I've seen way too many statements like "the President is entitled to his nominee for the post of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations." People who say things like that forget what the job of the presidency is about.
Okay, it's going too far to say the president is entitled to squat - he's entitled to a living wage, good benefits, maybe even a retirement package. But the job isn't about him, it's about serving the American people, and they're entitled to the best person they can feasibly get for whatever job comes under the nomination microscope.
The president was elected democratically (probably), but so were the senators. Nowhere does the Constitution say "the people's will in selecting Senators must defer to the people's will in indirectly electing the president." The only reason a senator should vote for even a mediocre nominee is if, given who the president is, a denial of confirmation would only result in the nomination of yet another mediocre candidate while the position remains unfilled. In this case, serving the people's interest would be better served by confirmation. But it's not about the president's "entitlement."
I thought conservatives were against entitlements, anyway.
kewords: politics, Bush
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.