Republicans will choose the cabinet administration in 2008?

[stray cat]

There may be a reason the democratic senators don't want to vote in mass against the president's cabinet appointments. Many of them claim they believe the president should have flexibility to choose his cabinet. This may be to protect presidents of one party from a senate dominated by the other party from vetoing all cabinet appointees. Is it only precedent that prevents a republican dominated senate from voting down any cabinet apointee wanted by a president who is a democrat? Could a republican dominated senate theoretically keep a democrat president in 2008 from appointing any cabinet that is not full of republicans of their choice? I sure hope the democrats take the senate and the presidency in 2008 but I really doubt we can dominate the senate by 2008. I'm not sure we want to establish a precedent that could really hurt us in 2008.

[DBoon]

1. I don't think the republicans care about precedent

Regardless of what the democratic senators do, you can count on the republicans to do whatever they can to obstruct a democratic president.

[IronLionZion]

2. It's extremely important to win some more seats in 2006

especially a certain Senate seat in PA. Man on dog Rick has to go. It will be one hell of feat to run for president in 2008 after losing his Senate seat. Hopefully he'll go to jail for misusing tax dollars too.

[imenja]

3. highly unlikely

Senators recognize that it is the President who has the right to choose his cabinet. Appointees are generally only voted down when there is something out of the ordinary that disqualifies the individual. Cabinet members shouldn't be approved based on policy. Bush will get all of his choices, including Gonzalez. Democrats used the Rice hearings to voice concerns about the Iraq policy, which was entirely appropriate given Rice's role in implementing that. But there never was a serious possibility that her confirmation would be rejected. Just as there was no possibility the Ohio electoral vote wouldn't be accepted on January 6. The point was the debate itself.

Of course a party that holds a majority could technically reject
a cabinet appointee. A minority party, such as the Democrats, can't do so except by using filibuster. It isn't reasonable to expect they should pull out all the stops to make that happen. Remember that it is Bush who is ultimately responsible for the Iraq policy. A different Secretary of State, as Powell discovered, is not going to change that. It's not simply a matter of establishing precedent. It's also the fact that the Constitution gives the president the right to choose his cabinet. These are people he chooses to implement HIS policy. Our fundamental problem is with Bush himself, not Rice or Gonzalez in particular.