"Why should I change my name, he's the one that sucks."
Posted on 03/31/2005 8:53:06 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
Edited on 03/31/2005 9:49:56 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON — Democrats are likely to vote unanimously against John R. Bolton when his nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations comes before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee next week, according to Democratic and Republican lawmakers and aides.
Republicans--and heterosexual men in general--should vote YES on John Bolton, and "HELL F***ING NO!" on Michael Bolton (c8
Chafee ain't no moderate.
"moderate Sen. Lincoln Chafee, who voiced reservations about Bolton's nomination to be U.N. "
Watch yourself Chafee.
"Some Democrats predicted Bolton could lose support among Republican members if he was unyielding in his criticism of the United Nations. "
Watch yourselves, Republicans.
Chafee is NOT a Republican - He needs to switch over to the Dem side because he's about as Republican as Mayor Bloomingidiot.
Sarbanes, Dodd, Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, Obama and Nelson of Florida. Is anyone surprised. We'll see what happens when the nomination hits the floor.
Chafee never suprises me. He's too predictable.
Any this comes as a surprise?
When is the next congressional recess?????
"Why should I change my name, he's the one that sucks."
Chafee is one of the Senate's most moderate Republicans.
He’s a fanatical middle-wing moderate nut.
Rabidly milquetoast.
If John Bolton fails, Bush should find someone that will give the UN HELL!
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
As we all know, in MSM-speak "moderate" means "liberal" when it refers to a Republican.
I've never understood the concept that these appointees need to be approved anyway. Oh I know all about the precedents, etc. I just disagree with it.
Here's my dream: a 9-9 tie creates a situation where nobody is nominated to be the UN ambassador; so the United States sees no use in the UN, and asks that it be moved to Paris, and declines to join/fund. We set up a "League of Democracies" here in NY and carefully invite only those with serious views on liberty. Situation resolved! (P.S. I know it is not that simple, it's just my wish)
Okay, so the RATs want Bolton to support the Oil For Food shennanigans, the systemic child molestation and rape rings, the do-nothing attitude towards Africa and the corruption throughout the UN?
Are they going to filibuster the nomination?
Yes, but those are peripheral.
Most important to the Democrats is that he not criticize the UN's systemic and rabid anti-Americanism.
Criticism of the UN's anti-Americanism is correctly viewed as veiled criticism of the Democratic party's systemic and rabid anti-Americanism.
Wxactly--no ambassador--no representation--then no dues and no membership. We opt out on all because the RATS would not approve representation.
We get out fot he UN and blame it on the RATS at the same time. What could be better.
Leave it to the LA Times to publish such a grossly misleading headline. The article describes an upcoming vote by only a few Democrat members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which may not be sufficient to derail the nomination, yet the headline implies both that "all" Democrats would be voting against Bolton, and also that those Democrat 'no' votes would lead to Bolton's rejection.
Anyone reading the headline would be grossly misinformed, and would be sure to be puzzled by the likely outcome that results in Bolton's nomination being forwarded to the full senate. That is journalistic malpractice by any definition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.