Comments: Voinovich Steers Foreign Relations Committee Into No Endorsement Of Bolton

The problem, Steve, is that once power is obtained, Bolton won't care if he is damaged goods or not. Sure the rest of the UN will be a check on Bolton, but whatever he does, he does in our name. Also remember that the U.S. is disproportionally powerful in the U.N., he's not the nominee from Bhutan, so checking him will be harder.

Bolton's taking his cue cards strait from this administration, look good on camera just long enough to squeak by with 51% of the vote, even with the evidence against him, then enforce whatever winger agenda he wants when he gets into power. Just look at Social Security.

I didn't mean to rant against your argument but "he's damaged goods by the time he gets there" is not good enough.

Posted by chris65203 at May 12, 2005 01:45 PM

Chris, you may be right, but he won't be able to muster any kind of coalition on anything by the time the world sees what Bush thinks of the UN with this pick. And this country has had enough of unilateral action.

Posted by Steve Soto at May 12, 2005 01:54 PM

Bolton's style is to crack open a peanut with a hammer.

Posted by James at May 12, 2005 02:04 PM

On a sunny Oregon afternoon, the thought of Bolton in the dead of night inside a sex playground is surely not a pleasant diversion.

In a kind of snarky 'get what they deserve' way, maybe with Bolton there, when we lose some big ones in the UN because of his 'style', Repubs in the Senate will understand why appointing an anti-diplomat to a diplomatic position has a cost.

Posted by JimPortlandOR at May 12, 2005 02:27 PM

Voinovich didn't want to pull the full Jeffords and pussied out.

Don't think this is some principled friend to the moderates, Steve. Voinovich is just a sniveling ass-coverer.

Posted by Toby Petzold at May 12, 2005 02:27 PM

Also remember that the U.S. is disproportionally powerful in the U.N., he's not the nominee from Bhutan, so checking him will be harder.

Right. Because that's what all real Americans should want from the UN: "checking" our country.

Posted by Toby Petzold at May 12, 2005 02:36 PM

Where are those WMD's again, Toby?

Posted by chris65203 at May 12, 2005 03:04 PM

So what, I gotta retract my deprecations of Voinovich now? Dammit!

Posted by Duckman GR at May 12, 2005 03:56 PM

Bolton will almost certainly end up an embarrassment to the Bush administration. Unfortunately, he'll also be an embarrassment to America, but there's nothing we can do about that.

Posted by CA Pol Junkie at May 12, 2005 03:57 PM

checking him will be harder.

Right. Because that's what all real Americans should want from the UN: "checking" our country.

"our country"?

the state, it's him!

Posted by benjoya at May 12, 2005 04:52 PM

Every Senator should be REQUIRED to listen to the Voinovich speech today. And all of the Democrats, who will have to repeat their objections.

Only Bush and Rove could be so stubborn as to force a floor fight over this jerk.

They would be well advised to plead ignorance of Bolton's "record" and privately meet with him to withdraw his name. That way, he pulls out due to the inevitable "family reasons," they save face, and the Dems don't win in public.

Get ready for a nasty fight. Boxer says the President wants a fight. We'll give him one.

Posted by Bonnie Yarbrough at May 12, 2005 05:12 PM

This is all just to cast the Democrats as obstructionists. The principal is the same, the president should get his choice as nominee. And the corporate media will play it that way.

Posted by rlprather at May 12, 2005 05:19 PM

Voin-oink-oink-avitch is a GOP bagman. If he had any balls, he would have voted no. There is no such person as an honorable member of the congressonal GOP. They are all swine.

Posted by Sonoma at May 12, 2005 05:19 PM

Toby sez:

Don't think this is some principled friend to the moderates, Steve. Voinovich is just a sniveling ass-coverer.

Never were truer words spoken. Think about that, though: Bolton is such a lousy nominee that a sniveling rightie ass-coverer like Voinovich thinks that a simple committee vote might be just too much for his conscience to bear. And Bush is in the White House.

Just think about that for a minute.

Posted by Matt Davis at May 12, 2005 06:33 PM

Bonnie Yarbrough wrote: "Only Bush and Rove could be so stubborn as to force a floor fight over this jerk".

Those two abortions of humanity steered this nation to WAR, by lies and treachery.

Do you honestly believe, Ms Yarbrough, in light of that mortal sin upon them, that they are incapable of anything?

Posted by Sonoma at May 12, 2005 06:50 PM

MSNBC, of all places, headlines today's action thusly:

Panel won't back Bolton for U.N. envoy, sends nomination to full Senate.

Won't back Bolton?! That's tough talk.

Posted by Matt Davis at May 12, 2005 08:01 PM

I posted this upthread as well. I hate disagreeing with Steve. I hope he's right and I'm wrong.



Posted by debcoop at May 12, 2005 10:43 PM

Second try

I think that the White House's absolute need to win means that they will lean hard enough on enough Senators to confirm Bolton. They know losing once means that the moderates will be emboldened to vote their "conscience" after the wall of power cracks.

I thought at the time of the first committee vote, when Voinovich made his unexpected statemnt that if it came to vote he couldn't THEN , at that moment, that he could not vote for him. That moment we shouuld have struck, but Joe Biden as usual went soft and collegial.

I thought at the time and I feel even more strongly now that Biden was wrong to request a delay instead of forcing Voinovich into a no vote at the time.

Time, these days, in a Congress where Rove etal crack the bullwhip of discipline and party solidarity, no longer actually helps the Dems. Time helps the Republican machine put pressure on their waverers.

That is why I think it may be smart of Frist to have extended debate on the nuclear option. It may or may not make our case publicly but it gives them a lot of time to count and crack heads. A quick vote might mean that we get the few remaining moderates to vote the interest of The Senate and not have their arms twisted into party compliance

Posted by debcoop at May 12, 2005 10:33 PM

Posted by debcoop at May 12, 2005 10:45 PM

I hope you're right, Steve. But I'm worried. I saw a headline in the Post: "Bush Squeezes out one narrow victory after another." He really doesn't care if he wins by negative 10 percent, as long as he gets his way. Even the appearance of winning is a victory for him. If Voinovich had any principles whatsoever, he should have stood his ground. The Republican moderates are completely useless. Who cares if they cave reluctantly or with a big happy smile on their face? I do appreciate your attempts to bring us good cheer, though because despair is unproductive. So please keep it up!

Posted by Alexandra at May 13, 2005 04:37 AM

Yesterday was far from a huge loss for Bush, but it was a loss. The main thing that kept him going for the last few years--aside from 9/11--has been momentum, both real and illusory. Yesterday slowed that momentum.

Posted by Matt Davis at May 13, 2005 07:20 AM

Bush could use a huge heaping portion of Joementum right now.

That'd fix him good!

Posted by muckcat at May 13, 2005 08:56 AM