OT (Politics): Mr. Bolton Goes to the U.N.

[flere-imsaho]

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/...ent/index.html

(if you don't like CNN, every other outlet has the story)

Bush goes for a recess appointment for John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador.

Comments?

1. I thought Bolton himself said he didn't want a recess appointment as it would mean he's essentially a lame duck?

2. What will he be able to accomplish?

3. Is this a victory for Senate Democratic obstruction? Or a loss?

Edit: Reaction from Sen. Minority Leader Reid:

At a time when we need to reassert our diplomatic power in the world, President Bush has decided to send a seriously flawed and weakened candidate to the United Nations. It's an unnecessary result, and the latest abuse of power by the Bush White House.

The reason Bolton is being recess appointed is because the President chose to stonewall the Senate. Mr. Bolton could have had his up or down vote had President Bush given Senators the information they needed. Instead, Bolton arrives at the United Nations with a cloud hanging over his head.

[Klinglerware]

Doesn't seem to be a big surprise to me. Clinton used recess appointments too, so I think the democratic party responses (I've heard Kennedy attack the appointment today too) are a bit disingenous. I doubt the Democrats actually believe their own rhetoric on this one, since they know that it is a useful tool that they've used before when it was their own party that controlled the executive branch.

As for what he will accomplish, probably not much--the US is still in arrears, so no money = no power. If the US didn't have much influence on the UN before, they certainly won't have much now.

Bottom line, no big deal: Bolton won't have much influence; also, both the administration and the democrats probably won't end up getting hurt much either, since the general public really doesn't get riled up over these machinations, especially in an election off-year, over the summer...

[cartman]

There have been recess appointments in the past, but not for the UN Ambassador post. The last time a recess appointment for that position was back in the late 1940s, maybe even for the first UN ambassador.

IMO, the recess appointment should be removed by a constitutional amendment. It no longer has a place in today's world. The reason it was included in the Constitution was as a way to guarantee continuity in Goverment. Back in the beginning, due to the length of time it took to travel, Congress was only in session about 6 months out of the year. Now-a-days, if Congress finds something important enough, they can gather back together in a matter of hours. It is a loophole that should be removed.

[Blackadar]

I think this is likely to hurt Bush with moderate Republicans - the "group of 14". Clinton used recess appointments because he faced a Republican-controlled Congress. Bush couldn't get this guy through even under his own party.

I think it'll come back to bite him in the ass with that group.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I think this is likely to hurt Bush with moderate Republicans - the "group of 14". Clinton used recess appointments because he faced a Republican-controlled Congress. Bush couldn't get this guy through even under his own party.

I think it'll come back to bite him in the ass with that group.

How so? He doesn't have another election he'll ever have to run.

They could delay a few bills or hold up certain agendas, but nothing that will last long term IMO.

Not saying this was or wasn't the right move, but I see little risk in this for Bush overall.

[CamEdwards]

Actually, McCain (the leader of the "moderate" Republicans) has been in full support of John Bolton as UN Ambassador. Hagel will bitch (big surprise), Voinovich might cry again (pleasepleaseplease), but I think that'll be it from the Republican side.

Without a doubt the Democrats have been pretty darn effective as a minority party. If Reid spins this successfully as "we could have had a vote if only they had provided the documents we wanted" it might hurt Bush a little bit. Not much though... most people outside of the Beltway don't give a rat's ass who the UN Ambassador is.

[Hammer755]

[obligatory]

I celebrate his entire catalog.

[/obligatory]

[Glengoyne]

I don't know about removing the recess appointment entirely...It serves a different purpose today than it used to, but it still serves a purpose. The cries of "Well the Democrats were OK with recess appointments made by President Clinton, but he wouldn't have used them on this important of a post" ring a bit hollow to me.

I don't personally think I would want to send someone who dislikes the U.N., or at least its current incarnation, to the extent that Bolton apparently does to be the Ambassador to the U.N. That said, some of the Attacks the Democrats have made regarding Bolton have been pretty funny. A lot of them boil down to "He's mean", and that just shouldn't even be on the radar in this type of debate. They've criticized his management style, and called him a kiss up, but really how effective is he at his job?

