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.

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.

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.