what message are they sending/???

Senate meets briefly to block Bush - Politics- msnbc.com: "The business of blocking Bush's recess appointments was serious. It represents an institutional standoff between Congress and the president that could..."
...could let the terrorists think that there is no unity in the country and we are ripe for the picking!!!

Appointing cabinet members during the legislative breaks is nothing new....and certainly not an invention or loop hole jumped on by Bush alone....there are several presidents that have done it. It is a common thing to get in an "interm" person into an office if the house/senate decide to be @$$holes and bind up the government just to have a pissing contest with the president.

But to show such disrespect {and yes I veiw it as disrespectful} to POTUS is unacceptable....I don't care if it is a dem or a rep in the office....I don't care if its the dems or reps incharge of the congress....it is disrespectful to do what they did.

Is it treasonous? No, of course not. Is it not nice? Of course its not nice. Its spitting in the president's eye. And I know there are a lot of people out there that think that would be a good thing--those who thought that the fact that Clinton had Monica under the desk doing what she did while he was taking phone calls that she didn't have security clearence for...or the fact that the man we elected to up hold the laws purposefully, and in full knowledge of, broke the law by laying to a grand jury...

I'm sorry but the president should not have a "the law only counts when you get caught" mind-set....he is there to UPHOLD the laws.

Anyways....I digress....

while I can applaud the senate for taking an original approach to the situation.....they shouldn't have done it.

They did it for no other reason than politics! They are NOT supposed to be "approving" the cabinet, only to bring forth where a nominee is lacking in the area--in the end the postings should be up to the President. If you don't understand what I mean....say the president wanted to put Joe Schmoe as Secetary of the Treasury (don't know if that's his choice though) and it turned out that the guy supported the war...that's not a reason for him to not get the job...but say he had been charges, yet esponged, of a crime of embezzelment--not that is a reason to keep him out of the job.

Clarence Thomas and the pop can incident...had the charges been proved true, yes it should have been a reason to keep him off the Supreme Court. Janet Reno--she could have really used a bit more of an interrogation than she was given...wait, weren't both houses being ran by dems at the time that we had a dem president???

Very bad thing when one party has control of all three houses....worse is when they have both senate & House of Reps...better when Pres and only one of the others...it keeps things in checks and balances.

All dems in control=bend over and pay them for the "pleasure"
All reps in control=bend over and they will lie to you and say it was just a routine "exam"