All hail to the Chief, who’s giving quite a serious speech about it all. On my teevee. Now Bolton’s speaking … “to my wife Gretchen and to my daughter [C.J.?], in absentia…” WTF?
Update [2005-8-1 10:45:50 by susanhu]: Russ Feingold issues an immediate release on Bolton’s appointment:
Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the President’s Recess Appointment of John Bolton
August 1, 2005
I am disappointed in the President’s decision to bypass the Senate and use a recess appointment to make John Bolton the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. Bolton is fundamentally unsuited for the job, and his record reveals a truly disturbing intolerance of dissent. Mr. Bolton did not win the support of a majority of members of the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Senate refused to make a final decision on this nomination pending review of documents that the Administration declined to provide in blatant disregard for the Senate’s constitutional rights and responsibilities. But despite all of the warning signs and all of the red flags, the President has taken this extraordinary step to send a polarizing figure with tattered credibility to represent us at the United Nations. At a time when we need to be doing our very best to mend frayed relationships, encourage real burden-sharing, and nurture a rock-solid international coalition to fight terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the American people deserve better than John Bolton.
In other news: The President addressed the surviving attendees at the National Boy Scout Jamboree.
Five scout leaders and one scout died this week, and scores were treated for heat exhaustion while waiting for the president to show up.
is an enormous gaping asshole. Pass it on.
Gosh, Booman. That was WAY HARSH.*
____
*Movie: Clueless
Your words for our fearless leader Booman are way too kind!
Laughing my Bush Off,
Now Boo, don’t be candid, tell us how you really feel.
Don’t you mean Heil to the cheif? I think I am going to vomit!
And let me just say one more thing. This President, not mine by the way, addresses Scouts and expresses his condolences yet has NEVER ATTENED AN F”ING FUNERAL OF ANY SOLDIERS HE KILLED IN IRAQ!
PROSPECTIVE VOTERS, Alohaleezy!
Those scouts will soon be able to VOTE!
The dead soldiers can’t vote.
See the difference?
uhhh…Youth Corps…new fodder for the cannons.
Oh Susan…I read what you wrote and literally became sick. But it is the truth of this administration. They lack a key component to being human….compassion. How, how how do they look themselves in the mirror each day?
because the reflection they see, is not theirs, it’s a dream.
Yeah well their dream has turned into our nightmare.
That sounds like a good signature line!
It’s all yours Katie!
very good ; )
Many of the Senate GOP will see this as a big F.U. It wasn’t just Dems who thought this guy was a bad choice. And it isn’t just Dems who take the role of the Senate in confirming appointments seriously.
After this, I hope we will see more and more GOP Senators breaking with Bush.
And hopefully, Bolton will go down with Rove and Libby in the Plame investigation and Bush will have that much more egg on his face.
Voinovich. R.I.P.
Since it’s pretty clear at this point that Bolton would not have been able to actually survive a confirmation vote, let’s try to use the fact of the appointment to our advantage. Democrats (and sensible moderates) should make an issue of this for the next 15 months:
“When Bush can’t get what he wants, when he wants it, he defies the will of Congress and the American people. Do we believe in the democratic process or the Imperial Presidency?”
To be perfectly honest, I can’t say that I’m really upset about this development.
First, everyone, both internationally and domestically, knows that Bolton has the confidence of — and speaks for — George Bush alone, not the United States of America.
Second, barring some unlikely turn of events, Bolton will only be at the U.N. for slightly over one session (he’ll have to leave right at the beginning of 2007).
Third, this appointment will almost certainly doom our newly renamed “global struggle against violent extremism”, as practically no nations will extend their hands to cooperate with the U.S. (The U.N. ambassador is often an instrument for multilateral negotiations.)
Fourth, while the neo-conservative base is pleased today, this move will win the White House no new friends in the Senate, at a time when more and more Republicans are feeling a need to demonstrate their “independence”. This is not only because some are exploring potential runs for the WH, but also because they feel potential heat in re-election runs in 2006 or 2008.
