While I might agree with the PioneerPress editorial
that Pawlenty's claim of Democrats discriminating against conservative women in the confirmation battle over Carol Molnau and Cheri Yecke are specious -- the editorial seems to want to have it both ways.
The DFLers reject the claim [of gender bias]. To them, competence matters the most in high government office. They said they judge the governor's appointees on merit and performance and the lack of both, if that's the case.
OK, though fourteen months is a pretty long probation particularly for Yecke, who already did the job in Virginia. And while the Senate may wish to weight performance over qualification, its use of this long a probation period usurps the supervisory function from the governor, who hires these people to work for him, to the Senate. That would seem to violate the spirit of dividing government into branches. But later the editors write:
Pawlenty is correct that his appointees are charged first with carrying out his wishes. If they are removed from their positions, he will appoint a new commissioner who will move forward on the same issues. Consequently, the debate from Democrats has as much to do with the governor's policies as it has to do with the commissioners who embrace those policies.
So now they want to say that it's OK to remove someone because you disagree with policies, but that the governor can just send someone else with the same policies. But if they do, they'd be rejected too. Did these editorial writers learn civics under the Profiles?