November 09, 2006
Let the Gridlock Begin - Bolton Stuffed
"I see no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination again in the Foreign Relations Committee because, regardless of what happens there, he is unlikely to be considered by the full Senate," said Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. Bolton's 2005 recess appointment came after Democrats blocked repeated attempts by GOP leaders to grant him Senate confirmation. Democrats said Bolton was a bully who lacked the diplomatic skills necessary to broker international deals.
Again, why was he not confirmed in the first place? Why, he was mean to some employees. Whaaaaa! What a great reason to reject someone for a job where someone needs to be tough. (See Aljazeera Magazine on " Bush's UN nominee a 'bully' "--which also shows who agrees with the Democrats.)
I guess that the Democrats cannot stand a U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations who actually puts United States interests ahead of the rest of the world (See WND: Bolton KOs Kerry) and who leaves no doubt about our intentions--thus, ignoring honest and logical opinions that Bolton is exactly the type of person that we need at the U.N. at this time. (Newt Gingrinch in 2005: America needs John Bolton because the U.N. has to change.)
Bolton stood up to the corruption and ineptitude of the U.N. and its battles against U.S. interests, but now he must be replaced for the satisfaction of the Democrats, who decided long ago that their politics override concerns for our county and that a Republican President should not receive the respect of confirming his choices to serve the White House. Do the Democrats favor the internationalist views of France, Russia, and China over the interests the U.S.? If that isn't their motivation, it certainly is their result.
If the Democrats put power over the interests of our country, then we need the gridlock to keep them in check just as they need it to cater to the extreme left.
Posted by Woody M. at November 9, 2006 07:40 PM | TrackBackAs I recall, I was initially skittish about Mr. Bolton as to whether he would be a team player, but he has exceeded all expectations and peformed superlatively in standing up in the U.N. against bullies, most recently Venezuela's attempt to muscle into the Security Council. I hope President Bush can find some way to keep him at the U.N. if the Senate refuses to confirm him.
On a related note, Mr. Chafee hit the daily double: he revealed himself today to be a betrayer of benefactors (see Redstate commentary here) as well as a back stabber of Mr. Bolton in a manner reminescent of Julius Caesar's assassins, when you remember that he insisted on delaying consideration of Mr. Bolton's nomination until after the election. Key paragraphs are as follows (bold mine):
Two days after losing a bid for a second term in an election seen as a referendum on President Bush and the Republican Party, Sen. Lincoln Chafee said he was unsure whether he'd remain a Republican.... He said he did not regret not switching parties before the election because he felt it kept him in the best position to help Rhode Island to remain with what was then the majority party
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island, who was defeated by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse on Tuesday, told reporters in Rhode Island that he would continue opposing Bolton. That would likely deny Republicans the votes needed to move Bolton's nomination from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the full Senate.
"The American people have spoken out against the president's agenda on a number of fronts, and presumably one of those is on foreign policy," Chafee said. "And at this late stage in my term, I'm not going to endorse something the American people have spoke out against."
In September, Chafee -- who was in a tight re-election race -- said he would oppose Bolton's nomination until the administration answered questions about its policy in the Middle East, which in effect delayed any vote until after the elections.
Dante consigned such to the lowest circle of Hell.
Posted by civil truth at November 9, 2006 08:15 PM
I hit the Post button prematurely, and accidently deleted a key sentence that I had intended to bold.
The full paragraph is as follows:
Two days after losing a bid for a second term in an election seen as a referendum on President Bush and the Republican Party, Sen. Lincoln Chafee said he was unsure whether he'd remain a Republican.... Chafee said he stuck with the party in large part because it allowed him to bring federal dollars home to Rhode Island. He said he did not regret not switching parties before the election because he felt it kept him in the best position to help Rhode Island to remain with what was then the majority party.
I am truly appalled.
Posted by civil truth at November 9, 2006 08:25 PM
civil truth - what you report is yet further evidence that physical courage is not strongly correlated with moral courage.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at November 9, 2006 10:42 PM
The only thing wrong with Mr Bolton is that he is honest and says what he thinks. No democrat is going to accept an honest person in any position in their administrations. That's a fact and the dim elitest liars will have to accept it. Not a corrupt liar, don't apply to any dim for a job.
Posted by Scrapiron at November 10, 2006 12:05 AM
If Bolton was so bad, why haven't we been innundated with all the horror stories of his performance at the UN? Robert Byrd once advocted the burning of crosses in yards and continues to use the "N" word, but Bolton once said something mean to an employee - so OUT he goes!
Posted by Oyster at November 10, 2006 06:47 AM
So far the Democrasts appear to believe that obstructionism is the route to take. This will accomplish nothing good.
I'm sure this is only the beginning.
Posted by DADvocate at November 10, 2006 08:42 AM
Actually, DAD. It's par for the course. the uber-liberals in Congress have been obstructing since 1994. It's merely reaching new heights as others jump on the bandwagon.
Posted by Oyster at November 10, 2006 03:20 PM
I hope the Democrats do opt for obstructionism. If they give even a little, I fear President Bush will make ridiculous concessions so he will be viewed as bipartisan.
Posted by DRJ at November 10, 2006 07:34 PM
