gain if her fiance also made VP.
But he’ll then sneak the appintments in during Senate recesses. And in droves.
Congressional Republicans would kill him.