128 Comments

1. Buddy Larsen:

Roger, very well-put. Language has a big load to carry, in trying to describe the difference in SIZE & IMPORT between those two stories (the UN scandal vs the Bolton debate). But your post is excellent. Hope it gets plenty of notice. Childish games in congress–INDEED!

Apr 20, 2005 - 7:48 am 2. Michael B:

To further underscore the contrast, the estimable Claudia Rosett has a new piece on Kofi in Opinion Journal today.

Apr 20, 2005 - 7:59 am 3. Lola:

I agree. When is Bush going to get into the act? Yes, he’s reiterated his support for Bolton in public, but what are they doing behind the scenes? What is Rove up to?

Apr 20, 2005 - 8:17 am 4. Hogarth:

Voinovich sure has a lot of gall worrying about how anyone else treats subordinates after ordering his pilot to takeoff despite not having clearance from the control tower:

Gov. Short Fuse blew on Oct. 20 (1996) when federal rules delayed his plane’s takeoff as the president arrived in Columbus.

As it often does when the president flies, the FAA issued a Temporary Flight Restriction, commonly referred to as a no-fly order.

When this order is in effect, no planes other than essential aircraft are cleared for takeoff. That reduces the chances of a terrorist staging a kamikaze attack on Air Force One.

The order kept the governor and his plane on the ground. And he was honked.

Gov. Voinovich called it “bull”-something and ordered his pilot to break the rules and take off. He even dared the control tower to “shoot us down.” That, too, would have cost. One hour of flying time for an F-15 Eagle fighter jet runs $3,399 to $4,037.

The pilot followed orders and took off. The FAA responded by slapping the governor with a standard $1,500 fine.

The governor’s fighting that fine, and tax dollars are footing the bill. He has hired a Columbus law firm to fight for his right to fly the friendly skies of Ohio. We’re paying his lawyers’ $95-an-hour fee. Their bill could top out at $20,000.

The governor says he’s entitled to the money because he was on official business. Too bad he wasn’t thinking as a respected public official would, much less an adult.

http://www.enquirer.com/columns/radel/1996/06/060596_cr.html

Apr 20, 2005 - 8:18 am 5. David Thomson:

Boldness is required. President Bush should opt for a recess appointment and be done with it. The senators will then have to deal with John Bolton after he has already served for awhile as our UN ambassador.

These silly Republican senators seem too interested in obtaining favorable mention in the MSM. They have yet to realize that they are members of the majority party. One might be reminded of a guy who is now muscular and athletic, but still perceives himself to be a 98 pound weakling.

Apr 20, 2005 - 8:19 am 6. Pat Curley:

Voinovich must be hearing the siren call of the presidency (not surprising for a Senator from Ohio). I don’t know why he and others (Hagel and McCain) think that opposing the current Republican President will help them get the nomination. Yes, it would help them in the general election, but it very much will hurt them in the primaries.

The Tribune piece doesn’t even disclose Bolton’s accusers’ ties with the Democrats (founder of the Dallas chapter of Mothers Opposing Bush), or even her name.

Apr 20, 2005 - 8:21 am 7. Hogarth:

This is the letter (email) I sent Voinovich through his web site:

http://shortfinal.blogspot.com/2005/04/dear-sen-voinovich.html

Apr 20, 2005 - 8:22 am 8. Bruce W.:

Regarding Bolton, is it possible that the White House or the R-Party leadership, after initially hoping for a not-so-difficult confirmation process, have decided to sacrifice him?

It makes some sense to me on several levels:

1. It would show that the overly villified Republicans and Administration do not turn an entirely deaf ear to what may actually be valid and reasonable objections by the minority on important nominees.

2. When the smoke blows over on his rejection, should that come to pass, it would put the focus more intensely back on the U.N. and its bad actors and scandals. It would be as if the U.S. were saying “See U.N., we changed course on someone because they MIGHT have had a negative effect. What will you do now about those in your house who have already had such effect?” (And should Bolton ultimately be confirmed, the unusually lengthy additional review period evidences a willingness to cooperate and engage in debate on important decisions).

3. From a simply logical standpoint, if he’s half as hot tempered as these accounts seem to suggest, he probably isn’t well suited as a diplomat, especially at this level.

Apr 20, 2005 - 8:28 am 9. pajamazon:

I think I get it now. Our two political parties just pretend to service their agendas. The LAST thing they really wish is to actually achieve their goals. They get to be famous and enjoy “work” that includes 5-star lunches and celebrity style perks.

