Great post! It made my day. Never go up against a Cecilian when death is on the line! 
Playing devil’s advocate, and will surprise some people who thought they might prediet my reactions 
Both filibusters and recess appointments are within the rules and there is precedent for both. Both parties have done it. I question the wisdon of selecting Bolton instead of someone with a better reputation in the “anger management” department, but all presidents try to appoint whoever will say what is desired. An ambassador is a “mouthpiece”.
That said, Bush was well within his rights to use recess, to appoint the person he wants.
Or a Sicilian either.
If he wants Bolton, fine. I doubt that there is anyone Bush would nom that would be great at the job. He made Condi Rice Sec of State. She’s smart and all but she doesn’t strike me as diplomatic.
Just remember this “up or down vote” stuff when the Dems have control of the senate.
In my opinion, while it was certainly well within Bush’s rights to use a recess appointment to get Bolton in, it seems to me that in this particular case, given the amount of opposition, the fact that it wasn’t just the Democrats that opposed him, and the fact that the White House would not turn over various documents that the Senate requested, this particular appointment was one that should have been allowed to get it’s chance with the Senate or fail. This seems to me like Bush is the one getting all upset that the Senate does something other than rubberstamp every appointment he makes. I think, to the extent that people even notice or care, that Bush will come out of this looking a little worse than the Democrats in the Senate, especially if the Dems can make the case that they would have given Bolton an up or down vote had the White House supplied the information they wanted (which may or may not be true, but it certainly can’t be disproven now).
Forty-plus senators is a handful?
Support for Bush or for Bolton?
CNN: Bush’s approval rating hits all-time low
MSNBC: Is it appropriate for President Bush to bypass the Senate and appoint John Bolton to be U.N. ambassador?
Yes 27%
No 73%
My bad. Should have been: “don’t support Bush’s perogative to appoint Bolton.”
An internet poll? Surely you jest…
But if you take them seriously, here’s the FoxNews poll: What is your view of recess appointments?
62%: they are someimes necessary
15%: ambivalent
16%: don’t like them
Yeah, cause the Republicans never in recorded history done anything like that. Green slips, a figment of our collective imaginations, previous filibisters, hysterical ravings. C’mon, this is all well within estabished Congressional precedent. It’s neither extraordinary nor surprising, given that the only tool the minority has left any more to resist the tyranny of the majority is the filibuster.
And Bolton just OOZES jerkhood. Don’t want him, don’t need him … I’m proud of our Dem Senators and their Republican allies for forcing Bushco to go the recess route.
If you are going to have a parlimentary system, why just go with majority rules?
Yeah, but do the American people support Bolton? Has there been any kind of poll to determine whether the American people think Bolton is an asshole? Because I think most Americans have that opinion of him. Even a lot of hard-core Republican partisans think Bush is an asshole, I suspect … but he’s Bush’s asshole, which makes him … kissable, in their eyes.
Should read: Even a lot of hard-core Replican partisans think Bolton is an asshole …
:smack: D’oh!
The poll numbers were posted as a specific response to the quote “it’s not clear to me that the American people don’t supprt him,” and not as an overall rationale for disallowing recess nominations.
Presumably, Bolton’s installation is more important as gesture than as effect. His nomination by itself affirmed the Bushivik contempt for the UN, his appointment by special means only emphasizes the obvious. In that regard, it is an entirely appropriate appointment, it expresses GeeDub’s petulant and grudging attitude towards the UN. Like most conservatives, he simultaneously refuses to surrender any power to the UN while holding it in contempt for its impotence.
This is not news to the UN delegations, they will not be shocked. And when Bolton publicly pees in their Cheerios, it will have no shock value so far as they are concerned. And they are diplomats, they’ve eaten the warm stinky Cheerios with a smile before, else they wouldn’t be there.
So as a practical matter, Bolton is of minor consequence save as a gesture: a gesture from certain and invulnerable power, the “calm confidence of a Methodist with four aces”. It is the bitch-slap from a Leader of Men backed by a solid and unwavering loyalty of the vast majority of the people.
The man is bluffing, and doesn’t even know it. Which would be entertaining if I weren’t an American, or were viewing from distant historical perspective. Alas.
But you know what, even if the people don’t support him, sometimes the President has to do what is right. Probably a good example of this is the mention earlier that Thurgood Marshal was appointed this way to the federal bench. Sometimes the President has to lead. Of course, where he leads us is the important question. Will Bolton be a good rep for the US? Let’s just say, I have my doubts.
I have my doubts too. A diplomat should know when to bite his tongue as necessary. Bolton is, shall we say, far too “outspoken” and short tempered (according to the “rumor mill”).
Was there this much outrage over Bill Lan Lee’s recess appointment?
Just wonderin’.
I doubt that the majority of the American people know anything about him, or even what post he’s being appointed to. Is he related to Michael? 
But I’m pretty sure the American people, as a whole, have a low opinion of the UN.
This is really a minor issue. The UN moves at speads that would make a glacier seem like Formula 1 car. He’ll barely have time to set up an office, on UN time, before the next President gets to appoint someone else.
Frankly, I’d vote against the guy just because of his silly mustache.
Did Bill Lan Lee lie in his sworn affidavit to congress?
Also curious.
By which The Leader reassures his base that he will send someone to the effete and impotent UN who can thwart its plans for world domination.
Of course. But there was a question raised as to whether or not the people did indeed support the President. Not that the support of the people is essential, or even matters, but the question did come up in the debate, and someone posted a poll showing the public’s level of support (to whatever extent you might find the poll valid). Basically, posting poll results was a valid response to the side question of whether the American people support Bush in this, with no expectation that it is really relevent to the overall question of whether or not Bush should have used a recess appointment.