I think the battle is over. the "party" will stick together after they put on the "show" and all will be well in the good old USA, with the "right" people in the right places.

Voinovich actually thinks that the UN ambassadorship is some sort of freelance executive gig that isn't minutely circumscribed by the Administration in power?

That's stupid.

Toby, that's not what he's saying at all, and you know it. Why does a man his age need to be closely supervised or watched at all? Did John Danforth or even John Negroponte need to be "supervised" in the sense that Condi meant it?

Nope. But then Danforth was an adult. And even though I disagree with Negroponte's past, he could be trusted to represent the best interests of this country without daily monitoring and worry. Negroponte was not likely to cause more harm in with his behavior, and he didn't.

There is no such assurance with Bolton, given just his behavior of the last four years, let alone his sordid past. And the man is an adult and has no excuse for his behavior. And this is the best that the GOP can do in sending someone to the UN?

Yes Toby,
Voinovich IS missing the point.
The problem with Bolton isn't that he's a loose cannon, it's that he is a serial manipulator of intelligence--and that he was and would be working closely with the Administration on that very project. He's a threat to national security, and the only reason why Bush thinks he's the right man for the job is that Bolton will follow Bush's orders explicitly...and continue to do stupid things.

Anytime anyone mentions Bolton's personality they are playing into the current political dichotomy between Dems and Repubs over how you deal with the world. The Repubs value idiocy...I mean bluntness...and so anytime anyone mentions Bolton's manner, temper, etc. I believe that they are playing the Republican political game-Lugar has been making these kinds of comments every time he opens his mouth, revealing just how much of a kiss ass he's become...

Let me rephrase that, as Steve's comment above reveal, there are intelligent comments to be made on the competence score, but we need to make sure that these kinds of comments are reduced by the Repubs to concerns about Bolton being "gruff and bullheaded."

We know what they think of the UN, so why does it make sense for us to to ask them why they think a man "like this" would be good to send up to the UN?

This pleases their base to no end...

I am reminded of the high point of the Roman Senate under the Great Emperor Caligula. It seems that Caligula, having defeated Poseidon at the battle of the north sea, and had his triumphant return to Rome became obsessed with the trappings of power.

Caligula, "little Boots" as he was called by the real soldiers who knew his daddy, decided to raise one of his favorites to to the Senate. So, Caligula had his white horse Incitatus recommended for elevation to Senatorial rank.

This is the vision I have of the confirmation vote on the floor of the Senate on the modern version of a horse's ass. And the docile, pathetic Senators who are afraid of their emperor will vote accordingly. Despite the abasment of everything they used to believe was important. Just as the frightened little men of Caligula's time voted a horse's as to highest evel of government.

Perhaps some clever cartoonist can draw an appropriate cartoon? At a minimum it seems to me we should refer to this ass as Incitatus. The Republican senators voting for him can be called the "pussies Incitatus."

Look, Toby: Even if you put all the rest of Bolton's flaws aside, something remains.

Bolton has said, in so many words, that he does not believe in the UN.

I would never, ever appoint an ambassador to France who professed not to believe in France, no matter how much I might disagree with the French leaders. Why on Earth would anyone appoint a UN ambassador who has renounced its existence?

Matt, maybe Toby understands the subtle differences between words, but the right wing does not "believe" in the UN. Nor do they "believe" in France.

I do not think that shaming these people works at all. They quite simply do not believe in the UN or diplomacy or peace or allies or any of that...

Bolton had to be "supervised" aat state. condi is just trying to get him out of her hair.

Given Voinovich's comments, I challenge anyone to give me a rational reality based reason why he would vote for bolton.

Imagine you're interviewing somebody for a position t your firm. bolton walks in, applies, gets interviewed. You find out he embellished the truth, he was released from another job because of his aggressive and abusive behavior, and at yet another past job changed sales data to curry favor with one of the managers.

You wouldn't look twice at the guy, or even let him be a customer of yours.

Yet Voinovich voted for him.

