1. President Obama is fully within his rights to do this. It is a Constitutionally sanctioned act, and as such, I support it completely.
2. Elections have consequences--and when a President is elected, he gets to nominate people to serve in his administration. It is the Senate's job to treat with them. Senatorial "holds" are ridiculous; BUT, they are ALSO Constitutional, as the Constitution leaves it to the legislative bodies to regulate themselves.
3. Therefore, both the President and the Senate (at least those making the "holds") are acting Constitutionally AND predictably.
4. It will be interesting to see how the Bought and Paid For Media reacts to these appointments (recess appointments allow the person to serve through the end of the Congressional term--which for these appointments, is the first week in January of 2011). Here is a blog post that reminds us (H/T Instapundit) of how President' Bush's recess appointments were treated by the New York Times in 2006. I'm sure we can all look forward to similar criticism of President Obama from the Times in the days ahead. Go ahead, start holding your breath.....
5. Look for the BAPF media to mimic White House communication points on this matter--here is a taste of what we can expect from the horses mouths (The WH)--obviously, the White House and the WaPost would like us to FORGET about the remaining six years of the Bush Presidency where the well was further poisoned:
"The White House said the 15 appointees have waited an average of 214 days for a Senate confirmation vote. In all, the White House said, Obama has 217 nominees pending before the Senate, including 77 who are only awaiting a final floor vote.By comparison, the White House said, President George W. Bush had five nominees waiting for final Senate approval at this point in his presidency. Bush had used recess appointments to fill 15 posts by this time in 2002, the White House said."