To fight the Fox appointment, Democrats are questioning the Bush administration's plan to have Fox serve in a voluntary capacity -- receiving no pay for his duties as ambassador. This is an important legal technicality, as federal law prohibits "payment of services" for certain recess appointments. However, if the recess appointee in question agrees that he or she will take an unpaid position and not sue the government at a later date for compensation, then the appointment can go forward, at least as the White House sees it. ...

But here's the rub that makes Democrats view Bush's recess appointment of Fox as a major-league no-no: Federal law prohibits "voluntary service" in cases where the position in question has a fixed rate of pay, as an ambassadorship does. That's how the Government Accountability Office, an arm of the Democratic-controlled Congress, interprets the law.

His decision to make a recess appointment of someone whose nomination was not "not considered" by the Congress, or whose nomination was delayed on procedural grounds or other reasons, but rather was rejected on the merits because it is seen as a personal insult to a Senator is exactly what any rational person would imagine Bush does not need and this point in his increasingly irrelevant tenure.

It's deliberate insult to Senator Kerry and to the Democrats.  It is in effect saying, I don't care what you think, I'm going to pay my buddy off for services rendered.  I rather suspect a good number of Republicans will look at it askance as well -- they would have to after their pontificating on Democratic recess appointments in the past.  Quite aside from the insult to Democrats because of Fox's partisan and deceitful history it's an insult to the integrity of the Senate's advice and consent role.

Plus, of course, future Republican Senates can kiss goodbye the idea of stopping any such appointments (or judicial appointments) because after this all bets are off.

harry reid is doing the will of te American people beccause bush refuses to do anything except send an increasingly strained military into the middle of a civil war.

First of all you spoke of six years, during all of which the Rethugs had control of all branches of government and the Dem minority rolled over like good dogs at every opportunity except an occasional swipe at a particularly fascistic judge.  Speaking of judges, did you know that the percentage of Bush's confirmations is infinitely higher than Clinton's ever was?  

Anyway it's only in the seventh year that the Dems have had Congress, and that only by a razor thread.  The Syria thing you guys cry about is so silly.  Just because Bush doesn't want the delegation to go doesn't mean they don't have the right to.  

There is partisan, and there is slander.

Kerry is a highly decorated combat veteran.  Anyone questioning his courage, his patriotism, or suggesting that his commendations were falsified is a liar, does not "support the troops," and has no business representing the United States.

You know, lying?  Sort of like what Repack has just caught you doing......

2)This goes back to a earlier comment I made to you, the Democratic Party is hardly monolithic.  There are insane divisions, and there's a very healthy number in both chambers that Bush can count on for votes on a number of issues.

But #2 is besides the point anyway.  Christ, members of both Partties overwhelmingly voted for the Iraq Adventure Resolution, and for the Patriot Act, and for Bush's judges.  

I don't really give a crap about the ambassador to Belgium. They are a gracious and intelligent people, and will endure 19 months of this twit with their accustomed aplomb, and excellent chocolates. Bush expending a recess appointment to push through the poop-chute a man whose only qualification is financing the smearing of a man who faithfully served his country in wartime serves only to remind everybody of what Bush didn't do.