JOHN BOLTON - VICTIM OF DEMOCRAT OBSTRUCTION
United Nations Ambassador John Bolton resigned yesterday as the possibility of his being confirmed to the post he has held by Presidential recess appointment faded to an impossibility. Senate Democrats have filibustered Bolton's appointment to the post since President Bush nominated him never allowing even the possibility of Bolton receiving an up or down vote on the Senate floor. Now with the Senate coming under Democrat control by a slight majority in January the current minority has again obstructed the confirmation vote for Bolton. Seeing , "the handwriting on the wall," Bolton tendered his resignation and the President reluctantly accepted it. Bolton has by most accounts including some of the very same Democrat Senators who have fought his confirmation performed an excellent job as UN Ambassador. Democrat Senator Joe Biden actually stated a few weeks back that he was surprised as to how well Bolton has performed as Ambassador and was pleasantly pleased with his job but still would not vote for his confirmation. If this is not a prime example of Democrat obstruction for the sake of obstruction then a better one will never exist. Bolton has been an excellent Ambassador at the UN and has worked well in extremely difficult circumstances. Where Democrats have a problem with him is that as United States Ambassador to the UN Bolton has looked out for US interests and not bowed to the whim and fancy of the UN also seeking for reforms that are desperately needed for this corrupt organization. Democrats want an Ambassador that will fall in line with UN mandates regardless of whether those mandates are in the best interest of the US or not. It has been a contention of Democrats that the US should allow the UN to dictate policy to the US and Bolton did not fit into this mold because he refused to cave to UN dictates and opposed UN policy when it was in contrast to that of the US. Now he is gone and Senate Democrats will push for an Ambassador that fits their UN accommodating criteria. Is this obstruction policy that has been the policy of Democrats as the minority the way they will govern as a majority ? Of course as majority it will not be seen as obstruction since they will control anything that reaches the floor of the Senate for a vote either allowing that vote or preventing it from coming up for a vote. Is this the, "bipartisan, " approach that they touted so much immediately after the election ? I realize that Democrats have not taken over as majority yet but the change from minority status to majority status is only a difference of six seats. The current majority is 55 GOP, 44 Dem and 1 Ind who caucuses with the minority. The new Senate will be 51 Dem, 48 GOP and 1 Ind who again will caucus with the Dems. So most of the current crop of Democrats will move into the majority so why should anyone believe that these obstructionist Senators will create a bipartisan majority when they have used every means at their disposal to prevent any policy move by the President as a minority ? The Bolton confirmation is a foreshadowing of how a soon to be Democrat majority will govern. They have proven throughout their existence as a minority that they are unwilling to seek anything other than their obstructionist agenda and as a majority this poses the distinct probability that the Senate will be a stagnate, unyielding and totally ineffective governing body whose leadership because of opposition to the President will not allow the Senate to move forward on any proposal that is contrary to the liberal ideas of soon to be Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Senate leadership who will serve under him.
Ken Taylor
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 8:39 AM
28 Comments:
test
It's called checks and balances. It's called democracy. The people have spoken. You'll get your turn at bat in the next election, so hopefully you'll play fair and square.
The problem being, that Bolton was exactly what we needed at the UN. In case you haven't noticed, Mudkitty, the UN, as a kollektive, has opposed the US on every issue for several years now while demanding exponentially more money from us (our tax money) as they go, always complaining that we don't give enough. They also have been trying constantly to tell us how to manage our homeland security venues, monitor our elections as "umpires" and now, as if we didn't already give enough, they want to impose an international energy tax that would include us. They are also an extremely corrupt organization that flushes tons of money away, much of it to causes that support terrorism, on projects not in our best interests. Much of what they do accellerates problems around the world. Bolton was there with an agenda of ferreting out and eliminating corruption and waste, something Kofi & Kompany weren't even touching on, as they were making money off that same corruption. Bolton represented the interests of the United States at the UN -- this is what every other UN ambassador does for their own countries, but what the UN doesn't want our ambassador to do for us.
Getting a liberal in as US ambassador will mean that the interests of other UN members will come before our own.
Bolton was also en route to addressing problems that really need to be forcefully dealt with at this point in time, re Iran, NK, Lebanon, etc, that the Democrats will only go with appeasing.
This goes beyond internal US politics, which will be the only agenda, as usual, of the left.
You folks are determined to get the rest of us killed, only don't stop to think about the fact that you'll be in the same boat.