Fifth, although Bush has now been able to place his man at the U.N., the implicit acknowledgement of his failure to be able to win a confirmation fight signals that the Dear Leader’s political capital he earned from his “mandate” has already been expended, and that he’s now staring at three-and-a-half years of Lame Duck status.
To be realistic about matters, one has to admit that even had Bush withdrawn Bolton’s name, it’s inconceivable that the replacement nominee would have been fundamentally better on any issues that progressives and internationalists care about — that person would merely have been a less flamboyant version of Bolton, but it would have been no less staunch a neo-con.
We can use this to our political advantage, and we should not overlook any opportunity to do so.
Good thinking.
One question though, can you name anyone worse?
ITS ABOUT THE SENATE 2006, NOT THE U.N. 2005
You make a good point about the Senate vote and ramifications. But the Dems. failed to use the golden opportunity.
(a) If there was A VOTE, the Democrats may
(i) win (There were at least 47 votes against Bolton with Chafee, Voinovich, Jeffords, more to come. With a debate others would either join or BE FORCED TO VOTE ON THE RECORD ), or
(ii) lose (but still can turn the loss into a gain in 2006 by defining their Senate opponents. See infra # 6).
(a) If there was NO VOTE, the Democrats will
(i) lose, or
(ii) lose.
6. Recess Appointment:
(a) The Dems began accusing the Administration (not the individual Senators) for failure to cooperate. Nothing new. But, wait, its not about Bush, because he is not running for the Senate in 2006. Its about individual Senators. And you can’t run against a Senator as an obstructionist based on his record of voting for or against Bolton, when he/she didn’t ACTUALLY vote.
(i) For example, Sen. Chafee (R-RI) recently said, he would vote against Bolton. “Would” does not count. Actual vote does. Now, Sen. Chafee is laughing all the way to the bank at the “smartest man in the Senate” Sen. Biden. If there is NO VOTE, Sen. Chafee will say “I would have voted against Bolton, without actually voting. Bingo. And you thought the Reps are stupid. Keep on dreaming Dems, and keep on losing.
(ii) Same goes for Sen. Lieberman, Hagel, Voinovich, Murkovski, McCain, et. al.
(iii) Sen. Lott and I believe there is another Repub. Senator (whose name escapes my mind) recently came out against the idea of the recess appointment.
They are smart. A classic Washington DOUBLE TALK – We don’t agree with the President AND we don’t have to actually cast a vote. WHY WOULD ANYONE LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT? ITS NOT SMART POLITICS.
The score: No practical gain for the Dems in 2006.
(b) Republicans will accuse the Dems for filibuster. Public in large, and the independents don’t like “filibuster.”
The score: Net loss for the Dems in 2006.
(c) Republicans will accuse the Democrats as obstructionist. To sum up the campaign against Sen. Daschle in one word – “obstructionist”. Sen. Daschle, the Senate Minority Leader,a very very powerful man, lost. It was unprecedented for a Senate leader (Majority or Minority) to lose.
The score: Net loss for the Dems in 2006.
(d) In 2006 the Dems have to spend EXTRA money, manpower, time, etc to fight the image that they are not “obstructionist” or “filibustering.” Let me guess, Sen. Biden (D-MBNA/Bank of America) or some smart “consultant” must have thought, “Ahh, there is so much money and time and manpower to go around in 06, that this is not a big deal.”
Q: You filibustered (cloture vote) against Bolton, but WHY DIDN’T YOU FILIBUSTER AGAINST
(a) CAFTA, which affects real people with real families losing real jobs. A bread and butter issue.
(b) the Gun Shield Law? (safety issue)
(c) the Bankruptcy Bill? It affects low income and middle income people. Another Bread and butter issue.
