I admit I haven't read the 9/11 Commission's report in its entirety yet, hence I wasn't aware that one of the problem areas the Commission addressed is the Senate's lousy performance at confirming Presidential appointments. That is, until I read one of today's editorials in The Washington Post.

There is one recommendation in the report from the Sept. 11 commission that ought to be implemented quickly but that risks being forgotten. The existing presidential appointments system, which causes large numbers of executive-branch slots to stand vacant, needs to be overhauled.

When I stop to think about it, this is a much bigger problem than, say, campaign finance reform, even before the misguided passage of McCain-Feingold. Key positions go unfilled while Senators posture like preening peacocks. What's the effect of that egotistical disregard for the welfare of our nation?

The significance of the appointments process to national security is clear from the story of 2001. When President Bush took office, Cabinet-level appointees were confirmed promptly, the deputy-secretary level took six weeks or so, and after that things slowed to a crawl. Two months before Sept. 11, half of the posts relating to national security stood empty. The Pentagon position of assistant secretary for special operations and low-intensity conflict, responsible for counterterrorism, was vacant on Sept. 11

Yes, you read that correctly: the Assistant Secretary of Defense position responsible for counterterrorism was vacant on September 11, 2001. I won't absolve Republicans of responsibility on the matter, either, because during the Clinton tenure, they started the current tradition of obstructing confirmations because they hated the President.

The editorial suggests a politically unfeasible process where candidates submit names of top nominees for FBI vetting prior to the election, but after that sidetrip into the fantasy world, they regain their senses with the continuation of their suggested process:

The Senate should commit to vote on nominees within 30 days of receiving their names, and it should demand the right to confirm only the top three managerial layers of each executive department.

Vote yes, vote no, I don't care, but vote, fer cryin' out loud! At least if the nomination is rejected, the administration can start looking for someone else to fill the post.

The Post has a good suggestion of their own, and I'm surprised the Commission didn't think of it as well:

In our view, the Sept. 11 commission could also have urged the Senate to do away with anonymous "holds" on nominees, which allow individual senators to turn the appointments system into a tool for extracting favors from the administration.

This ability to block nominees anonymously is the most craven practice of the US Senate, and should be abolished. Stand up and be a man (metaphorically, of course — our female Senators are just as responsible for behaving honorably, putting their country in front of their personal political desires). Declare the cowardice behind this practice and eliminate it.

Their last point emphasizes timing. We're at a critical point right now where people can do things that they won't be able to do in six months, and left undone by then, will never be implemented.

If these ideas are neglected now, they're unlikely to be revived later. Once the election is over, the losing party will have an interest in stalling reform, since reform would strengthen the executive. Right now, on the other hand, the stars are propitiously aligned: The polls suggest that both parties have a real chance of capturing the White House, so both have an incentive to fix the system. This is a rare instance of a policy reform that could actually benefit from being carried out in the middle of a horse race.

I'm generally an optimistic person, but I don't ignore reality. The Post is right about the importance of this issue. But it ain't gonna happen. Unfortunately.