I think it’s time to consider putting these thieves on commission! Why are we paying them anything? Could technology provide a better way to accomplish public goals than this antiquated system of “representation?” These guys-and gals- benefit from inaction! If they get anything done they’ll actually have to find something else to do for us. Imagine that!

Why can the private sector hire the right person for any job, but public tax dollars must pay to identify a problem. Extrapolate countless solutions. And then fund some soultions as well as the “counter” to those solutions? It’s easy! It’s not their money! It’s ours!

The Senate is acting as an agent for inaction! Both parties politicians get to continue guzzling from the public trough while pretending to “fight” for their constituants.

Lets reduce Senate pay to one dollar per year. Let’s make it easy to convict or fire bad public employees. Let’s review the purpose of The Senate. Are they here for us or not?

Apr 20, 2005 - 8:43 am 10. Morgan:

…if he’s half as hot tempered as these accounts seem to suggest, he probably isn’t well suited as a diplomat, especially at this level.

I don’t want him to be a diplomat. I want him to represent me, to express just a small sliver of the rage I feel towards an utterly corrupt group of scoundrels and sycophants who absurdly assert sole claim to morality.

If he’s a hothead, so much the better. I don’t care if he blows up and coldcocks Kofi. In fact, if he did I’d say “Now that’s the appropriate way to treat the UN.”

So you see, we differ not so much in our analysis, as in our values.

Apr 20, 2005 - 8:47 am 11. David Thomson:

“See U.N., we changed course on someone because they MIGHT have had a negative effect. What will you do now about those in your house who have already had such effect?”

We live in the real world—and this is unfortunately perceived as weakness. John Bolton is not being criticized for his alleged anger management issues. No, the central reason is that he will strongly represents Americaís interests at the United Nations. On a gut level (and they will vociferously deny it), Boltonís foes are primarily internationalists. Their American identity is of secondary importance. Thatís what this fight is truly about.

Apr 20, 2005 - 8:49 am 12. B-rah:

Just a comment about Bolton. My uncle, a staunch liberal Democrat, was a Director for the AID (US Aid for International Development)program for many years and personally knew Bolton. He recently told my mother(his sister)that Bolton is a fantastic person, very bright and he supports him wholeheartedly. He even made a special point of saying how well Bolton treated him when they worked together and has written a letter to Congress to publicly say so. Doubt if you’ll hear about that in the MSM.

Apr 20, 2005 - 9:01 am 13. David:

Maybe the President and Karl Rove have no use for the UN (I know I don’t) and are letting the circus proceed to help trash the UN in the end.

Apr 20, 2005 - 9:06 am 14. Ron:

The United Nations has become a real embarrassment. Has any criminal organization that you can think of been involved with so many crimes. The Mafia pales in comparison, they steal a few million but nothing like what the UN gets involved in, they help rip off Billions, they rape women, men, children and in East Timor they were raping goats. They get involved with lying, cheating and stealing and still get a pass by most of our stupid news media. Genocide’s? You want to know about Genocide’s, the UN knows Genocide’s, they have perfected the ways and means to promote them until no one is left standing. Got one going now in Darfur, 300,000 murdered and still counting. These people should be brought up on criminal charges but you can’t touch them, they have immunity. Saddam has been involved in the same thing and he doesn’t have immunity, why should they. John Bolton is the perfect person to deal with the criminals of the UN, he will represent his country and not bow to the thugs which belong to it and run it right now.

Apr 20, 2005 - 9:08 am 15. Rick Ballard:

Both Lugar and Voinovich love to see their name in the media. They both have aspirations far beyond what their pedestrian mediocrity will ever justify. If a message could get through their sycophantic staffs I am not sure that they have the proper apparatus in place to receive and decode it.

We will see continuing posturing from posturing dufii (that is the plural of dufus, right?)for the forseeable future. Why shouldn’t the Reps be entitled to their own peabrains? If the Dems can have dumber than a Boxer rocks, why can’t the Reps have Lugar the Dim and Voinovich the Dimmer?

Although, for sheer stupidity mixed with narcissism I don’t think the Dems can match John “What am I today?” McCain. The Drunkard and Sheets are models of consistency in comparison.

Apr 20, 2005 - 9:10 am 16. David Thomson:

The Tribune piece doesn’t even disclose Bolton’s accusers’ ties with the Democrats (founder of the Dallas chapter of Mothers Opposing Bush), or even her name.î

Melody Townsel is a flaming leftist. She also admits that there were apparently no witnesses when John Bolton allegedly abused her. This makes me very suspicious. Radical left wingers have no hesitation in slandering their foes. What initially may have been no more than a few unpleasant words later becomes rants of a madman. Lastly, Townsel is becoming a darling of the Left—and this means that she will receive her guaranteed 15 minutes of fame—and some indirect monetary compensation. George Soros and his buddies are throwing money around like drunken fools. They will do virtually anything to destroy George W. Bushís administration.

