Bolton Appointment
By Montag | Related entries in General PoliticsAssociated Press: Bush Appoints Bolton As U.N. Ambassador
WASHINGTON - President Bush sidestepped the Senate and installed embattled nominee John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations on Monday…
Will there be any political consequences from this appointment?
This entry was posted on Monday, August 1st, 2005 and is filed under General Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 1st, 2005 at 10:42 am
I’m guessing probably not. Liberals may not care for Bolton, but to them the UN ambassador is small potatoes next to, say, a Supreme Court justice. I expect Bolton to be all but forgotten by the time the Roberts confirmation process begins in earnest.
August 1st, 2005 at 12:13 pm
I guess an up or down vote wasn’t as important as he made it out to be.
August 1st, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Depends upon for whom you wonder about political consequences: It probably helps build the GOP meme of Democratic obstructionism. Preventing votes on presidential nominees is largely seen as what brought down Tom Daschle.
August 1st, 2005 at 3:53 pm
Bolton is a polarizing figure, and mainly because of his own behavior. Regardless of what you think of his policies and decision, the guy rules with a hammer of stone.
If Bush thinks it’s okay to confirm somebody like that during the recess, that’s his perogative, but I think he’s going to see some backlash. I could be wrong about this, but something tells me it wasn’t a very smart political move.
August 1st, 2005 at 4:19 pm
For all the perceived political brilliance of Karl Rove, et al., there really isn’t subtlety or nuance with the Administration’s approach. It all seems to be a Woody Hayes, in-your-face, smashmouth style of politics. But hey, they’re the ones in the WH, not me.
August 2nd, 2005 at 7:44 am
I feel ya, Justin and kreiz.
Bush could have put some wind in the sails of the obstructionist argument if he’d released the documents that the Senate requested. But since he didn’t we can wonder who’s the real ‘obstructionist.’ Besides there was opposition to Bolton on both sides of the aisle.
To me, the administration is excercising its power in a very non-transparent way, and I would hope that there is political fall-out from that, but I’m not sure the general public is involved enough to see it.
August 2nd, 2005 at 8:12 am
My problem is simply that, by defining every issue in zero-sum, adversarial terms, the Administration is missing HUGE opportunities to expand its base and increase its popularity. Instead, we have the Rovian strategy of holding onto Red States. Frankly, there are many Red States that aren’t solidly Republican, including FL, OH, IA, NM, and CO. Both parties are focusing on inside straights, and as a moderate, that makes me angry, sad and disgusted.
August 2nd, 2005 at 9:22 am
“if he’d released the documents that the Senate requested”
And whatever request came after that. And whatever request came after that. Ad infinitum.
What’s most transparent here, to me, is the minority’s effort to simply dig up more raw material for endless rounds of innuendo and mischaracterization in the press, similar to what we’ve seen with the incessant attacks based on leaks from the Fitzgerald investigation and the press shenanigans that made it necessary. This move takes the issue out of the press, resulting in one less item that can be used to polarize public discourse. Down the road, I’m guessing their bet is that people won’t remember one more in and endless list of “requests for documents”. They *will* remember “filibuster”. And well they should.
This adminstration has already clearly demonstrated its level of regard for the U.N. And rightly so. As such, were I to be Bolton, I’d be leery of the appointment except for one reason: it’s a position in which he can do no wrong. If his influence helps (or even if his presence doesn’t hinder) the U.N. in cleaning up its rampant corruption, that’ll be a win. If nothing changes, it can hardly be blamed on Bolton since the U.N.’s problems are not “U.S.” in nature.