Jim Leach is my favorite Republican.

Not that it is a particularly long list.

Talk is cheap as the old cliché goes and Bush will talk bi-partisanship but act in a partisan manner. His dump Rumsfeld decision was made long before November 8th and it seems very apparent that all the troubles in Iraq will be blamed on Rumsfeld. This imperial White House subscribes to the philosophy that the king can do no wrong, it’s his ministers that make the errors.

Bolton is another divisive figure like Rumsfeld and should not be placed in a highly visible international position like US Ambassador to the UN. I agree, Chaffee or Leach would make good appointments. Though I hope Chaffee changes parties and runs in four years for Governor of Rhode Island, he knows how to work in a bi-partisan manner.

In my opinion the last thing anyone could say about either Pelosi or Reid is that they are stupid. I'm quite sure they knew Bush was lying as usual with his promises of "working with the Democratic Congress", but they are certainlly smart enough to know that the couldn't immediately laugh at his preposterous statement. They had to pretend to believe him, just as Bush was pretending to want to work with them.

Now, it is about time for the bell for round 1! I suspect both Reid and Pelosi have the gloves laced tight, and a good fight plan all ready to begin.

Hoppy in Sacramento

What a ridiculous move. Was this W's attempt to assert his independence by putting one of his own at the UN after having to accept one of Poppy's at DoD?

"The White House Obsession with John Bolton"

Clemmons may be leading us astray by placing his emphasis on the man John Bolton.

I would suggest that there's little to no evidence that Bush et als. have any interest or investment in John Bolton qua diplomat or even, qua man. The proper emphasis should be placed on Bush's deep antipathy toward, distrust of, and general dislike of the United Nations amplified by the humiliation he suffered at the hands of Bush 41ers and the United Nations in September 2002.

If he could, Bush would nominate the White House groundskeeper.

But he could nominate the groundskeeper. He can nominate whoever he wants, but he doesn't he keeps sticking with Bolton. It actually doesn't make a lot of sense because there others that Bush could nominate, besides the groundskeeper, that would be just as ideologically problematic, but would have to be treated as a "fresh face" and be given the benefit of the doubt during the bipartisan honeymoon (ugh).

On top of it, had he let the Bolton recess appointment simply lapse, few would have noticed except for those of us who follow these things. For most voters it would hardly have been news.

For some reason or other, he's committed to Bolton, and only Bolton, for the UN. Honestly, my suspicion is its just personal loyalty / pigheadedness.

But why didn't he fire Rumsfeld well before the election when it might actually have helped the GOP?

I would chalk this up to Bush's fantasy that his 'steadfastness' somehow motivates his base.

In fact both the 'steadfastness' (read stubbornness) and his fantasy of how it is percieved by his base are symptoms of his clear underlying psychosis. It's also one I suspect he shares with Dick Cheney.

Or it could just be a bone that Bush is throwing to Cheney since so much else that Cheney has pushed (like retraining Rumsfeld) is collapsing around their ears.

The two items are not mututally exclusive.

The new Bolton affront simply demonstrates that the proper stance toward the GOP on almost everything, from now until hell freezes over and the last Bush acolyte is sent to Gitmo, is a twist on the Gipper's homily: mistrust, and verify.

So many Dems have been rolled by the Bushian GOP due to underestimating the GOP's dishonesty and depravity, that you would think there'd be no surprises left.

So when Bush or his minions reach out their hands under the guise of bipartisanship or some other lofty pretext, know that their intent is to pick your pocket or worse. For the time being, when you see that hand reaching out toward you, maybe the thing to do is to get your jackboots on and stomp on it.

Sending Bolton's nomination back to the Senate after two rejections (and a third rejection more likely than ever, even before Chaffee's declaration) is either a pathetic blunder borne of hubris and ignorance, or it is a strategic ploy signalling to the recently demoralized party faithful that hubris and ignorance are still the White House's strong suit.

Either way, it is hard to see how renominating Bolton gets Bush and company anything worth the costs in political capital of slapping newly empowered Dems in the face. It would be humiliating for Nancy Pelosi to walk away from her bipartisanship-themed lunch with the pres. only to face this provocation the moment she reaches the street (GWB: "Hey Nancy, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, har har har") except for the fact that she's wearing the pants in this relationship. It's the president who looks like a rube.

The important questions are What does Bush hope to gain by doing this, and what does it say about his overall attitude/strategy in dealing with a Democratic Congress?

To me it smacks of the switcheroo he pulled on Teddy Kennedy in the NoChildLB wrangle, with the president completely indifferent to the collapse of trust or any hope of bipartisanship that resulted. At the core he seems to hold Democrats and the process of negotiation in utter contempt. That was fine (for him) when his party controlled Congress. We'll see how hubris and ignorance plays with the Dems.

Ted Bucklin

Praise Jesus for Lincoln Chaffee!! If only he had gone 'indie' like Lieberman did, he would still be the next Senator from RI. The White House sent his nomination back to the Senate for propoganda purposes, of course. "See how partisan and obstructionist the Democrats are?"

And what about that Nancy Pelosi, huh? Some people wither under the weight of newly bestowed authority. Many times that I saw Pelosi 'pre-election', I would wince a bit. She seems uncomfortable in front of the camera, defensive, reflexive. What a diffence one day makes! Her newly acquired Speaker's mantle has given her an aura and gravitas that I'd never seen before. She's grown into those shoes pretty quickly. And the best part of it is....

George W. Bush is going to get beaten by a girl!

From Clemons on the Bolton nomination:

The Administration is considering some very creative alternatives to nomination and consent.

See 10 Page legal analysis [Arnold & Porter] of what the Administration might do. They start from the Constitution and include what past Administrations have done. 

While the 10 page analysis is worth the read, here is the Clemons synopsis:

I need to consider the implications of this analysis a bit more closely -- but essentially, here are the options as I see them now.

Bolton could be recess-appointed to his current position, but he would have to work for no pay.

Alternatively, Bolton could be "nominated" to a lesser position at the United Nations -- and some are suggesting that in such a Deputy role, Bolton could be made the "Acting Ambasssador." The fact is that all of the deputy jobs that Bolton might be appointed to are 'encumbered' -- meaning people hold those positions. In addition, that appointment would also have to be submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for action, which would certainly be negative.

Another bizarre but possible White House strategy is to appoint John Bolton Deputy National Security Advisor to the President, a position NOT subject to Senate confirmation, and then make him "Acting Ambassador to the United Nations."

Some believe that this is the strategy that White House General Counsel Harriet Myers is trying to cook up. However, this would cross many legal lines and certainly be litigated and challenged by a number of U.S. Senators.

When President Clinton played these games with the recess appointment and then "acting role" designation for Bill Lann Lee, the then-Republcan controlled Congress shut down the loopholes that allowed these kinds of appointment shenanigans.

John Bolton, if appointed to a non-confirmed position, does not fit one of the three allowable categories to be given an "Acting" role designation because the only role in his work history that would allow him to serve as "acting" UN Ambassador is his current role as UN Ambassador, which he received by recess appointment.

Arnold & Porter concludes that Congress did not write law that intended to give the President to circumvent the Federal Vacancies Reform Act that tied up such past loopholes.