9. PREDICTION 2006:
If even 5% of the electorate (or the independents or the swing voters) thinks that the Dems are “obstructionist” or “filibustering,” the Dem. will lose seats in the Senate 2006 in closely held races. And there are a few such races.
10. Sen. Biden, the lead man in this battle, has his PERSONAL AGENDA . (And you would have thought that Biden – “the smartest man in the Senate” is an altruist. Every senator calculates his/her vote or move). He has a personal gain – planning for 2008 Presidential nomination, saying, in part, “I am qualified, because I blocked Bolton’s nomination.”
He does not care about the Senate 2006 (especially the close races).
Googled “bolton, john” got this:
REVOLT’N BOLTON, JUNGLE TROLL, UN AMBASSADOR
I don’t think these guys are planning on going anywhere soon…least of all jail…gonna be a long 3 1/2 yrs, hope we all make it.
Peace
People, you not getting the reality here. This is a precendent for a major increase in Executive Power. Now Presidents can wait for the Senate to recess and then appoint whomever they want to whatever position (Supreme Court Judge, say) is vacant at the time of the recess.
This action eviserates a primary source of power of the Legislative branch in its duty to oversee, and balance the power of, the Executive.
making recess appointments is one of the powers specifically granted to the President in the Constitution:
It just doesn’t take into account the fact that a dumbass can appoint a jackass.
Yes it is in the Constitution. The power to appoint recess nominations was written into the Constitution back when it took weeks for the Senate to travel to/from their states. The physical limits of the 1790’s is no longer operative in 2005.
This appointment is a difference in degree leading to a difference in kind. Bolton would have never been approved by the Senate. Appointing him during this recess allows Bush to bypass Constitutional Checks and Balances eroding power from the Legislative Branch.
Remember, the Roman Emperor was, constitutionally, only the ‘First Among Equals.’
Apologies for the incoherence but I’ve got to run.
appointing a US ambassador to the UN during a recess?
Even in the modern era, presidents have used the power of recess appointments with a fair degree of frequency.
Carter made 68 recess appointments, Reagan 243, Bush père 77 and Clinton 56+ (I could only find data through summer 1999). Among Clinton’s controversial recess appointments were Bill Lann Lee as assistant attorney general for civil rights, James Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg and Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The first two of these drove conservatives absolutely up the wall.
That just isn’t true.
George Washington appointed a mentally ill man as the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Eisenhower also appointed a Supreme Court justice.
This is hardly new. For example:
I do agree, though, that the recess appointment is an outdated tactic, and that is the real issue here. Don’t get me wrong, I am pissed about this, but I just don’t think that, historically, Bush is taking this ‘to a whole new level.’
Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
I am wondering about five of those words “that may happen DURING the recess. This did not occur during the recess he waited for the recess. Hasn’t this spot been empty for almost a year? Just asking.
There are definitely two ways you could interpret that: Is his power to fill them during the recess, or is his power to fill vacancies that open up during the recess.
The only thing I can figure for why it is interpreted the way that it is (the first one) is that the second one wouldn’t make any sense in this case:
-)Senate goes on recess.
-)A vacancy opens up
-)Senate comes back from recess.
-)President appoints somebody and it doesn’t require a confirmation vote.
If you read ‘that may happen during the recess’ to mean that the vacancy opened while the Senate was not in session, then you have the President able to appoint people to a spot even after the Senate is back in session, not requiring a confirmation. That’s just silly.
That’s the way I see it, anyway. Of course, I’m no constitutional scholar, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
good points and I too am no constitutional scholar but I play one on blogs…lol!
All this stuff-recess appointments and such- is based on when Senators had to ride horses to get there and vote.It had a sense of urgency then.Now,it is just a tactic to avoid the will of the people.
very, very cogent observation.
More and more, I wonder if there will BE meaningful midterm elections.
Uhh, I think I’m going to be sick. The “uniter” strikes again.
Mt St. Helen’s just blew her top.
Ohhhhhhhhhh … nothing on local news. ?