Will bolten finally be ignored.  Or will he use his poistion to advocate that Iran should be invaded?

This is a great point to raise.

Bush's steadfast insistence on Bolton for this particular job really still puzzles me.

I simply have the feeling that we do not have the total story yet.

For example, he was perfectly willing to drop Bernard Kerik like a lead balloon. And I think the loyalty meme is overdone with Bush. That's with his closest advisors, the people he works with day in, day out, or has known for a long time. On everyone else, he goes by gut instinct combining something similar to ESP about a person's "character" with his own goals or beliefs. (Recall the stories about finally meeting Putin;) it's sort of a pragmatism mixed with hocus pocus.

So what's the real story? Why does he want him in this job so bad?

About the only good thing, IMO, about Bolton's appointment is that it gets him permanently out of his old job.

This is how many people in Texas felt about Bush becoming President...it at least got him out of Texas.

While James Wolcott is not approaching Bolton's nomination with the er... seriousness of other analysts, it's still as close to the truth as anyone.  With the serious point: how long before we're reading about the first Bolton blow-out in the NY tabloids?

Well there really isn't one, but as close as I get it this; Bolton will not be able to stop from making a ass of himself in front of the entire world, there will be no where to hide at this level. Especially for someone with as loud a mouth as Near-Ambassodore Bolton.

This could play well for the Democarts plans to make the 2006 elections a reforrendum on Republican control of the United States. He is a quentisensal insider with these guys and there will be no way to distance themselves from him after this.

Could that be the plan? I know it is paranoid, but is is possbile that they are sending him there so the world will revile us and that will give the the Republicans away to rally the "True Amrerican" vote one more time? Nah, that can't be it, can it?

I heard on the radio this morning that Bolton would be the first recess appointment at the UN since 1948. Any historians out there know of that 1948 case and what effect the recess appointment had on his effectiveness?

1948 was when the UN was founded. Unless they screwed the context of their comment up, I assume that NPR was saying that no UN Ambassador has ever been appointed during a recess.

Hindsight being 20/20, I wonder if the Senate Dems should not have just dropped their filibuster and forced the Republicans to hold their noses and vote for this guy.  If enough "moderates" couldn't stomach it and he were rejected, then we wouldn't be in this position.  If he were approved, then they'd have to shoulder the blame for the coming struggles.  

Two comments:

1) Bush really believes Bolton will help his Iran project off the ground (ie, invasion).
2) Bolton represents the human embodiment of Bush's middle finger displayed to the press last week. He is giving his finger to the senate dems and the rest of the world obviously.

Given the most recent opinion polls, I'm not sure anyone is expecting GOP gains in the 2006 elections. On the contrary, a good portion of the country (idealogically moderate, but rightfully unimpressed by Kerry and the impotent band of recent congressional candidates) will be happy to back not only reasonable, well minded democratic congressmen in 06, but a president to match in 2008.

The so-perceived "conservative stranglehold" on America is flimsy; my Republican friends can even admit that, given a non-Kerry candidate, the Democrats would have won the last election going away.  Bush too, seems sold on the vigor and longevity of the current Repupublican regime; his Bolton nomination speaks to this.  Maybe I'm alone in hoping, but public-opinion  blunders like this (along with impending blunders like his stem cell veto) should help pave the way for Democratic gains in the upcoming elections.

Greg Roach,

The UN was founded in 1945. Here, from the US mission's web site, are the first three ambassadors:

Edward R. Stettinius, Jr. 12/45 - 6/46
Herschel V. Johnson* 6/46 - 1/47
Warren R. Austin 1/47 - 1/53

None of these was appointed in 1948. Johnson was a charge, which may mean he was not a full ambassador. Was he a recess appointment? Remember, Truman faced a hostile Republican Congress.

Hmmm. My quick google check was flawed. (along with my recall of history) Damn.

You are most certainly correct. You have my apologies.

[turning a bright shade of red as I type this...]

It is really hard to see what options (other than recess appointment) Bush has available:

1.  If Senate Democrats believe that Bolton would fail in an up/down vote, then they should stop fillibustering the man and let a floor vote happen.  A recess appointment is just an end run around the fillibuster and hardly any less democratic.