Perhaps they want to drag it out even longer so that if bush does make a recess appointment he has less time on the job, or maybe he'll have an accident or maybe bush will give up.

I think they'd go a long way in people's minds if they just said no, you suck, you don't get the job. Let bush appoint him, that puts even more of the onus on bush when the toad gets exposed for some other machination.

If Voinovich and Chafee vote against Bolton on the floor, they will have voted for him before they voted against him. That'll really make Chafee seem two-faced.

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

It is over. I think we have lost the
GOP moderates,on almost every vote now and into the future.

Bush is will more than happy to win on a narrow basis. And the more often he wins by this method the more the selfsame GOP moderates will see it is not in their interest to buck the party on any vote.

I hate to say this but they will win the nuclear option even it's 51-50. They may even get a Social Security bill out of both the House and
Senate committee. Our only weapon for Social Security will be the filibuster.

Our only hope, I fear, is to do some winning in 2006 andd 2008 at the Federal level. I have great trepidation that the more the GOP has uninterrupted power in the House, Senate and Presidency the more they can institutionize changes that will perpetuate one party tyranny forever.

They could little by little eliminate the filibuster category by category.

Below is a link to Ron Brownstein's astute commentary which provides supporting evidence on my view of GOP moderates

"But today's committee vote to advance Bolton underscores the powerful impulse among most congressional Republicans to side with the president even when he pushes ideas beyond their ideological comfort zone. More than anything, the refusal by committee Republicans to sink Bolton — even after expressing so much skepticism about him — should send a cautionary signal to Democrats counting on GOP defections to derail the filibuster ban and other White House priorities.

The vote, said one senior Republican Senate aide, showed that GOP moderates "are willing to bend things, but not break them. Overall, it's a good sign for the majority and the administration, even as unpleasant as it was today."

Posted by debcoop at May 12, 2005 11:44 PM

Voinovich is pulling the wool over everone's eyes. If he really did not believe Bolton should not be sent to the U.N., he could have killed it in committee. However, he is trying to play the role of Mr. Moderate, by saying I won't vote for him, but the entire senate should vote on this matter. By him voting to send it to the Senate Floor, he is allowing Bolton to be sent to the UN, but he comes of looking moderate because he opposes it.

bigdog, I rarely agree with any of your comments but the one above sounds pretty accurate. I will just add one more thought to it. By having the vote go to the full Senate, I think it also takes some of the spotlight, blame, pressure off of Voinovich whether he gets confirmed or not. If he is confirmed, Voinovich stays in favor with the WH while still standing firm on principle. If he doesn't get confirmed, that will mean others in his party will have also voted against Bolton and therefore Voinovich will have some cover from some of his colleagues votes from the wrath of Bush.

My gut says that it is over. Bolton gets confirmed by a eunich filled GOP who have only one allegiance, responsibility, and loyalty and that is to party. Party above Country. It's a cult mentality and reminds me of another time in history. Next step will be that the GOP will not only continue trying to convince the masses that it is the Party of God, but that it is also the party of Country (they have made some attempts to do that through the use of patriotism/flag, calling people who disagree with the War Unamerican/unpatriotic/traitors) Then from there it will the party of the World. GOP=God=Country=World.

emal,

you are 100% correct...see it is just like Rodney King said; Can't we all just get along.

He is eying a run at the WH in 2008 (I'd rather vote for Robert Byrd) and this is his chance of appearing to have scrupples and appear moderate as a way to win over some conservative dems.

