Monday, November 13, 2006
John Bolton and choosing one's battles
The Wall Steet Journal has an editorial (sub. req.) this morning on John Bolton and "bipartisanship." Fair use excerpt:
So let's see. Democrats retake the Senate, and their first act of "bipartisanship" is to declare that they'll deny a confirmation vote to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton. And now, say the arbiters of Washington manners, President Bush is supposed to show his willingness to compromise by withdrawing Mr. Bolton's nomination.
If Mr. Bush obliges, he'll be taking a big step toward turning last week's GOP defeat into a rout. Mr. Bolton has performed in exemplary fashion as a recess appointee these last two years, winning plaudits from everyone except those who admire Kofi Annan and Hugo Chavez. He has followed State Department orders and argued forcefully for U.S. policy.
The opposition to Mr. Bolton is based on nothing save vindictiveness.
That strikes me as true. I am no Bolton expert, but I have not seen a single accusation about John Bolton's actual performance as Ambassador that suggests that he has done anything less than an exemplary job. Even George Voinovich, the Republican Senator from Ohio who made it possible for the Democrats to sustain their filibuster of Bolton's nomination the first time around, has changed his mind. The most strident critics of Bolton are ambassadors from disgusting countries, or defenders of the status quo at the United Nations. Most Americans, even Democrats, would view these criticisms as third-party confirmation of Bolton's merit if they paid enough attention to U.N. diplomacy to care.
The Wall Street Journal doesn't say it, but we all know why the Democrats will block Bolton come hell or high water:
Upon his arrival in Florida, Bolton reportedly barked, "I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count." When he did exactly that, a grateful Dick Cheney told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) that Bolton's job in the new administration should be "anything he wants."
Yes, the Democrats are being vindictive, but saying so isn't going to pressure them to stop in their current mood. Elections matter, and John Bolton wouldn't be confirmed if Kojo Annan made him best man at his wedding. The President needs to pick his battles, and if he burns too much time on Bolton he won't pass something else that he needs before the Democrats take over. If I were the President and had to choose one thing to get through the lame-duck session, it would be the bill authorizing the NSA wiretap program, which is even more important than getting another two years out of John Bolton at the United Nations.
19 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Nov 13, 08:29:00 AM:
And President Bush's first act of bi-partianship after losing both houses is to submit the name of a man who, as you delicously suggest, "wouldn't be confirmed if Kojo Annan made him best man at his wedding?"
Pfffttt. Why am I not surprised.
By , at
Mon Nov 13, 10:09:00 AM:
The best way we can solve the UN problem is to just pull out of the UN and move it to somewhere else like HANOI,HO CHE MINN CITY,
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Mon Nov 13, 12:07:00 PM:
Nominate Bork. That'll send'em into a frenzy.
He's tanned rested and ready.
By , at
Mon Nov 13, 12:51:00 PM:
Axing Rumsfeld was Bush's fist act after the elections, NOT renominating Bolton.
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Nov 13, 01:50:00 PM:
Wasn't Bolton's nomination made as a recess appointment? If so, then it's important that Congress take its oversight, advice, and consent role seriously and take a hard look on where we want our nation and the UN to go.
Bolton doesn't like the UN. Call me crazy, but I think that someone who respects the UN might do a better than someone who doesn't.
And let's not start some wacky "vindictive" meme whenever the Democrats actually stand up to Bush. It's called democracy. Get used to it.
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Nov 13, 02:09:00 PM:
but I think that someone who respects the UN might do a better than someone who doesn't.
We would necessarily have to question the sanity of such a person though.
By Sluggo, at
Mon Nov 13, 02:14:00 PM:
Thanks for the heads up, Screwy. We'll be sure to run our memes by you before we launch them from now on.
Vindictiveness is a useful tool in politics. It fosters discipline. I think TH's point was that headhunting Bolton is merely vindictive, which is shortsighted. When you put the knife in you've got to have something in the other hand.
By skipsailing, at
Mon Nov 13, 02:35:00 PM:
ah yes, now that the Democrats have won an off year election we are all supposed "just get along".
Nonsense. frankly I hope that the republicans watch video of the behavior of the Democrats and emulate them carefully for the next two years.
What is it about the UN that makes thoughtless peace weenies love it so much? is it the fecklessness? The corruption? It's inability to actually do anything?
If the US abandonned the UN tomorrow it would be far more that the John Birchers who would be dancing in the street.
Where to I want the UN to go? How about "away"?
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Nov 13, 02:53:00 PM:
What is it about the UN that makes thoughtless peace weenies love it so much?
High body counts. Leftists love high body counts. Ignore what they profess, and as the cops say "watch their hands".
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Mon Nov 13, 04:14:00 PM:
Flimsy argument from the WSJ.
