Yes, I'm upset as well.
I'm not necessarily upset that the two branches are in conflict, mind you, because legitimate conflicts can happen and do need to get worked out. My upset in this case is that the conflict is spurious, and seems to be for appearances only.
I had no idea that the WSJ editorial was restricted on your end, since I have no difficulty in pulling it up here on mine, and I have no subscription to that Journal. I was able to google the article and reference it that way. I wouldn't have referenced the pesky thing had I known that others wouldn't have been able to read it. I am very sorry.
Perhaps somebody with better computer research skills than mine might be able to offer a solution? I think the editorial ought to be available; even though I don't like the political orientation, it has some solid points to make on the issue and they ought to be more widely available for conservatives who might agree and for liberals who might appreciate a well argued point of view from the political opposition.
Uh, Mike — if I'm wrong, I'll accept your word on the fact. Short of that, my memory says that you supported the Bush recess appointment of Bolton without a problem, though I was upset by it at the time. My upset continues here with President Obama's recess appointments, while you have realized that the attempts to keep the congress in technical session really do have some point to them, and we are no longer living in the 18th century when it was important to be able to fill these posts and the time it took to get the congress and especially the Senate back into session could sometimes amount to months and not days or hours. Horseback, as opposed to airplanes.
Should you wish to talk about your own personal thoughts and feelings about the subject, I suspect they would be edited out. Why you would ask me to go into detail about them seems a bit of a puzzle, since anybody can check the record if they wish, and if I go into any sort of personal pursuit of that sort it seems likely I will have it edited out as well.
My position on recess appointments has remained pretty much consistent. I don't like them.
It isn't bad to try to justify one's party's position, even if one's party's position changes, as both of ours have done here. Such tenacity shows party loyalty and many other laudable qualities. It's simply that, in this situation, I'm too much of a blockhead to do so, and I think that The President is acting for other than the reasons that you've suggested.
You may even be more accurate in your analysis for the reasons for these recess appointments than I am, as I've said before. It just that I tend to like my own explanations a bit more because it explains The President's attempts to deal with his weakness within his own party during what is, after all, the primary season, when he has time more or less undisturbed to do exactly that. The Republicans are busy fighting Republicans right now, and he can use that time to consolidate as best he can.
He may not be all that great at governing, but he is formidable indeed as a campaigner; and he may be very good at helping turn the tide a bit on the legislative level. That may depend on what the economy does over the next several months, and how the Republicans respond to that.
I'm interested to hear on Mike's thoughts and on anybody else's thoughts on that, and I'm interested in seeing what sort of thinking we can all develop together as the campaign goes on.