No one here in their right mind is happy to lose Bolton. He can't be replaced with one like him.
Problem is, no matter who is picked, there's a problem getting them through the Senate. Bolton could not get through with the Repubs in nominal control. Voinivich blocked him, then changed his mind, only to be replaced as blocker by Chaffee. The Dems were ALL or nearly all against him, I believe. Now the Senate has gone under Dem control.
I have read that to reappoint Bolton under the recess rule would mean Bolton could serve again but would have to do so without pay. Do you know if that's correct? Be that as it may, I don't blame either Bolton or the President for chucking it where this job is concerned, given the givens.
Back to the next appointee. I can't see it being Mitchell. That is a profound wish by the Dems, I believe.
From our standpoint, it needs to be a professional with creds on both sides and with the public, or else a strong Republican with good enough creds to get a positive vote. For the latter option, someone like Orrin Hatch (no he's not a favorite of mine) is the type I'm talking about. He can be conservative, combative and strong when he wants to be. And as a sitting Senator he'd have LOTS of creds.
You fill in the blank of some type you think could get confirmed who would do an acceptable job, if you can do better than my Orrin Hatch type. If you want, or maybe you're too upset by losing Bolton...
Yes, it is correct. Bolton was asked about this a couple of weeks ago, but he didn't really comment on it, saying he was still hoping for an up or down vote. It would be nice to think he is well off enough to do it for simple patriotic reasons, but I just don't know. Cripe, I'd pay him to stay if I could.
I have nothing to verify that with yet, but it is consistent with Bush's character, so rings true.
That would make it unlikely that Bolton would accept a recess appointment without pay.