Bolton's performance at UN was far
better than I (liberal) expected, having seen him discuss issues in the media. He was a fine diplomat, and he may well have passed the lame-duck congress had he been willing to give it a go.
We haven't seen the last of him
(heh, there is already a Bolton for President website)as he will
be a good candidate for ambassador, or some State Dept
position.
Ken, the lame duck Senate could have confirmed him - but THE REPUBLICAN SENATE does not have the votes to confirm him.
Sure the Dems don't support Bolton, but it was lame duck REPUBLICAN Senator Lincoln Chafee who said he would not support him coming out of committee.
Basically, Bolton was not going to have the votes to even get out of committee, so there was not going to be a full Senate vote.
Blame the Dems if you like, but if Bolton had gotten all of the Republicans to support him he would have been confirmed.
Hi Ken. Seth beat me too it. It was indeed Senator Chafee who said he would not support him. Lame duck Republicans are absolutely to blame for this! We must work and getting the GOP back to being the GOP! GRRRRRR!
rob: if Bolton had gotten all of the Republicans to support him he would have been confirmed.
SG: Yah ... but it's still the Dem's fault the (R)z won't support him!
KT: so why should anyone believe that these obstructionist Senators will create a bipartisan majority when they have used every means at their disposal to prevent any policy move by the President as a minority ?
SG: Boy, who'da thought controlling the Executive, the Congress and the Senate would have exposed the (R)z to so much disempowerment.
Had they only known there is so much power when outta power, when in the minority in every case, they woulda started to loose elections long ago ...
Snerd
too bad congress isn't in recess, eh? gutless john quits rather than face the senate. real brave....
KEvron
"Boy, who'da thought controlling the Executive, the Congress and the Senate would have exposed the (R)z to so much disempowerment.
Had they only known there is so much power when outta power, when in the minority in every case, they woulda started to loose elections long ago ..."
brilliant!
KEvron
"Getting a liberal in as US ambassador will mean that the interests of other UN members will come before our own."
i don't supose you have any substantial evidence to support this....?
KEvron
thanks for setting me straight, snerdo ol' bean. think i'll go and bash my head with a hammer now....
KEvron
KEvron --
i don't suppose you have any substantive evidence to support this....?
The Democrats have had a "the UN knows best" attitude and supported the UN wholeheartedly from the get-go, so why would that change if they had their own ambassador there? Track records speak for themseves.
That's the way of the left: They can do the same thing twenty times out of twenty, then have the cheek to tell us we have no evidence that they'll do it the next time, as well.
As far as an up and down vote is concerned, Bolton would never have gotten one -- the Dems would merely have drawn things out until their majority was sworn in, then deep sixed him. I sense disappointment at the prospect that you portside folks will be deprived of seeing him get a "trouncing" when an up and down vote is allowed naxt year.
Tough.
Seth, the Republicans still control the Senate until January. If they had voted for Bolton out of the Foreign Relations Committee, Frist could have immediately called for a vote.
Unless the Dems were going to filibuster the nomination - which is not all that clear that they would, the Senate could have voted Bolton in.
The problem is that Bolton was not going to make it out of committee. Then, you have Senators Chafee, Snowe, Spector, Collins, and perhaps Hagel - at the very least - who would not support Bolton.
Pushing Bolton to a vote was problematic FOR REPUBLICANS because they don't support him. If every Republican supported Bolton he would be U.N. Ambassador.
You can blame the Dems all you want, but it is the Republicans who sank his nomination.
I said what Rob said, only Rob said it better! I would love to blame the Democrats for this, but I can't.
While the resignation of Bolton in the end was because of weak GOP leadership and RHINOS like Chaffee, Democrat obstruction is what brought about his recess appointment in the first place which gave the weak GOP leadership cause to back off of the confirmation like they did in caving to the minority in so many other ways in the last two years!
Okay. I conceed your point, Ken. It is true that Democrat obstruction brought about his recess appointment. Good point!
You are mistaken again Ken. Chafee, Voinavich (I don't think I spelled that right), and I believe Hagel were going to vote down Bolton's nomination in the Foreign Relations Committee. So, the nomination was killed by REPUBLICANS before and continues to be killed by REPUBLICANS now.
Ken, I could seek out a link to support what I am saying, but I can assure you that what I wrote is fact. I actually listened to C-SPAN the day Voinavich surprised Chairman Lugar by saying that he could not support Bolton.
Again, if Republicans supported Bolton he would have made it through - then and now.
seth,
i'll take that as a "no, i have nothing to support my outrageous assertions, other than gut feelings based on personal biases"....