He wouldn't be my choice, but if Bolton is the message the President wants to send to the U.N., and he is in fact qualified, then the appointment should go through. It's just like a Judicial appointment, in my mind. Republican senators may have complained that Ginsburg and Breyer were liberal whackos when they were nominated to the Supreme Court, but they were confirmed nearly unanimously.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I don't know about removing the recess appointment entirely...It serves a different purpose today than it used to, but it still serves a purpose.

Out of curiosity, what purpose? The only current purpose I can see it serving is giving the President the ability to override the Senate (at least on a temporary basis). Whether or not one thinks this is a good thing is up for debate.

I don't personally think I would want to send someone who dislikes the U.N., or at least its current incarnation, to the extent that Bolton apparently does to be the Ambassador to the U.N. That said, some of the Attacks the Democrats have made regarding Bolton have been pretty funny. A lot of them boil down to "He's mean", and that just shouldn't even be on the radar in this type of debate.

Actually, it's more like "he's unprofessional." Also, there's some debate as to whether or not he's intentionally sabotaged diplomatic efforts in the name of his own ideology. Senate Democrats were asking for papers from Bush to address this very accusation.

He wouldn't be my choice, but if Bolton is the message the President wants to send to the U.N., and he is in fact qualified, then the appointment should go through.

Having said all that above, I agree with this.

It's just like a Judicial appointment, in my mind.

No it's not. Appointing the U.N. Ambassador is an appointment within the same branch of government. Appointing a Justice is making an appointment to another branch of government, contingent on the agreement of the 3rd. To me, that's a very important distinction.

Republican senators may have complained that Ginsburg and Breyer were liberal whackos when they were nominated to the Supreme Court, but they were confirmed nearly unanimously.

Clinton, unlike Bush, took the time to confer with Republicans on these appointments. From the autobiography of Orrin Hatch, who was ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time:

It was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the appointment and what he was thinking of doing.

President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, a name that had been bouncing around in the press. Bruce, a well-known western Democrat, had been the governor of Arizona and a candidate for president in 1988. Although he had been a state attorney general back during the 1970s, he was known far more for his activities as a politician than as a jurist. Clinton asked for my reaction.

I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.

Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer's name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.

I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I don't know about removing the recess appointment entirely...It serves a different purpose today than it used to, but it still serves a purpose. The cries of "Well the Democrats were OK with recess appointments made by President Clinton, but he wouldn't have used them on this important of a post" ring a bit hollow to me.

What purpose does it serve today, other than circumventing the Senate "advise and consent" process? Yes, the people appointed via this method eventually have to be confirmed, but the timelines the current provision have are not applicable in today's society. When Congress can be on break, and then gather a quorum in a matter of hours to intervene in the Schiavo case, it makes the reason for having the recess appointment clause moot.

As for the other statement, I never said anything about appointments made by Clinton, I just mentioned that NO president, Republican or Democrat, had used a recess appointment for the UN ambassador post in over 50 years.

I think we are moving towards a scenario that is quite troubling. The Senate is becoming more and more like the House every day. The Senate was envisioned as a place where there could be debate, and a work towards consensus as much as possible. The Senate rules reflect this, otherwise things like the filibuster and other mechanisms for debate and discussion wouldn't exist. The Senate was never envisioned to be a place where the president would get the currently trendy "up or down" votes for their proposed initiatives and nominees.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

I'd rather have him as UN Ambassador than oversinging those awful songs anyday.

[MrBigglesworth]

Nevermind the mechanisms of his appointment, isn't anyone worried about the damage that Bolton could do at the UN?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I don't know about removing the recess appointment entirely...It serves a different purpose today than it used to, but it still serves a purpose. The cries of "Well the Democrats were OK with recess appointments made by President Clinton, but he wouldn't have used them on this important of a post" ring a bit hollow to me.

