I need ammo. Bushbot tells me Clinton did 140 recess appointments.

[OrlandoGator]

Versus only 110 for Bush. I don't know how to find this information...is it true?

[livinginphotographs]

1. I know one was for the ambassador to Luxembourg.

And the usual suspects screamed bloody murder about subversion of the Constitution.

But I guess ambassador to the UN is no problem....

[emulatorloo]

2. Tell Bush Bot to prove it. . .aren't you tired of doing their research?

PS tell him Rush Limbaugh does not count as a credible source.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. It's true

[matcom]

4. i believe he is correct

and the repukes screamed bloody murder about it

[notadmblnd]

5. It's true, but that total was forClintons 2 terms

the little monkey is up to 110 at the beginning of his second term. At this rate he will exceed Reagans appointments of 240 by the middle of next year.

[Beer Snob-50]

6. bill clinton did make 140 recess appointments,

shrub has made 105 and the patron saint of the repub right, ronald raygun made over 200 of them. this was from a google search on the subject.

[Justitia]

7. There has NEVER been a recess appt to the UN - EVER

This is unprecedented in history.

In fact, 22 or 23 out of 27 UN Ambassadors were sent to the UN with UNANIMOUS approval in the Senate.

Recess appts for diplomatic positions are extremely rare. Only a handful in our history. Clinton did Hormel's appt as ambassador to Luxembourg because the repugs were holding him up for one reason only - he was a homosexual.

NEVER EVER TO THE UNITED NATIONS

[movie_girl99]

8. I had the same argument yesterday

Clinton did make 140 but in 8 years. Bush made 110 in his first term alone.

[Oerdin]

17. Yes

Clinton did 140 in 8 years (17.5 per year) while Bush did 110 in 4 years (27.5 per year)which is the highest ratre I can think of. What's really embarassing is that Bush's own party controls both houses of Congress so dispite Repuk lies to the contrary these nominees aren't just being blocked by Democrats. Some Republicans have to disapprove of Bush's nominees as well.

[movie_girl99]

22. good point n/t

[Ready4Change]

26. Rates back to Reagan:

Bush2: 106 in 5 years: 21.2 per year
Clinton: 140 in 8 years: 17.5
Bush1: 77 in 4 years: 19.25
Reagan: 243 in 8 years: 30.375

[Justitia]

28. So obviously Clinton had the LOWEST rate of the last 4 presidents.

Thank you for that info.

[newyawker99]

29. Hi Oerdin!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[patdem]

9. Yes, but bush* has a repuke house, senate and justices..so why does

he need to make recess appointments? his own party dosn't support some of his assinine appointments. Remember Clinton had a repuke senate to overcome! bush* does not!

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Yes

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-recess-appointments-glance,1,3699037.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[Sweet Freedom]

11. Yes, it's true...

I saw a link to an article here yesterday. (I also saw in the same link that Reagan made 243 recess appts.)

[Wetzelbill]

12. tell him Clinton didn't appoint a criminal who helped sell a lie that

killed and maimed alot of good people.

[splat@14]

13. Tell the right-wing ass-hat that....

while a recess appointment isn't unheard of, the issue with Butt-hole Bolton is the recess appointment with the knowledge that he may be guilty of perjury, his "managing" of intelligence is still in question (docs blocked by the W/House), and he was not recommended out of committee for the job. Him being a prick to work for is not the issue.

[eallen]

14. Pick your fights.

[Ready4Change]

27. Pick this one.

It's a slam dunk. When real numbers/rates are compared 3 things leap out to me:

- Clinton was downright cooperative, compared to the latest 3 Republican Presidents.

- Reagan was the king of this Congress dodging tactic.

- Bush2, with the support of Republican control of Congress and Senate, must be nominating some real losers to have to resort to this tactic more than any other President since Reagan.

[eallen]

31. And?

If one were doing a restrospective on recent presidents ten years from now, that might have a little interest. But it's not scandal, or even anything that would sway anyone, even a bit. A freeper would just as well use the same facts to argue that it is the Democrats who have become newly intransigent in their opposition.

I don't see much benefit to focusing on something that all presidents have done, when there is real scandal out there. Just yesterday, Bush came out in support of teaching intelligent design. That is just the latest act from a president who has done what he can to control science for political purposes, and who, in recent history, is the president most opposed to science. Broadcast that. It has more substance than his use of recess appointment for Bolton.

Just my two cents.

:hippie:

[bowens43]

15. Yes, it's true.

[endarkenment]

16. Clinton had a Republican Senate. eom.

[Tsiyu]

18. It's understandable that Clinton

had to bypass a reluctant, homophobic Senate. But if * the Boy King can't get his way when the Repukes are in complete power, we have to ask "why not?"

Looks like his Man date stood him up.

[salin]

19. if true - lets look at the annual ratio so far

140/8 years = 17.5 a year
110/5 years = 22 a year

Their point is?

Secondarily - one would have to consider the appointments (which posts) and the effect of having one's own party be responsible for having to go the recess route (as in the Bolton case) vs the opposing party (then highlighting famous "Senator No" Helms - who even blocked any vote on Republican former gov. Bill Weld of Mass.)

[trapper914]

20. Ask them...

...how many of Clinton's appointments were made because of White House secrecy. Bush could've had his "up or down vote"TM if he'd only provided the documentation the Senate requested.

[seabeyond]

21. i personally think this argument wins, and i dont get to use

it with bolton. i can however use the argument that bolton is a man that had his hands in every dirty deal of this administration and has nothing but disdain for u.n. that bush was an asshole in appointing him to this position and is using it as a slap in the face

but i dont think i get to argue the recess appt since it appears all presidents use this. i didnt know

[back2basics909]

23. STop entering in to...

Bush, Regan, _____insert name of Republican here___ Vs Clinton slagging matches. He's not president anymore and in reality he was just as bad as they were. Illegal wars, lying, manipulation of facts, funding dictators (Saddam, Egypt etc) and terrorists (IRA, Taliban, Israel, Palestine). He hid how much money was going to Israel using creative accounting and also cook the economic books.

When we enter in to Clinton Vs Them we are just doing it because he was our guy. It's hurting the discourse just as much the freepers blind support of Bush is.

[seabeyond]

24. i am not playing a vs, my argument was what bush did was

wrong in appointing back way. well then it was wrong, all those times the other presidents did it. or it isnt/wasnt wrong. period. cant use the argument of recess appt if this is what pres consistantly do,.

i can argue the choice

[Ready4Change]

25. Clinton: 140 in 8 years. Bush2: 106 in 5 years.

Do the math.

Further, add in that these recess appointments seem to accelerate during 2nd terms, when the Presidents influence wanes due to the lame duck effect.

BTW:
Bush1: 77 in 4 years
Reagan: 243 in 8 years.

[The Stranger]

30. Ask how many were for the AMBASSADOR TO THE UN,

which is really intended to undo the UN.