National Review makes the argument that President Bush should make a recess appointment of John Bolton as UN Ambassador. I would hope it wouldn’t come to that, but it seems clear that the Democrats have no intention of stopping their obstructionist filibusters, and the only way to fill the position is to make a recess appointment.
The charges against Bolton are shameful – shameful on the part of the Democrats. The accusation about intelligence intercepts and the like are nothing more than a smokescreen. The allegations about Bolton’s temper are laughable – if occasionally being rude or mean to a subordinate disqualifies one from government service than every single member of Congress should resign from government immediately.
It is clear that the Democrats do not and never did have any intention of following through with their agreement on the use of the filibuster. The Democrats only strategy is mindless and relentless opposition, and they will dig up whatever dirt they can, no matter how tenuous, in order to hold up the President’s agenda. The Senate Democrats have no intention of performing their Constitutionally-mandated duty to “advise and consent” — instead it has become “obstruct and obfuscate.”
If it takes a recess appointment to get a qualified candidate like Bolton to fill that position, then so be it.
If the Democrats were smart, they would have bit their tongue and confirmed Bolton with “deep reservations.” This would have helped them in the PR department following the “compromise of the moderates” and still left the toxic and self-destructive Bolton to embarrass the Republicans in the very near future. Bolton epitomizes the worst boss that everyone has ever had, and is about as popular with the public as diarrhea.
No matter how much spin the fringe right unloads about Bolton, even red-state voters are wise enough to realize that a red-faced psychopath is not the best person to put in our nation’s top diplomatic position. The only reason you’re defending Bolton is because he shares your interest in disassembling the United Nations and pitting America versus the rest of the world. A confirmed Bolton would become a lightning rod for criticism, and the inevitable radical ramblings that come out of his mouth would be a gift that keeps on giving for Democrats. The fact that Reid and the Dems can’t see that shows me the party is far from politically-skilled enough to have a reasonable chance at regaining power anytime soon.
“a red-faced psychopath is not the best person to put in our nation’s top diplomatic position. ”
Mark, I’m sure you have something to back up these outrageous statements with hmmm? Perhaps you’re privy to some psychiatric reports that the rest of us haven’t seen? Besides, the preferred terminology is “sociopath”. Get with the program.
Bolton is guilty of being undiplomatic. But then the United Nations is guilty of being astoundingly undiplomatic, so it would appear that they really deserve each other.
What’s so stupid about all of this is that if Bolton’s nomination really were quashed for good, Bush would turn around and nominate somebody just like John Bolton again. What are the whiny Democratrs gonna do, try to block every single nominee that Bush puts up for UN Ambassador?
A red-faced sociopath?
Well, then he’d fit right in at the UN, wouldn’t he. All he’d need to do is assist in the massive embezzlement of hundreds of millions in of dollars worth of humanitarian aid and he’d be just one of the boys…
Actually, Eyedoc, about the only thing Mark did get right is his use of the term “psychopath,” as “sociopath” is a relic of the 70s, when psychologists were still blaming psychopathy on sociological causes. In fact, the primary scale used today for assessing the level of psychopathy an individual exhibits is the “PCL-R,” or the Psychopathy Checkist – Revised. Of course, nothing I’ve read about Bolton suggests that he is a psychopath, but that doesn’t seem to stop the uneducated from labeling others with terms which they don’t understand…