Presidential appointees...circumventing Senate confirmation

I don't buy that it is anywhere near the same as a recess appointment. First of all, recess appointments CAN be legitimate - filling a position while the Senate is in recess. And yes, most every modern day President has used this loophole to fill positions with appointees who could most likely not get confirmed. But a few points to note: Obama has a majority in the Senate - and not only a majority, but a group of democrats who will follow his every whim. Also, this is not simply an appointment - this is placing someone in a position and then changing the job responsibility and heirarcy of command within the entire department in order to gain Presidential control by proxy through a hand-selected appointment.


This is unprecedented. You can argue all you want about GW Bush and his 171 recess appointments (btw: Clinton had 121, Obama is at 15...and counting), but this isn't about Bush - I know it's hard to understand considering how often his name is mentioned in every economic discussion, but Bush served his 2 terms and has retired to Crawford, TX. This is now about the man whom 70 million people believed would be the great savior to our nation - ushering in hope for this generation of Americans still reeling from the destruction wrought by the evil George Bush. Well guess what - he has been an abject failure - by any measure. And bringing up the former President does not and will not ever change that. This November you will begin to see a few of those 70 million stop and reverse direction...right now it's the political kiss of death to be associated with Obama on election day. In November 2012, it will be the kiss of death to BE Obama on election day.

BTW, this from the 'Congressional Record':


From November 2007 through the end of the Bush presidency, the Senate structured its recesses in a way that was intended, at least initially, to prevent the President from making recessappointments by preventing the occurrence of a recess of more than three days. On November16, 2007, the Senate majority leader (Harry Reid) announced that the Senate would “be coming in for proforma sessions during the Thanksgiving holiday to prevent recess appointments.” The Senate

recessed later that day, and pro forma meetings were convened on November 20, 23, 27, and 29, with no business conducted. The Senate next conducted business after reconvening on December 3, 2007. Similar procedures were followed during other periods, during the remainder of President Bush’s term, that would otherwise have been Senate recesses of a week or longer in duration. The President made no recess appointments between the initial pro forma sessions in

November 2007 and the end of his presidency.

I wonder what happened to make Senator Reid change his stance on the harmful effects of recess appointments.

I am still curious as to why the President feels the need to make these non-confirmed appointments - he has a majority in the Senate. Could it be that he realizes that even his Senate sheep won't agree to some of these people? Or could it be that he is trying to shelter them from the almost certain backlash in November by voters upset at the rubber stamp confirmations of unqualified and incompetent appointees who's single objective is to extend the reach of the President to the office that they hold?
 
About Recess Appointments:
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP%2BP%5CW%3B%20P%20%20%0A