According to
the chart that ran in the NYT yesterday, the business of the Senate nixing a significant percentage of the POTUS's appointees really starts with the Dems doing it to Bush I. Up to that point, the confirm percentages are in the 90s; with Bush I they drop into the 70s. If the current imbroglio is a case of tit for tat, it's pretty clear that the Dems are responsible for the original tit, so to speak, and what the GOP was doing under Clinton was indeed, tat.
To the extent this issue revolves around the traditions of the Senate and its rules--informal or otherwise--for achieving "comity" in order to get things done, isn't the case pretty clear that the initial breach was on Dems' side? Anyone want to speak up in defense of what certainly appears to be a Democratic rupture of Senate tradition in these matters? Were Bush I's appointees so egregious compared to Reagan's? Well, ok, Thomas. But were they all that bad? What was the justification for what was clearly a deliberate policy of the Senate Democrats, to deny Bush I more of his appointments by a wide margin than had been customary before?