I don't personally think I would want to send someone who dislikes the U.N., or at least its current incarnation, to the extent that Bolton apparently does to be the Ambassador to the U.N. That said, some of the Attacks the Democrats have made regarding Bolton have been pretty funny. A lot of them boil down to "He's mean", and that just shouldn't even be on the radar in this type of debate. They've criticized his management style, and called him a kiss up, but really how effective is he at his job?

He wouldn't be my choice, but if Bolton is the message the President wants to send to the U.N., and he is in fact qualified, then the appointment should go through. It's just like a Judicial appointment, in my mind. Republican senators may have complained that Ginsburg and Breyer were liberal whackos when they were nominated to the Supreme Court, but they were confirmed nearly unanimously.

Actually, Colin Powell declined to give Bolton his endorsement as well. So it's not just the Dems that have problems with this choice...

[JW]

This is largely much ado about nothing. The UN is inept, ineffective, and terribly corrupt. We have had controversial UN ambassadors who heavily criticized the UN in the past, and the end result was not some terrible disaster. The end result was no change. This is a big zero, and all the posturing on both sides is just political.

[WSUCougar]

I thought recess ended at 1:30...

[sachmo71]

Bolton is a sleeper. In a few months, he will receive a phone call. It will consist of one word. When that codeword is whispered into Bolton's fuzzy ear, he will go on a pre-programmed rampage and destroy all of the other delegates with razor wire hidden in his mustache.

[Glengoyne]

Actually the purpose today, is exactly what you described. It allows the president to fill posts where the Senate is, for whatever the reason, unable to complete the confirmation process. So yes, one current purpose is to circumvent, albeit temporarilly, the political wrangling and possible obstructionism of the Senate. It also allows the president to fill positions that need to be filled without requiring the Senate to reconvene. I imagine that that circumstance could arise, and not even be a partisan maneuver, simply getting the job accomplished.

As for the Senate being a place for compromise, yes that was the design, and I believe it was how that chamber has worked for some time. In my opinion the Democrats filibustering over trivial issues on judicial appointments, sometimes only doing so in retalliation, are contributing greatly to the problem you describe. You may consider those "up and down" votes trendy, but they have been the order of business for most of the last two hundred years. The minority party has always had to pick their fights. Today's democrats, in my opinion, consider every value they hold to be the most important thing for the future of the country. There is very little compromise to be found. The Republicans are a contentious lot as well, but I think they were much less obstructionist as a minority party. In other words, the Republicans and previous Democrats seemed to pick their fights, where as the Democrats today are seemingly refusing to give any ground at all.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Actually, Colin Powell declined to give Bolton his endorsement as well. So it's not just the Dems that have problems with this choice...

No I agree with that assessment. I understand that there are some Republicans opposing this appointment to one degree or another as well.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

.. most people outside of the Beltway don't give a rat's ass who the UN Ambassador is.

thats about sums it up for me.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

We have had controversial UN ambassadors who heavily criticized the UN in the past, and the end result was not some terrible disaster.

There is more than just the fact that he things the UN should be abolished. There is also the fact that he is by all accounts an unhinged asshole, and the alleged incidents of him conducting his own policy and not that of his superiors. Those are two qualities that do not bode well for an ambassador.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

There is more than just the fact that he things the UN should be abolished. There is also the fact that he is by all accounts an unhinged asshole, and the alleged incidents of him conducting his own policy and not that of his superiors. Those are two qualities that do not bode well for an ambassador.

I would suggest that 'unhinged asshole' is a less than objective description. I also find wonderful irony in US Senators such as Ted Kennedy accusing anyone of having poor or abrasive manners.

As for your earlier post expressing concern for the potential damage Bolton could do at the UN, damage to what? Its credibility?

