[indianrightwinger]

May be I am misunderstanding the Clinton game. The difference here may be that Clinton appointed him as acting after being assured of losing Senate confirmation, and also through the end of his term.

Any more insights?

Always worry about abuses of constitution, no matter which party does it.

[gondramB]

"May be I am misunderstanding the Clinton game. The difference here may be that Clinton appointed him as acting after being assured of losing Senate confirmation, and also through the end of his term."

A related question would be does the acting position has less power? Otherwise what's to keep the president from bypassing Senate approval indefinitely.

But I have to say in this case I think the President did the right thing- it's not McNulty that was withdrawn from the permanent position consideration but Flanigan.

Part of the attack on Flanigan was political but he also didn't have a prosecutorial background. The President responded with an interim appointment with impeccable credentials. If the dems go after McNulty they political nature of the attacks will be clear.

[Lancey Howard]

The filling of offices by "recess appointments" is completely Constitutional and appointing cronies is Constitutional, too. If your concern is the appearance of sleaziness, I agree that Bush should remain vigilant and careful. But at the same time, if he can circumvent the unnecessary, politically-charged obstructionism of the scumbag rats, then good for him.

By the way, you want to compare Bush to Clinton? I would advise that you take it easy on that kind of stuff until you are far more familiar around here. Just some FRiendly advice.

[nopardons]

Maybe, since you've only been in America since 1992 and here for a month and a bit over, your grasp of American politics and how MY government works, is somewhat lacking.

Try looking at previous presidencies and historical precedents. America's governmental workings didn't begin with Clinton.