I don't know. I don't know that much about Voinovich but I don't think it was entirely a cover your ass move. I'm thinking perhaps he has some idea that there will be enough defections on Bolton in the full Senate to get a rejection. His statement basically says "The Bush administration is stupid for nominating this guy". Not gonna put a smile on anyone's face in the White House. What's the press been all about since the vote? About how rarely the committee sends a nominee to the Senate with no recommendation. Had Voinovich just killed it in committee the headlines would have been all about the Republicans screaming about Bolton deserving an up or down vote. Sound familiar? This way the seed is planted that this guy does not deserve to be our UN representative. Might really make some fence sitters think twice before the full vote. I think perhaps Voinovich's move was a little more subtle than many suspect. But I don't really know much about him. Just my take.

cat,

It is an interesting thought, but ultimately I believe incorrect. I only say this because he is just being typical George Voinovich. This is the same stuff he pulled as Mayor of Cleveland, Govenor of Ohio and Now Senator from Ohio. He is an outstanding politician, who is always trying to please everyone rather than get things done. Actually he got away with this for a long time. I have to say, that if his actions convinced you, then it just goes to show how much of a politician he really is.

My advice...Don't let him fool you.

As I said yesterday, these Congress GOP'ers know that Rove/Bush will end their careers if they defect. And they may well hate them for it, but nevertheless, that's life in the GOP these days, and is the reason that everytime the chips are down, the GOP'ers fold and hand the game to Bush.
And as for Rice keeping an eye on Bolton......geez, who the hell is keeping an eye on her ?? Having her as SecState is way more disturbing than putting Bolton up at the UN.

You would think a guy who forces his wife to have group sex with strangers would do better with a crowd.

From the site of Steven C. Clemons, reports that Barbara Boxer placed a “hold” on Bolton nominations until she get the documents from Condi. It takes 60 votes to overturn a hold. There is still hope. Condi has rejected to release them. what could be the chilling effect on debates within the administration?
Steven C. Clemons

Voinovich could have killed the disastrous spending bill last year (?) too, but he waffled and then accepted a fig leaf concession from the administration - they wouldn't raise the deficit over a certain amount. Of course, they used accounting procedures to get around that little restriction. So he let them do their evil.

Like the words, but he could have stopped this nomination cold, and if he really believed what he was saying about Bolton he should have. He'll have a lot to live with at the end of the day.

I correct myself - he could have killed the tax cut bill. He did a Hamlet on it...

Steve, all of this hemming and hawing about Bolton's personality is certainly adding to his reputation as a blunt diplomat. If there is such a thing ---and I say there is. And, in the end, with such a reputation, Bolton can only rise in the esteem of those relatively few people who actually care who the ambassador to the UN is.

It's like I said a week or so ago about Nixon. He had a reputation as a fierce anti-Communist, which enabled him to be taken seriously when the time came to deal with China and the USSR. If Bolton is known to have little respect for the UN, it may be that he will have more credibility when issues arise on which he can show some accomodation.

Just watch and wait. You're being silly if you think John Bolton will singlehandedly wreck our name in the UN ---especially since you already think it is.

Davis:

Why on Earth would anyone appoint a UN ambassador who has renounced its existence?

Because it is a diseased organization thats original structure is broken down. And, if the UN is to mean something again, it must be dealt with aggressively. We don't need some mealy-mouthed wanker in there; we need someone whom everyone there knows is intent on the reforms that they themselves are incapable of instituting.

Toby, care to elaborate on what's actually wrong with the U.N., with some specificity?

And better still, care to tell us what bush's plan actually is, and what it's actually going to address?

And if you just say oil for food, you lose.

Duckman GR,

There are a lot of problems with the U.N., and they are not recent problems. The least of which matters is the silly oil for food program, which is pretty darn corrupt. My overall problem with the U.N. is their complete inability or inconsistancy with keeping countries from being invaded.

1. They did nothing while the soviet union invaded numerous "satallite states" in the old eastern bloc.

2. They did nothing whild teh soviet union invaded Afghanistan.

3. They did nothing the entire time the U.S. promised to invade Iraq to overthrow Saddam, or depending on how you look at it, they did not help with the invasion of Iraq according to Resolution 1441.

4. They did nothing during the massacres in Rwanda, Kosovo, Somalia, and The Congo (or whatever that country goes by these days).

They remind me of a pit bull with no teeth. It does not matter how much they bark, you know their bite is not going to hurt.