BTW, here is a brief history of recess appointments since George Washington. Some interesting reading.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100476_pf.html

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

As for the Senate being a place for compromise, yes that was the design, and I believe it was how that chamber has worked for some time. In my opinion the Democrats filibustering over trivial issues on judicial appointments, sometimes only doing so in retalliation, are contributing greatly to the problem you describe. You may consider those "up and down" votes trendy, but they have been the order of business for most of the last two hundred years. The minority party has always had to pick their fights. Today's democrats, in my opinion, consider every value they hold to be the most important thing for the future of the country. There is very little compromise to be found. The Republicans are a contentious lot as well, but I think they were much less obstructionist as a minority party. In other words, the Republicans and previous Democrats seemed to pick their fights, where as the Democrats today are seemingly refusing to give any ground at all.

Sorry, but trying to assign blame to only one side isn't going to cut it. Both sides are to blame, no one is being a shining example of what a Senator should be. Your last two sentences strike to the heart of the matter. As was discussed in another thread, the Republicans procedurally eliminated many of the same objection methods they used as the minority party once they came into power. Part of that was calculated, so that when the Democrats used the tools that were left, they could be painted as extremists and obstructionist. Neither side was right in their methods, both obviously are wrong. Trying to compare the current political environment versus years past are two different beasts.

The closest I've seen to behavior that should be expected from Senators was the recent "Gang of Fourteen" that showed there can be some common ground found, and that debate is essential in the Senate, not simple rubber stamping. This group saw the value of debate on the Senate floor, and joined together to preserve this practice.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by cartman

The closest I've seen to behavior that should be expected from Senators was the recent "Gang of Fourteen" that showed there can be some common ground found, and that debate is essential in the Senate, not simple rubber stamping. This group saw the value of debate on the Senate floor, and joined together to preserve this practice.

Compromise isn't a self-evident noble thing. Circa 1940, you wouldn't praise the world leaders for telling Hitler he could have France and Poland if he promised not to go into Russia. If someone stakes out an extreme position, there is no moral right to meet them in the middle. Since coming into power, the GOP has removed numerous checks on their power, disallowed debate on key issues, removed the ethics committee in the House, gerrymandered states to preserve their power, and taken numerous extreme positions that the moderate Clinton never mirrored.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by cartman

Sorry, but trying to assign blame to only one side isn't going to cut it. Both sides are to blame, no one is being a shining example of what a Senator should be. Your last two sentences strike to the heart of the matter. As was discussed in another thread, the Republicans procedurally eliminated many of the same objection methods they used as the minority party once they came into power. Part of that was calculated, so that when the Democrats used the tools that were left, they could be painted as extremists and obstructionist. Neither side was right in their methods, both obviously are wrong. Trying to compare the current political environment versus years past are two different beasts.

The closest I've seen to behavior that should be expected from Senators was the recent "Gang of Fourteen" that showed there can be some common ground found, and that debate is essential in the Senate, not simple rubber stamping. This group saw the value of debate on the Senate floor, and joined together to preserve this practice.

I apologize if it seems I'm trying to lay the blame entirely on the Democrats. I'm saying that they chose to obstruct qualified judges, simply for the purpose of obstructing the appointments. The judges I'm talking about are the ones that have been approved since the "gang of fourteen" stepped up and took the nuclear option off of the table. You are absolutely correct that the Republicans have taken away some of the more technical methods of opposition, they themselves have used in the past. My problem is that the Democrats should have been calling for those options to be reinstated, just like they did when the Republicans changed the rules in the Ethics committee in the House. Instead they chose to essentially demonize and oppose qualified justices through filibuster.

I was pretty satisfied with the "gang of fourteen's" solution, although I was a bit disappointed with some of the language included.

The Republicans aren't saints by any stretch, I just don't see them as the villain in these confirmation battles.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Compromise isn't a self-evident noble thing. Circa 1940, you wouldn't praise the world leaders for telling Hitler he could have France and Poland if he promised not to go into Russia. If someone stakes out an extreme position, there is no moral right to meet them in the middle. Since coming into power, the GOP has removed numerous checks on their power, disallowed debate on key issues, removed the ethics committee in the House, gerrymandered states to preserve their power, and taken numerous extreme positions that the moderate Clinton never mirrored.