KEvron
KEvron --
Take it any way you like. Anyone who posts an upside down American flag is not worthy of being called an American, or even a friend of America, so your opinion has been duly filed in the French drawer.
Rob --
Whatever. The Dems have been obstructing a vote Bolton's nomination from the start, and face it: Our side lost on Election Day, as I've said before, not because the Democrats offer anything proactive, but because the Republicans were conceding too much to said Dems and failing to keep their promises to their constituencies. This is just another example of same.
As far as Bolton goes, he was doing a better job than any of his predecessors of many years, and he was exactly what we needed in that position. He probably simply became tired of all the ingratitude and innuendo from the left, and face it: A guy like that could make a hell of a lot more money in the private sector without having to deal with the abuse. So he's simply another national asset run off by the left in their pursuit of politicizing every last thing that comes down the pike.
"Anyone who posts an upside down American flag is not worthy of being called an American, or even a friend of America, so your opinion has been duly filed in the French drawer."
your logic is as unimpeachable as your knowledge about your own country's flag is extensive.
i'll take that as "you know i can't possibly support my ridiculous fright-wing talking points with any citable evidence, so i'll pick a flimsy reason to wriggle out of a reasonable response".
bravo! lol!
KEvron
Seth - you do understand that if the REPUBLICANS had supported Bolton (even now) he could have been confirmed?
The reason that the Republicans lost control of Congress is simple - Iraq. Had Bush fired Rumsfeld before the election the Republicans would have kept the Senate. The House was likely to turn over anyway.
KEvron --
Like the totally incoherent comment you left over at my place yesterday or the day before, you make just a smidgeon under no sense at all.
Rob --
Sorry, but that ain't the way it works, and you know it (I'll agree with you that there are a few misguided Republicans up there who could have been of use) -- but it's a very small minority of GOPers -- enough that the Democrats can deny an up & down vote, stalling until January.
Don't construe a fraction to mean the whole. The vast majority of Republicans want Bolton in.
Now be sensible -- if there was a chance Bolton could have been confirmed, do you think Dubya would have accepted his resignation without a fight?
Forget the BS for a minute, and try to focus on things like reality and human nature.
seth --
glad to be of service.
KEvron
"Track records speak for themseves."
what track records, seth? could you cite something from that record to support your wildly inaccurate assertions?*
KEvron
(*the answer is "no, KEv, but i'll throw a red herring into the mix, because you've caught me spweing a load of balderdash")
KEvron --
Just look back at every disagreement the US has had with the UN, or with any criticism the UN has had of the US in recent years -- the Dems always support the UN. Now look at the liberal Justices in SCOTUS -- not long ago, they began disregarding their responsibility to basetheir decisions solely on the Constitution and started talking about embracing EU (same as the UN, really) models.
I this occurs homogeneously for a period of time, only a moron would think the next time will be any different. So, yeah, any UN ambassador who is acceptable to the left will be one who will fit right in with the rest of that crowd over there and be more apt to go with the status quo than interrupt it, and go along with UN programs that are contrary to US interests.
Bolton was the kind of ambassador who preferred to interrupt and fight for reform, and rather than play PC games, look for tangible, rather than the usual cosmetic, solutions to problems.
The left's solutions are always cosmetic, they are like band-aids applied to wounds that should be cauterized. The bandaid eventually gets pushed off by a flood of copious hemmorhaging(sp?) and the damage done requires more costly treatment than it might have, if the patient survives at all.
"Just look back at every disagreement the US has had with the UN, or with any criticism the UN has had of the US in recent years -- the Dems always support the UN."
could you cite some examples for us, seth?
KEvron
"hemmorhaging(sp?)"
lol! seth, there's an amazing invention that could help you with your spelling. no, i'm not talking about an education (though, it's painfully clear, you could benefit from that, too), i mean a thing called.... the computer! it's a machine that can act as a portal to a medium called.... the internets! there, one may find, if he is not too lazy to seek (it is hard werk, afterall) answers to a myriad of questions, including word definitions and their proper spellings.
no, i'm not making this up....
KEvron
Seth, there wasn't a chance because the REPUBLICANS were not united behind Bolton.
Obviously the majority of Republicans supported Bolton, but so what?
You can believe whatever you want, but Bush isn't willing to fight for Bolton because there isn't even enough Republican support on the Foreign Relations Committee to endorse him. If Bolton cannot make it through the Republican Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is rather foolish to say that Dems are responsible for Bolton's resignation.
Post a Comment
<< Home