2.  (Surrender) If Bush allows a fillibuster to derail his choice, he will hand the Democrats a victory and see his presidency weakened.

3.  (Attack) Republicans in the Senate could use the so called nuclear option--this would be risky.

Option 1 is the least confrontational way of dealing with the issue short of surrender or war.

ITS ABOUT SENATE 06, NOT ABOUT THE U.N. 05

(remember the slogan "its about economy, stupid.") 

1.  When Pres. Bush announced he will make a recess appointment, the issue became about Senate 06, not the U.N. 05.  (Sen. Reid told in the interview with BuzzFlass, that Pres. will make the recess appointment.  I also predicted, based on Pres. Bush's M.O., he will make the appointment).

Now imagine the ads running againt the Senate Dem in 2006.

a "SENATE DEMOCRATS ARE OBSTRUCTIONIST"

b. "SENATE DEMOCRATS DO NOTHING BUT FILIBUSTER"

c. "SENATE DEMOCRATS - A PARTY OF 'NO, NO, NO' "

d. "SENATE DEMOCRATS ARE AGAINST REFORMING THE U.N"

All the Rep. need is to tip 5% of the voters (Democrat, independent, swing) against the Dem in close races.

2.  It worked well against Sen. Daschle - the most powerful Democrat, the Minority Leader - he lost.

3.  Once the recess appointment became evident, Sen. Biden could have (and should have) agreed on Bolton's vote, and forced every Senator to (actually) vote on it.

But he chose to put his 08 ambition first, ahead of the Senate 06 election.  While in 2006 the Senate Democrats will spend additional money, time, manpower defening against the charges (see # 1 above) Sen. Biden (D-MBNA/Credit Cards, et al) will be working his way for 2008.  Hmmm, maybe he really is "the smartest man in the Senate."

4. 2006 Senate Elections - Democrats:

(a) President Bush is not running for the Senate in 2006, but Senators do.

(b) . In the Senate elections, people don't vote for
the President's actions (i.e. a recess appointment). For example,FYI, Pres. Clinton made 140 recess appointments, but it was never a Senate election issue.  Pres. Reagan made more than 260 recess appointments, but it was not an issue in a Senae election, either.

(c). In the Senate elections, people don't vote for the President's actions (i.e. a recess appointment). Otherwise, all the Senators from the Red States would be Rep., all the Senators from the Blue States would be Dem.

(d). However, in the Senate elections, people vote against anyone who is either an obstructionist or is perceived to be (right or wrong) an obstructionist.  Ask Sen. Daschle who was portrayed as "Mr. Obstructionist."

5.  2006 Senate Elections - Republicans:

The Senate Rep.  got a pass.  Sen. Chafee will say, "I never got an OPPORTUNITY to vote, because the Dems didn't let an up-or-down-vote."

Same goes for Sen. Murkovski, Hagel, Voinoich (on the floor), McCain,  Thune etc.

What is a more important victory?

(a) CAFTA - (long lasting event, bread and butter issue)
(b) The Gun Shield Law (long lasting event, safety issue)
(c) Bankruptcy Bill (long lasting event, bread and butter issue)
(d) Bolton (temporary event, who will retire after Pres. Bush leaves office or even sooner in October 2006).

7.  QUESTION FOR SEN. BIDEN (who purports to be for the little guy).

Q: You filibustered (cloture vote) against Bolton, but WHY DIDN'T YOU FILIBUSTER AGAINST
(a) CAFTA, which affects real people with real families losing real jobs. A bread and butter issue.
(b) the Gun Shield Law? (safety issue)
(c) the Bankruptcy Bill? It affects low income and middle income people. Another Bread and butter issue.

Hindsight being 20/20, I wonder if the Senate Dems should not have just dropped their filibuster and forced the Republicans to hold their noses and vote for this guy.

As far as I know there was no Democratic filibuster of Bolton. A filibuster is when individuals keep talking about anything at all just to keep the Senate from shutting down the debate and taking a vote. That is not what was happening. Instead, there were requests for relevant papers, needed to determine just how bad an appointment this is, and those requests were never complied with. Bush is calling it a filibuster only because that word has more negative connotations than just about any other word when it comes to Senate confirmation of appointments.