The Republicans have indeed done some nasty things as the party in power, further escalating the war between Democrats and Republicans. However, nasty partisan politics is the province of both parties, and the best we can hope for is an argument about which party is nastier, and no matter who wins that argument, it is bad for the country.

As for the gerrymander, that also has a very old bipartisan tradition, as old as our nation. After all, Mr. Gerry himself, who did not invent the tactic but for whom it is named, died in 1814. The primary purpose of the gerrymander is to keep incumbents in power.

[ISiddiqui]

It's a bit silly to say the Dems are mostly to blame for blocking 'qualified' judicial nominees. I mean isn't part of the reason for Advise and Consent so that the President doesn't put someone on the bench who is totally wacked out of his gourd? Some of these *ahem* qualified justices held some VERY scary positions, such as Pricilla Owen who knew the precedent of the Supreme Court and refused to apply it, getting a very strong rebuke from her fellow Justice Alberto Gonzales (no liberal) calling her a dangerous activist!!

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's a bit silly to say the Dems are mostly to blame for blocking 'qualified' judicial nominees. I mean isn't part of the reason for Advise and Consent so that the President doesn't put someone on the bench who is totally wacked out of his gourd? Some of these *ahem* qualified justices held some VERY scary positions, such as Pricilla Owen who knew the precedent of the Supreme Court and refused to apply it, getting a very strong rebuke from her fellow Justice Alberto Gonzales (no liberal) calling her a dangerous activist!!

Priscilla Owen was given the rating of highly qualified by the BAR association. I believe she was the first judge with that rating to fail to make it through the judiciary committee. As for her dangerous position on the case you refer to, it wasn't her position that Gonzales rebuked nor called dangerously activist. That was directed to another judge who had also ruled as Owen had, but for different reasons. In my opinion, in that case, she merely evaluated the facts as they were presented, and ruled accordingly. That her position on the matter was eventually overturned, doesn't mean she didn't arrive at it in a proper manner.

The bottom line with Owen was that she made a couple of rulings requiring minors to notify their parents before having an abortion. She also made rulings that circumstances demanded that parents not be notified, but a sensible ruling against abortion without parental consent is tantamount to challenging Roe v Wade to some on the left. Those groups led the fight against Owen, and the "Gang of Fourteen" set things straight with regard to her and her record.

[MrBigglesworth]

The justification of sending Bolton to the UN is that he is going to 'reform' it. Now, generally, it is the liberals who want to reform the UN. They want to streamline the process, get rid of corruption, and get rid of the total inaction that occurs in times of crisis.

The conservatives do not want any of that, really. They don't want any restrictions on what the US can do where they want to do it. They don't want to make it easier to send foreign aid to countries. And sure, they are anti-corruption, but what are they going to undermine the UN with if they can't continually point to the oil-for-food program? Conservatives don't really want reform that would make the UN a more effective organization. They'd rather make it more like the League of Nations.

I haven't heard any real goals that Bolton has for the UN other than the nebulous 'reform', which is a liberal idea to begin with. Now the NYT says that an administration official says that most of the reforms that the Bush administration wants to put through are already almost done, completed during Bolton's nomination process. What is it that Bolton will be trying to accomplish?

It's interesting, through the whole nomination process its, 'we need him to reform, we need him to reform', then the day he is appointed it's, 'we're done with the reforms'. So what is Bolton's real purpose there?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The bottom line with Owen was that she made a couple of rulings requiring minors to notify their parents before having an abortion. She also made rulings that circumstances demanded that parents not be notified, but a sensible ruling against abortion without parental consent is tantamount to challenging Roe v Wade to some on the left. Those groups led the fight against Owen, and the "Gang of Fourteen" set things straight with regard to her and her record.

So, the other 90 judges that the Dems in the Senate let pass through were all pro-choice advocates? I find that hard to believe. I think that if anyone was denied because of their abortion stance, that it was a radical out of the mainstream stance, not just the fact that they are anti-choice.