If it’s wrong for the president to fire political appointees over their politics?

Question

doesn’t that make it wrong for senators to oppose political appointees over theirs?

The Associated Press reported that in addition to earning the distinction of being a George Bush "ranger" for helping to raise at least $200,000 for the president's campaign, Fox has donated at least $200,000 on behalf of Republicans for more than a decade.



In a Feb. 27 Senate Foreign Relations hearing, Kerry questioned Fox about his contribution to the Swift Boat group.



"When I'm asked, I just generally give," Fox told the senator directly. "I did it because politically it's necessary if the other side's doing it."

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd and two other Democratic colleagues Thursday formally asked Congress' investigative arm to determine the legality of President Bush's appointment of Republican stalwart Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium.

"We view the appointment of Mr. Fox as a clear abuse of the president's recess appointment power," said Dodd, D-Conn., and Sens. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., and Robert P. Casey Jr., D-Penn.

Opposition from Kerry, who questioned Fox's 2004 contributions to the Swift Boat fund that helped finance an effort to discredit the Democratic presidential nominee, had derailed the nomination last week.

Answer 1

Amazing that you're a top contributor really. Or are you just asking this question because you know the answer and want everybody else to know it too?

Answer 2

These were fired for doing their jobs.

One was involved in an investigation into wrong-doing that was on the way to pointing at Gonzales.

His firing was obstruction of justice.

If you were to read the Constitution you might see (if you could follow all those big words) that Presidential appointments must be confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate.

They're supposed to evaluate them before approving them; that's what that clause is there for.

To put it in the simplest terms, the President is not an absolute ruler, monarch, or dictator (according to the Constitution, not according to Himself).

He is NOT above the law. Nor are his appointees.

An intelligent President nominates those the Senate is likely to confirm, preferably in consultation with the Senate.

An uncorrupt one doesn't protect his appointees when they've engaged in illegal or unconstitutional behavior.

Answer 3

Once appointed, the USAs are supposed to function independently, regardless of who is in the White House. They represent The People, and not The President. When they bring a case, it is "The United States vs. ___" and not "George Bush vs. ___". Yes, previous Presidents have fired USAs, but it was done at the beginning of their terms (like Reagan did, and Bush 41 did, and Clinton did, etc.)

The selective firing of these 8 USAs stinks of high-handedness on the part of this admuddlestration. And furthermore, Carol Lams's firing, while in the midst of a corruption investigation, may just be obstruction of justice, which is ILLEGAL last time I checked.

We could get at the truth, if not for the lack of cooperation from all the loyal "Bushies" who represent the very best of the GOP, the party of "truth and personal accountability". What a joke. Since when was telling the truth only something done behind closed doors with no transcripts?? Please, I'm not in the market for any bridges today.

Answer 4

I'll explain this calmly and try not to use words that are too big, this way maybe other conservatives can understand why the world is pissed about the firings.

Yes, the Federal Attorneys are political appointees, but once they are confirmed, they are supposed to be completely non-political. They are supposed to prosecute crime utterly without concern for politics.

The Bush Administration fired these eight attorneys for blatantly political reasons. For instance, one of them, a Rove deputy hack, was completely unqualified for the position but was nominated to "serve" in Arkansas where his real job would have been to dig up "dirt" on Hillary Clinton.
Another was fired for going after corrupt Republican officials.

Then the administration lied about it.

Now, they're covering up and obstructing the investigation.

If all this isn't wrong, then you'd better look up the meaning of the word.

Answer 5

It is NOT wrong for the president to fire political appointees over their politics (unless it interferes with an ongoing federal investigation in the case of prosecutors). Nor is it wrong for senators to oppose political appointees over their politics.

What is wrong is to say that a political firing was due to incompetence, that is what started up this whole prosecutor thing to start with. The fired prosecutors were fine with it, they knew they had political jobs; but when the AG started saying that they had poor performance review it ticked them off and they spoke up.

It is usually not the act, it is the lies or the coverup, that gets you in trouble.

Answer 6

It isn't wrong for a president to fire political appointees over their politics. After all Bill Clinton fired every single one when he took office. And (suprise) the media didn't make a big deal of it. This is just stupid people making up ways to bash Bush because they don't agree with his politics.

I like your logic, but it isn't wrong to fire people because they oppose you. If you have power over someone who opposes you, you use your power to "remove" them from their positions.

Answer 7

since they serve at the presidents pleasure, they are subject to dismissal and congress is just playing spend our money game as revenge for what they precieve as worng doings. All the while congress has failed in every aspect to keep any of the promises that got them elected to being with

Answer 8

No...they are appointed for political reasons and normally come from the presidents own party...they are usually loyalist but if they stray from the party line...the president is well within his right to fire them...they serve at his will.

Answer 9

Not if it's done en mass. The problem is it was done selectively for political means toward an end, and that is unethical - something cons seem to do on a continuous basis.

Answer 10

Presidents have always fired and hired for political reasons. Clinton fired every US Attorney in 1993 for political reasons. I guess the Bush administration just can't defend itself.