The United States Senate held thorough confirmation hearings, and a majority of United States senators agree that he is the right man for the job. Yet, because of partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators, John was unfairly denied the up or down vote that he deserves. President Bush, from today's Bypass Ceremony.

Bush's bird was flipped at that portion of the democrat party that insisted on filibustering the nomination.  The "Senate" majority was prepared to confirm. - WBC

1. And you claim that Ed's post was a rehash of Democratic talking points? Hey WBC, what color is the kettle?

2. And while you're checking will you take a look at President Bush's hands for me? He seems to think that he has 41 digits.(or 42, if you count Sen. George Voinovich (R-US)).

I think your #3 is the primary impetus.  That and the fact that Bush doesn't give a shit about the UN anyway.

I don't think that Bolton will distract from Rove/Plame.  Actually, I kind of expected Bush to hold out on naming Bolton until later in the recess so as to maximize the distraction, i.e., the press would be on pins and needles about him.  Now Bolton, like Roberts, will quickly become yesterday's news and he can start planning his nastiness.  BTW, if Bush is not impeached in the meantime, I predict Bolton's ambassadorship will be confirmed at the beginning of the next Congress.  

Why does he want him in this job so bad?

For the same reasons that Veruca Salt wanted a trained squirrel.

(reply to #30)

the truly beautiful thing about George Bush is that he beats the socks off of you people

Precisely, it's all just a big beltway parlor game, even to the point of conjuring up an entire war simply to "be seen as a commander-in-chief." As we know from former members of his own staff, Bush's oval office "policy" sessions consist of nothing more than plotting the media ploy of the week: grabbing a suitably manipulable issue and driving it as far right as possible, like a hand of poker. What's at stake? Nothing, only the thrill of the game itself. Any perceived reality may at any moment be declared inoperable, subject to changing perceptions of perceptions of perceptions. The fact is that these people are pathological narcissists: they are incapable of seeing world as anything but a mirror of themselves. The mundane remainder of humanity is "you people" -- presumably we satanists who of course are invisible in a mirror.

Thomas,

"Its not about "hindsight being 20/20"  It was clear Bush will use the recess.

------------------------------------------------ 

1. Bolton would have gone to the UN, especially with a recess appointment

(a)  It was clear from day one that Pres. Bush will send Bolton to the UNI, whether through Senate vote or through a recess.

(i)   Bush does what he says, and says what he does. (Agree or disagree).

(ii)  BUsh values loyalty, and is loyal too his supporters.  Unlike Clinton who abandoned Lenni Guivier (sp.?) for the DOJ post.

(iii)  Bush owed the necons and delivered to them.

(b)  The Sen. Democrats knew Bush will use the recess.  Harry Reid said in his interview a short time back (before the recess) that Bush will use the recess in the next 5 weeks.

 2.  As soon as Pres. Bush said he will use the recess powers to appoint, the Dem must have said, "let's have a vote on the senate."  Sen. THune, Voinovich, Chafee said they would vote against.  (Lucky them, they didn't have to actually vote).

Sen. Hagel, Murkovski, Lott were "unhappy" about the recess appointment.  The heat would have been on Sen. McCain and the Gang of 14.

3.   "Its the 2006 Senate Stupid, Not The UN 2005"

4.  Now imagine the ads running againt the Senate Dem in 2006.

a "SENATE DEMOCRATS ARE OBSTRUCTIONIST"

b. "SENATE DEMOCRATS DO NOTHING BUT FILIBUSTER"

c. "SENATE DEMOCRATS - A PARTY OF 'NO, NO, NO' "

d. "SENATE DEMOCRATS ARE AGAINST REFORMING THE U.N"

(1) It does not matter whether the charges are valid or not, true or false, they will drive your negatives up.

(2)  The Senate Democrats will be forced to
(a) spend additional money, time, manpower defending against the charges (see # 1 above). As if there is plenty of money, time, manpower to go around;
(b) play defense.

5.  Not a good way to start 06.  Now you know why the Dems keep on losing.  They don't know how to wage a battle and when to shift the tactics:
(a) you put up a fight, (b) when the circumstances change - Bush will use the recess powers - you change your tactics, (c) Biden should have called  for the Senate vote.

6.  Sen. Biden - the point man for the Bolton matter - lost big.  He does not deserve to be the nominee (for many reasons, including this one).  And he won't be the nominee! 