Are Democrats really expected to demonstrate bipartisanship by doing a 180 on the same exact loser who Bush couldn't push through a Republican Congress? Once Bush snuck him in the back door, that was about it for his chances through the front. When you bypass Congress entirely that's more than partisan. It's an Executive "up your's".
This whole deal reminds me of the vote on the gay marriage ammendment. Pretty much doomed to lose, but hyped anyway for the benefit of the base. I'll agree with Tiger. The president is squandering what's left of his glory days on not only the trivial, but also the unlikely.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Mon Nov 13, 04:21:00 PM:
You miss Screwy's point, and the Democrats' in general. When they are vindictive, it's "standing up" to Bush, and is a noble, eyes-to-the-horizon protection of democracy. Trying to resist this means that one is being bitterly partisan and not respecting the elections. I recall vividly in 2000 that Democrats were furiously insisting that because the election was close, power should be shared equally. Huh. Wonder what happened to that idea.
As to the UN, Bolton is suspicious of it and is trying to reform it. How that translates into "hate" is beyond me.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Mon Nov 13, 04:26:00 PM:
Sorry to double-post. Got distracted from my main point.
I don't think the Democrats are going to look at it as a "we'll give you Bolton or surveillance, but not both" proposition. They want it all. They are already treating a bare majority as a mandate on every issue, as I suspected: http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2006/11/sometimes-its-just-uncanny.html
By skipsailing, at
Mon Nov 13, 04:53:00 PM:
John bolton may cost voinovich his senate seat. here in ohio I'm looking at this guy the same way that others have looked at their failed republican delegation. If voting for voinovich is the ONLY was to assure republican majority, ok. Otherwise screw the guy.
I don't expect the Democrats to change at all. Why the f word would they? they have academia, the press and most of the on your knees euroweenies supporting them. And they won, beating something with nothing.
I expect the republicans to change or be condemn to wander in the desert for quite a bit longer.
As I noted above, I expect that if the republicans want to get back into the tents of power, they had better start behaving like the Democrats. they better scrap and fight and filibuster and delay and trick and generally be a huge PITA to the Democrat majority.
I don't expect the Democrats to approve Bolton, that's part of the their "bush gets nothing even if that hurts America" position.
Frankly the Democrats are so thoughtlessly enamored of that failed institution called the UN that a rational person must question thier grip on reality.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Mon Nov 13, 05:55:00 PM:
Tiger's trying to lead you guys to water, but you sure aren't drinking. Things are different now, and will be even more different in 2 months. Use this time wisely.
If the Democrats truly "beat something with nothing", that suggests it deserved to be beat. It happens all the time in democracy. Live and learn. Note: returning the same guy for the same fight he's already lost isn't learning, and it's not going to help.
By skipsailing, at
Mon Nov 13, 05:59:00 PM:
what are you talking about LB?
did you read your comment before you posted it? It makes no sense and I've read it twice.
Too many metaphors prehaps?
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Nov 13, 08:06:00 PM:
"And let's not start some wacky "vindictive" meme whenever the Democrats actually stand up to Bush. It's called democracy. Get used to it."
Bwahaha! And when the Republicans actually HAD elected majorities and did things that you disliked, they were Ann Coulter-fed Bushite goose stepping tyrants, supporting 'policies of torture' and systematically stripping America of its civil rights guarantees.
Oh how the story changes once YOUR guys are in charge.
If the Republicans block voted any time in the last 6 years, they were attacked by liberals everywhere for 'railroading' things through the Congress, for casting aside the ideas of debate and compromise because they could.
Now when the Democrats do the same thing, and they will, I wonder from whence the cries of dismay will come? Not from the same people who protested before, I'll bet; because they'll be the ones doing it.
By , at
Tue Nov 14, 01:03:00 AM:
Nominate Bolton and demand an up-or-down vote; put the Dems feet to the fire.
Dems hate Bolton because he defends Israel.
Dems hate Israel and variously wish the Arabs would wipe them out or hope for Iran to "finish the job" ...
You could not believe the anti-semitism, particularly among the African-American Dem Base.
Nominating Bolton splits the Dems off the Jewish supporters still in denial about the Dem's hatred of Israel.
Plus it makes the Dems confront their anti-semitism, always good for a laugh.
Bonus: it makes the Dems defend the UN as being "better" than the US. For most people that merely re-inforces the Dems weaknesses: they hate America and love it's enemies.
By , at
Tue Nov 14, 06:05:00 PM:
"Nominating Bolton splits the Dems off the Jewish supporters still in denial about the Dem's hatred of Israel.Plus it makes the Dems confront their anti-semitism, always good for a laugh."
One always has to wonder whether post like this are serious or just seriously stupid.
The first Democrat to tell Likud Israel to kiss off would win MY vote, but I can't find one.
And, speaking historically, it is hardly the left that has backed state-sponsored anti-semitism, Do the names Franco, Hitler and Mussolini ring a bell?
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Nov 14, 09:19:00 PM:
