Bolton Endgame (Delusional Liberal Super-Mega-BARF ALERT!)

Boston Globe ^ | 6/29/2005 | Robert Kuttner

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

THE BITTERLY contentious nomination of John Bolton to be UN ambassador comes to a showdown this holiday weekend.

With the Senate having twice refused to break a filibuster over Bolton, President Bush may use his power to make a recess appointment during Congress's Fourth of July break. Bolton would then serve without Senate confirmation until the next Congress ends, in late 2006.

Or Bush could withdraw Bolton's name.

Bolton's views on the UN are hostile. He is known as a short-tempered martinet. He got poor reviews for his last job as undersecretary of state for arms control. For instance, Bolton was a skeptic of a US joint program to keep Russian nuclear fuel from reaching terrorists. The effort was tied up in legal minutiae during Bolton's tenure, but soon after Bolton's departure early in 2005, the logjam was broken and agreement with Russia reached.

[anniegetyourgun]

Or Bush could withdraw Bolton's name.

Or the Boston Globe can eat dog poo and die.

[Chgogal]

"Bolton's views on the UN are hostile."

Oil for Food Scandal, Rwanda, Sex Scandal in the Congo, etc.

Robert Kuttner are you in a time warp or something?

[Cboldt]

Or, Bush could stick to his word, which was to tell the Senate leadership to give the nominee an up or down vote.

I will be very disappointed if there is a recess appointment. The bigger issue here, between Bolton and the confirmation process, is Senate refusal to vote on a nominee based on the assertions of a minority of Senators.

[SkyPilot]

Or the Senate could stop a political smear against a good man, John Bolton.

Oh wait, that isn't an option Liberals would consider, because that is what is right.

[kcvl]

Robert Kuttner

Co-founded with Princeton author and sociologist Paul Starr and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, The American Prospect is a liberal quarterly about politics, policy, and ideas dedicated to the renewal of America’s democratic traditions.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Pity we aren't given the opportunity to read and enjoy his work in the original Arabic. :)

[Jim Noble]

Bolton is not going to be confirmed.

[Jim Noble]

Bush could stick to his word, which was to tell the Senate leadership to give the nominee an up or down vote

He can sure ask them.

But he can't tell them.

[NewHampshireDuo]

The weak-kneed repubs in the senate doesn't have the resolve to get Bolton confirmed. Bush should recess appoint. The libs will scream but Bolton will have nearly 2 years to irritate the annointed clowns in the UN.

[Cboldt]

He can sure ask them.
But he can't tell them.

Good detail point. But no matter how he phrased his request, it came off as "I'm not going to recess appoint Bolton."

Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday at the White House it was reported that President Bush told Republican leaders to keep fighting to get Mr. Bolton, the President's nominee to be U.N. ambassador, an up-or-down vote. Keep fighting--that was the message delivered by the President.

109th Congress - Page S6980 - June 22, 2005
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1427992/posts?page=15#15

The link to the Congressional Record is a PDF file - the FR link is HTML. Reid has a few real gems in there.

[Cboldt]

If I was president Bush, I would not recess appoint anybody over the Independence Day recess. If a recess appointment is in the cards, I would wait until August, the summer recess. The Senate still has Bolton and a handful of Circuit Court nominations on its plate. The Circuit Court nominees are Haynes, Nielson, Saad and Kavanaugh (still in committee) and Boyle and Myers, on the Senate's Executive Calendar.

But under Rule XXXI, all nominations are returned to the president on the event of a recess of 30 or more days.

Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President; and if the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President, and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President.

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule31.htm

At that point, the president will have given the Senate FULL opportunity to act. Meanwhile, he can express disappointment, and urge them to act. In effect, apply pressure to the Senate and NOT take the matter out of the Senate's hands prematurely.

All of the nominations for Ciruit Court positions were made in February. Myers was put on the Senate's Executive Calendar on March 17, and still no debate, let alone an up-or-down vote. The President needs to beat up on the Senate. The position of UN ambassador isn't that all fired important that it can't wait.

[Jim Noble]

Good detail point

The care and feeding of the US Senate is a critical test of Presidential effectiveness.

Most fail.

And, you might think, "so what?" were it not for Supreme Court appointments and treaties, two Presidentio-senatorial acts which last a long, long time.

Frist is a weakling. LBJ could make a US Senator sit up and bark like a dog.

The opposition Senators need to be slapped down hard or Bush's problems will get worse. Except that Bush can't do the slapping.

[Cboldt]

The opposition Senators need to be slapped down hard or Bush's problems will get worse.

I agree.

Except that Bush can't do the slapping.

But he can illuminate the nature of their inaction. Perhaps the voters will get the point, although I doubt it. What I don't doubt is that if the public "gets it," (i.e., prefers federal government in the model of the US Constitution) the Sentor will get the slap down of losing an election.

So far, the Senate has confirmed 7 of Bush's 12 remoninations to Circuit Courts, and 5 of the 7 that were held up by cloture in the last Congress. The fact that he tells Senate leadership to fight for an up or down vote tells me he is not inclined to accept what the Senate sees as status quo.

[GladesGuru]

WHile I liked your very complete page about all the minutae of Senate maneuvering against Bolton, I completely disagree with you about a recess appointment of Bolton and recess appointments in general.

We are, as Gingrich so well said, "locked in a battle for the soul of the Republic". Put Bolton in with a recess appointment, and do the same for all judges where the Democrats object to that judge.

The Democratic party was taken over by socialists decades ago. This is the best, and likely LAST CHANCE, to overturn decades of creeping Communism largely, but not totally the result of the Democratic Party.

Please note that I am well aware of RINO's and such socialist trash within the Pubbies. But a recess "de-pointment" of such socialism impaired RINOs isn't possible. Recess appointments of Bolton is possible.

What have you got against winning?

[Cboldt]

What have you got against winning?

In a sense, recess appointment legitimizes the Senate's practice of not voting on a nomination.

I'm not against recess appointment, per se. My point is one of timing and tactics. At least wait until the Senate returns the nomination without having acted on it.

[jw777]

If bad manners and a temper are criteria for which a candidate must not be voted on or confirmed, why should Boxer, Pelosi, Schumer, KENNEDY and the rest of the Bully Gang get to keep their jobs? VOTE THEM OUT!

[okie01]

Put Bolton in with a recess appointment, and do the same for all judges where the Democrats object to that judge.

Not practical. Most nominees for a judgeship would not accept a recess appointment. They would be giving up whatever is their current career for an 18-month temporary gig.

If you were in their position, you wouldn't do it, either.

Pickering accepted a recess appointment only because he intended to retire when his term was up.