'Trolls' are not tolerated at TPMCafe. Any comment may be deleted at the discretion of the TPMCafe staff. And trolls themselves will have their accounts revoked.

Bolton was filibustered.  A filibuster is the refusal of the opposition party to vote for Cloture to cut off debate so a vote may be taken.  It used to be that the party or individual was made to talk endlessly during a filibuster.  When they ran out of gas, cloture was obtained and the issue received a vote.  A filibuster would effectivly shut down the Seante to other business until the issue was decided. 

Some time ago(perhaps 2000?, but I am not sure)  the Senate entered into an agreement where one side could simply declare a filibuster and the Senate would move on to other matters.  By this change the Senate is now open to this type of filibuster that was not traditionally used on nominees and appointees.  Twice they have held cloture votes on the Bolton nomination and twice they could not obtain the necessary votes.

Regardless of the reasons for this, not obtaining documents etc.., this is a filibuster.

Your analysis would hold true, if Bolton wasn't such an asshole.

If he was a candidate worthy of appointment, the Dems certainly would have to answer for their "obstructionist" position.

But, no one but Bush thinks he's any good.

Most UN appointments go through unanimously. Here, even some Republicans have broken ranks. My guess is many more Republicans realize Bolton's wrong for the job, but are too indebted to James Dobson or just too chickenshit to say so.

Here's a theory: 

The next big issue for the UNSC is Iran, which is likely to be soon referred to it (to the neocons' delight). The US will push for sanctions and once again the US will lose at the UN (China/Russia oppose them; and the EU thinks it's dumb).

This is where Bolton kicks in (in both senses of the word). That bruising/screaming/terrorizing  freakozoid will singlehandedly  turn a US defeat into a victory in the eyes of the Bush electorate by doing his well-worn Michael Savage temper tantrum routine. This is the new strategy of the freepers:  It's OK to lose the war, as long as you kick and scream a lot. Be prepared: We're going to see more and more of that.

Indeed.  They are drunk on power in general, and in particularly they are determined to enlarge the powers of the presidency quite dramatically.  Checks and balances are, well, so damn democratic!  By?  For? Of?  Fuggeddabahtit!

Bush whipped you people in 200, 2002, and 2004. Do you perhaps see a trend developing?

This is offtopic and a troll. Please don't insert non sequiturs like this into discussions.

George Bush is a demonstrated coward and draftdodger, who is largely supported in his war efforts by cowards who "support the troops" by putting $2.95 magnets on their cars while refusing to enlist and fight for a cause they claim to believe in. His appointment of Bolton is in keeping with his character, which is well-described by a line from a Somerset Maugham novel:

Like all men of weak character, he placed great emphasis on not changing one's mind.

One of two things will now happen. Bolton, driven by overweening hubris, will be so egregious in his new position that an international scandal will result. Or, recognized as a loser by the international community, he will be ignored and so rendered completely ineffectual. And I guess there's a chance that item two will be followed by item one, thereby allowing the President to claim an "own goal."

The United States has survived bad Presidents in the past. It may well survive this one. The appointment of Bolton simply demonstrates that Bush is already a lame duck President who no longer has control of his party.

mp

1.  According to you, the following future scenario is likely:

Rep:  "Dems are obstructionist."

Dem: "No, we are not. Bolton is an asshole"

Rep:  "Dems are also  filibustering."

Dem: "No, we are not. Bolton is an asshole"

Rep:  "Dems are  also  the party of 'no, no, no."

Dem: "No, we are not. Bolton is an asshole"

Rep:  "Dems are  also  against much needed reform at the U.N."

Dem: "No, we are not. Bolton is an asshole"

 
It does not look good.  Or they can spend a long, boring, detailed explanation about the parlimentary procedures, about documents, about this and that.  Politics is not about "long, boring, detailed," its about simple.  For example - "its the economy stupid" - short, concise, brilliant.

2.  Whether Bolton is an "asshole" or not, is irrelevant in the hardball politics.  Victory counts, and the Dems will (a) be on the defensive,  (b) will spend much needed  money/manpower/time rebutting the attack, (c) have their negatives go up.

