" Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is keeping open the possibility that
President Bush will bypass the Senate to get John R. Bolton installed as U.N. ambassador temporarily if Democrats persist in holding up a confirmation vote.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan did not rule out that Bush would consider a recess appointment if the Senate does not approve Bolton’s nomination. He blamed the Democrats for “obstructing progress” by stalling a vote on Bolton."
Clearly this would, by its very nature, be a temporary measure. What political advantage does Bush garner by using it?
Secondly, President Clinton used this power when he appointed Roger Gregory to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. (I don’t know if this was the only time he used the power.)
Democrats are already attacking the administration for considering such a move. Isn’t what’s sauce for the goose sauce for the gander?
Gregory was one of a number of Clinton nominees who were never even given a hearing while Jesse Helms was Senate Judiciary Committee chairman. There was no (public) question about his ability or temperament or suitability for the job other than his party affiliation. The GOP approach in that, and in all the other hearingless nominations Clinton made, was unquestionably simple obstructionism.
The problem with the Bolton nomination is his ability, temperament, and suitability, certainly not lack of hearings (which did not result in a committee recommendation). The immediate issue is Bush’s refusal to provide requested information about {CNN talking)communications intercepts Bolton sought from the secretive National Security Agency.
They say senators have a right to that information in order to make an informed decision on Bolton, who has been accused of threatening intelligence analysts whose conclusions did not match his.
[/quote]
Well, why not, then, if there’s nothing wrong? Why the Republican obstructionism *this * time?
Bush clearly wants the guy in. If he’s already “in”, even temporarily, it’s harder for the opposition to remove him than it would be to not let him “in” at all. Once you establish the facts on the ground, you are in the power position. And the Democrats will look more like sore losers than they would otherwise.
A sneaky tactic indeed, but let’s keep in mind we’re talking about politicians here, not boy scouts.
Funny I see it more as a sign to Republicans that might vote against Bolton. It certainly would hurt Bush more having to ship Bolton back from the UN. This would scare Republicans that might take down Bolton. If democrats manage to stop the apointment it will become a defeat to the GOP not only Bush ?
Bush would certainly is going brinkmanship on this now. Pride ? Or does he really “like” Bolton this much ?
The Bushiviks are pandering to that section of thier chorus the believes as they have for fifty odd years that the UN is evil, evil, evil! These are the same people who piss and moan that all this Iraq stuff is distracting our attention from the truly crucial and significant issue of the Oil for Food “scandal”.
To hell with it, save yer ammo. If John-Boy Bolton goes to the UN, he will do one of two things: shoot his fat mouth off and embarass the Bushiviks, or shoot his fat mouth off and reveal the Bushiviks agenda. Since our reputation in the UN is unlikely to suffer…since we have no credibility therein nor do we deserve any…those are pretty small potatoes.
The Bushiviks are trying to pick a fight they can win, they need to get on the scoreboard with something. They can win this one. Let them. Get out of thier way. If they don’t keep him on a very tight leash, he will prove our point for us.
But I still want to know what part, if any, he played in mucking about with our intelligence gathering. My suspicion remains that went the Bushiviks don’t want you to know something, there is a very good reason.
No. They can do precisely as they have done, stonewall any information while claiming that the Dems are being “obstructionist”. They will almost certainly win this one, the important thing is for the Dems to get on record as opposing him, and then let it be. If he is a loose cannon roiling about on the deck of the UN, he can hardly stain our reputation, we have no credibility to lose. If he is kept tightly in check and on a short leash, then he is no more destructive than any other Bushivik mouthpiece.
Fight just enough to be clear that we oppose him. When he steps on his dick, let him have it with both barrells. If he doesn’t, so much the better.
I’ve heard speculation that Bush wants to get Bolton to the UN by July so he can torpedo US support for the UN’s nuclear regulatory commissions or somesuch, which would pave the way for marginalizing Iran and then allow the US to go ahead and do a bombing run or three.
(Sorry for the lack of details, I’m just passing along some random speculation I heard.)
I think Bush will appoint Bolton through the next one-year session of Congress - in Bolton’s case until January 2007.
After today, it is now clear that Bush can’t win this fight in the Senate. He can’t back down, and He has to stop the bleeding.
I don’t think there was anything sinister in the Bolton appointment : He was a team player, a team guy who was a total jackass completely unsuited for high government office and they have all come to realize it. They had to get him out of State, so ship him off to a place where he can’t do any harm: the UN.
This is the Bush administration’s equivalent of moving him to an inside office and making him Vice President in Charge of Making Sure that the Office Parking Space Lines are Painted White and Straight. That this turned into such a fiasco shows a. that not all Republicans think the UN post is as meaningless as the administration and b. that Bolton made many enemies on both sides of the aisle
I tend to agree with elucidator. This is small potatoes. Just wait until the first SCOTUS nomination-- that’ll be a showdown to make this look like a spit ball fight in kindergarten. Actually, just wait until the second SCOTUS nomination. That one is likely to tip the balance from where it is now. WWIII will pale in comparison.
…I would have voted for cloture, and voted against confirming Bolton. I think the guy is an ass, and unsuited to the job.
But I would have voted for cloture.
(Maybe. Perhaps, if I really were a Senator, I would eventually come to believe in the merits of using a parliamentary end-run to get results I wanted. I admit the possibility. But on my first day as a Senator, that’s what I’d do).
I’m not going to get to say this many times, so here goes: I’m with Bricker on this one. If I were a first-term Senator, I’d vote “yes” for cloture and “no” for Bolton. Second-term or later, I’d probably insist that the President hand over all the relevant information, so that the Senate could properly advise and consent.
I agree. The first one is likely to be a replacement for Rehnquist. Whether it is a direct replacement or replacing Scalia replacing Rehnquist is a minor point. This appointment will not shift the court dramatically as both men are already quite conservative. It’s the first time a liberal or moderate justice is replaced that the fireworks begin in earnest.
Yeah, why Yes on cloture? If you don’t have the information needed to make a responsible decision, you’re not ready to vote. Those trying to ramrod it through anyway need to be prevented, don’t they?
It’s not clear yet that there will be any SC retirements other than Rehnquist’s in the next 3 years. If there are, the political climate will likely not be similar. It’s changing against the RR GOP already.
