I welcome the news, but I can’t say that I’m surprised. When the Dems took the Senate last month it was pretty clear that he’d have some tough sledding, assuming his nomination even came up for a vote. Seemed to me he was far and away the wrong guy for the job. What’s your reaction?
A sidenote: the linked article, and others I’ve seen, indicate that the President may only make one recess appointment of an individual to any particular job. The Constitution doesn’t say that (Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 4), and the only Federal law I’ve found which directly refers to recess appointments (5 U.S.C. 5503), merely provides for the pay of such appointees. Why couldn’t the President give Bolton another recess appointment as soon as the Senate recesses?
Or to get the Heritage Foundation or its ilk to pay him an “honorarium” that would be the same amount as his Federal salary? I wouldn’t put it past 'em. Before Bolton took himself out of the running, it seemed they were really eager to keep him on the job.
He was never going to be confirmed. His resignation saves Bush from having to choose whether or not to reappoint him. This sounds like a case of Bush picking his battles - he’ll tangle with the Democrats in Congress, but it wasn’t worth it to fight over Bolton.
I can’t blame Bolton for being a bit hacked off right now, first a loss to Reading whilst looking for Premiership points to stay in the title race, and now this…
Yeah, well… the current Congress probably wouldn’t approve him, and the incoming Congress definitely wouldn’t, so Bush can’t show his contempt for the will of the people’s elected officials again, not this time. I suppose he could afford to pay Bolton’s salary out of pocket, but even Bush doesn’t have that kind of chutzpah. Probably.
Bush hasn’t had to work with Congress, since it’s been willing to do his bidding these six years, for the most part. He could usually get what he wanted, usually under duress. Bush’s problem is that political skills only extend to working with pliant and compliant legislative bodies. The Democrats in the Texas legislature were easy for Bush to work with; they weren’t far off from the Republicans there, ideologically. When Bush was faced with a narrowly Democratic Senate for a year and a half, his only tactic was to run roughshod over them; you never saw him resorting to compromise, as narrow as the numeric advantage was.
The new Congress will give us a better idea as to what kind of a politician Bush is. Even with a friendly Congress, he had to beat and thrash them to get his will accomplished. Now that both houses of Congress are hostile, Bush is going to have to work extra hard, and I don’t think he’s up for the job. He’ll probably drag out some other right-wing jackass to embarrass us at the UN, but sooner or later he’s going to realize that such obstructionism will only hurt him. A little obstruction is fine; that’s called principle. But too much obstruction is self-defeating. Those who like Bush might say he’s got too much principle, to paint him in the best possible light. Me, I’d say this style of governing is better described as “going down with the ship.” Anchors aweigh!
Not to be an apologist or anything, but has Bolton’s performance been that bad? I haven’t been watching all that closely, but it seems that Bush has worked better with the UN during Bolton’s watch than before. What did he do during his appointment that caused this much bitterness. (Yes, I know his appointment was unpopular, but I haven’t seen much from him that would justify it. He seemed to be a fairly reasonable voice on Iran and North Korea. What am I missing?)
Could be worse – the day after after the midterm election, Hugh Hewitt noted on his blog that Santorum is now available for a SCOTUS seat, should one open up.
Reading through Hewitt’s stuff on that link, I think the problem isn’t so much cognitive dissonance as it is that he apparently lives on a completely different planet than the rest of us, but all the politicians have the same names as our politicians.