3.  Ask Sen. Daschle.  Who was he during the campaign - "Mr. Obstructionist."  And he lost.

4.  Winner - Sen. Rep.

Losers - Sen. Dem and Senator Biden 

(response to #50)

Surely banality is one sure index of trollhood in which a clever intellectual like WBC would score highly, along with obsessive back & white thinking, but equally accurate is the Oxford English Dictionary:

Troll

-an ugly cave-dwelling being.

Liberal

-willing to respect and accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; favorable to individual rights and freedoms; favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform; concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience (originally meaning "suitable for a free man": from Latin liberalis).

Indeed, WBC you are definitely not one of "us."

Bush probably feels like this will be forgotten in a couple of weeks and he thinks he's right so he does it.  And it will be forgotten in a couple weeks.  But it's a move that adds to the general sense the Bush's ability to lead is weakening.  The problem for Dems is that most people believe their opposition is based solely on desire for partisan gain.  It's a case of the boy crying wolf one too many times.

Huh?

There really doesn't need to be a long dragged-out explaination.

I think you missed the part where I said people KNOW Bolton is wrong for the job.

The President circumvented the Senate. Bolton is the President's and the Republican's loss. Not ours.

But if you're going to simply repeat the same post for a third time, please don't bother. I got your point. I just completely disagree.

What Bush understands about today's political calculus is that winning trumps everything.  It's just like sports.  Manny Ramirez says he hates Boston last week, demands a trade from the Red Sox, refuses to play when the team needs him, and gets booed lustily by the fans.  What does he do the next night?  Knocks in the winning run.  Fans go nuts.  They love Manny again.

Bush understands that 90% of American don't care how "unprecedented" a recess appointment for a UN Ambassador is.  He uses every weapon in his arsenal on every issue, every time, and the only thing that matter is whether he wins.  While this might be destructive to the republic and unwise for him politically, the only option for Democrats is to respond in kind.  No compromise on anything, ever.

Actually, I just saw some photographic evidence making it pretty clear that it was definitely a thumbs up and not a bird.

Not that Bush doesn't figuratively give 99% of the world's population the bird with virtually everything he does, but he didn't literally flip anyone off this time.

" Hey, buddy. You got me all wrong."

No, my little friend, I've got you pegged. 

"Dissent Protects Democracy"

As I've pointed out before, dissent is a neutral concept.  Dissent protects democracy only to the extent it is useful and constructive.  George Wallace was "dissenting" when he promised "segregation forever."  His promise did nothing to protect democracy.

Lately, you democrats seem to do nothing other than dissent.  In the case of John Bolton, the left went into paroxyms of outrage over absolutely nothing, demonizing a man who had done nothing wrong simply because he had "dissented" from the received leftist "wisdom" that the UN can be relied upon to produce collective security for the United States.  Now, all of your rabid "dissent" notwithstanding, Mr. Bolton is our ambassador to the United Nations and you people are left impotently gnashing your teeth.  And while your outrage becomes even deeper, the nomination will prove to be propitious, the American people will move on (as if many paid any attention to the kerfuffle in the first place) and the GOP, ably assisted by the strategic genius of Karl Rove, will wax you in the next elections.

The greatest strength of the GOP is the short attention span of you liberals. 

"Expected Gains" 

1.  The Democrats had about 60-62 seats in the Senate 15-20 years ago. (Its an approximation, b/c I don't have the exact numbers)

To day, the Dems have 44 seats (Plus 1 Independent).
That's a steep decline.

 
2.  Willism.com had a great looking chart in the last 2-3 weeks showing the decline, but for some reason, I can't find it.

3.  And wait till you see the Reps hit the Senate Dems with the "obstructionist," "filibustering," "no-no-no," "opposed to the UN reform" ads in 2006.  The Sen. Biden made a huge blunder in the "Bolton nomination."  The blogs are already making fun of biden.

"Its the Senate 06 Stupid, Not John Bolton and the U.N. 05"

 
4.  If you are ridiculed, that will doom your campaign, even if you are biden.   Imagine if the Dems give the nomination to Biden and have Bob Shrum (8 time Presidential loser) manage his campaign? Never say never, because stranger things have happened before.

5.  Why would the Dems hire the same highly paid, loser consultants to manager their campaigns?  (Sorry, Mr. Shrum)