I have had enough of Joe Biden and his "brilliant" ideas. I don't want to hear any more "brilliant" ideas from him about how to win in Iraq. I certainly do not want to hear about what a great UN rep Mr. "Orphanages are wonderful" and Mr. "they made me sit in the back of the plane" would be.

I think it's an interesting idea. While I've opposed the Bolton nomination from the get-go (as a Republican), I do think that the Administration is correct to push for certain reforms at the UN. As I wrote back in June when the Gingrich-Mitchell report came out, "As the first order of business in response to the Gingrich-Mitchell report, President Bush ought to withdraw John Bolton's name from consideration and replace it with someone who will be able to carry through with reforms at the United Nations. They're too important to entrust to Yosemite Sam."

Biden might be onto something here ... but of course, you realize now that it's been discussed even somewhat favorably by some Bolton opponents, it will never happen. Wouldn't be prudent, you know.

...might be in conflict with the same Newt who might be running hard right to win his party's nomination in 08. It would be like a smarter, smoother, more effective Bolten supported by Biden.

I don't think it makes much difference who is at the UN.  Seems to me there are two choices:

1. a 'good' guy (like Danforth) who Bush doesn't want and won't support which will undermine his/her ability to work at the UN.  Bush will continue to do whatever Jesus tells him to.

2. a 'bad' guy (like Bolton or Newt) who Bush does want and who will actually speak for the Pres at the UN and press the admin's disastrous foreign policy agenda, i.e., what Jesus tells Bush to do.  

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting Bolton.  I'm all for 'getting' any of these suckers, just on principle.  But I don't think it's going to result in a better foreign policy outcome for the U.S.  I say send Newt -- might keep him thoroughly balled up for some time to come.  And I don't think it'll change much what's going to happen anyway.

Also getting Newt under oath might be fun.  Especially if he's part of the Plame Affair.

As for UN reform -- I'd put my money on the UN being pretty well reform-proof.  Let Newt beat his head against that wall.  Can you imagine trying to reform an organization like the UN -- bureaucrats from 140+ nations?!  I've never heard anyone actually spell out what "UN reform" means.  Our UN ambassador can veto stuff and through our weight around, but I don't think we have any real control over the UN bureaucracy.  Hell, I still hear congressmen saying that we could balance OUR budget if we could get rid of "waste, fraud and abuse."  We can't reform our own bureaucracy, but one guy's going to fix the UN?

He has been a speer carrier in the Get Joe Wilson program

Aren't you taking the nazi-mongering a bit too far?

Unlike Bolton, the problem with Newt is not his ability to play nicely with others, think creatively, and work with ideological opposites.  Newt can do all of these things and more, when it suits him.  The problem with Newt, of course, is that he's a slippery political opportunist who shifts his political stripes whenever he sniffs power.  Over the years he's worn the government reformer hat, the corrupt leader hat, the neocon hat, the academic hat, and even (as Ivo notes) the bipartisan moderate hat.  He's shown flashes of brilliance in most of these roles...but he's always undermined by his limitless arrogance and ambitions, and his willingness to "go corrupt" at the drop of a hat.  Which is why he's not holding office today. 

Put Newt in place at the UN, get his ambitious juices flowing, and he will soon be angling for power and control with his signature smug self-importance, as he always does.  If only the boy could use his powers for good...

As for Biden, I don't hate the guy so much as pity him (yes, I know he's owned by MBNA, but he is the Deleware Senator, after all).  Like a moderate, wonkish version of Rick Santorum, Joe longs for the good old days, when things were right in America.  Instead of dreaming of Santorum's barefoot and pregnant housewives and closeted gays, of course, Joe harkens back to the days when the Senate was dignified and Washington politicians were more or less allies, regardless of their party affiliation. 

For Joe, a show of non-partisanship - any show of non-partisanship - equals legitimacy and honesty.  I always find his innocent lack of political cynicism kind of touching...he just can't bring himself to believe that Republicans are lying to his face.  He might be in denial, but it's a cute sort of denial.  

It doesn't surprise me that he would praise Gingrich for his work on the Task Force on the United Nations.  Sadly, Joe forgets all the sleazy things Gingrich has done over the years too easily.  Just as he forgets how the Bush White House has burned him time and time again, knowing he'll always return for more punishment.  It's just Joey being Joey.

Joe missed his chance, unfortunately.  There was a time when the political calculus made a Biden presidential run a reasonable idea...but that time has vanished.  Bipartisanship is dead.  Dignity in Washington is dead.  Going for the middle is dead.  Unlike John McCain, who knows how to use bipartisanship as a political tool, Joe's problem is that he actually believes in the idea.  He needs to realize that the "moderates" across the aisle are not his friends and that the men in the White House laugh at the sputtering outrage he spews everytime his demands are ignored. 

Newt Gingrich is not your friend, Joe.  I wish we lived in a world where he could be...I really do...but he's not.  One day you'll wake up realize that.  Sure, the Democratic Party will be a little bit stronger when this happens...but the world will have lost another idealist to the relentless drag of cynicism.  I, for one, will be a little bit sad...

Via Digby, this was Biden's "tough questioning" of Karen Hughes in her recent confirmation hearing:

“Mr. Chairman, I regret that previous commitments prevent me from attending the confirmation hearing this morning.

I am particularly interested in and supportive of the nomination of Karen Hughes to be undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. What this job requires, among other things, is continuity. The last two undersecretaries have stayed six and 18 months, respectively.

I met with the nominee yesterday and understand that, barring unforeseen circumstances, she is willing to stay through the president’s term.

I believe that she is highly qualified because of her professional background, and, importantly, enjoys the full confidence of the president and the secretary of state...

...Classic Joe.  So concerned with the smooth operation of the inner working of the Bush Administration