Apr 20, 2005 - 9:12 am 17. Michael B:

… and has written a letter to Congress to publicly say so. Doubt if you’ll hear about that in the MSM.”

Precisely, and another letter that is failing to be prioritized within the MSM’s agenda, this one signed by Weinberger, Schultz, Woolsey, Ledeen and several dozen other prominent and knowledgeable insiders well acquainted with Bolton’s substantial bona fides.

Apr 20, 2005 - 9:20 am 18. Buddy Larsen:

Bruce W, all due respect, but i think the UN criminal conspiracy would warmly applaud your thoughts. Details are sometimes beyond our time limits to assimilate…in which case the bet ought to be on track records. Look at Bolton’s accusers ‘truth’ track records.

Apr 20, 2005 - 9:20 am 19. David Thomson:

ìLook at Bolton’s accusers ‘truth’ track records.î

Carl Ford claimed to be ìloyal, conservative Republican to the core,î and now we know he contributed money to some of the most liberal and Republican politicians:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1383117/posts

A recess appointment is the best way to go. President Bush has to put a stop to this silliness.

Apr 20, 2005 - 9:39 am 20. Former CNN Watcher:

The stonewalling of the UN in the matter of UN peacekeeper prostitution, rape and pedophilia is tracked in the UN’s own words here:

http://noonshadow.blogspot.com/2005/04/blue-helmets-and-purple-helmets-v3.html

I like the title: “Blue Helmets and Purple Helmets”

Apr 20, 2005 - 9:51 am 21. charlotte:

The way the Dem Inquisition is raking Bolton over the coals seems designed to provoke a few heated words from him to prove what a hothead he is. The Dems may be right about something, for once. They know that any man who stands up for himself, or for getting the job done right, or for his country is obviously unfit to rep us at the UN.

Apr 20, 2005 - 9:54 am 22. David Thomson:

This sounds encouraging:

ìBut Republican strategist Ed Rollins (search) said that allegations are nothing more than an attempt to smear the White House.

“Democrats see an opportunity, I think, to embarrass the president, but at the end of the day, after another day or two of hearings, he’s going to be confirmed,” Rollins said.î

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154039,00.html

Apr 20, 2005 - 9:56 am 23. Buddy Larsen:

It’s that same old split, isn’t it, ‘process’ people vs ‘results’ people. Might shine some light on ethical balances, as results are far less ‘game-able’ than the Babel Tower of moving process along.

Apr 20, 2005 - 10:00 am 24. James H:

Hogarth is off base in his criticism of Voinovich so pardon the defense. The FAA only has authority to regulate air traffic due to the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. Voinovich was flying in a state plane from Columbus to another city in Ohio (I think Toledo).He wasn’t flying interstate or engaged in commerce. He wasn’t even flying from the same airport as Clinton was arriving at. Clinton was flying to Port Columbus (the main airport). Voinovich was flying from Don Scott Field (The OSU airport), about 15 miles away.

I think Voinovich should have told Lugar before the committee convened how he felt. IMO Bolton will be a good ambassador and I expect he will be confirmed.

Apr 20, 2005 - 10:13 am 25. Hogarth:

Hogarth is a licensed pilot and knows exactly what would happen to him if he tried a stunt like that.

James H. might consider looking into what happens when pilots violate TFRs.

Apr 20, 2005 - 10:29 am 26. Cecil Turner:

“The FAA only has authority to regulate air traffic due to the interstate commerce clause of the constitution.”

Nonsense, there are also perfectly legitimate security issues. If you want to test the theory, try flying your Cessna into the prohibited area surrounding the White House, and see how you fare in court.

As to Bolton’s nomination, he’s perhaps the best possible choice. He is absolutely correct that the UN is failing miserably in its primary mission (collective security), and needs a swift kick. But that mission is important, and it would be far better for us to make it succeed, if possible. Ignoring it, as we’re largely doing now, is decidedly less efficient.

Apr 20, 2005 - 10:39 am 27. Rick Ballard:

Cecil,

How does one correct a deficiency that is a result of an inherent design flaw? If the entire Secretariat is as corrupt as it appears to be and if the Secretariat has the only true authority for for executing reform, how will reform be accomplished? The UNSC is charged with oversight but its minimal true authority bears no relationship to its theoretical great responsibility. The probability that the corruption encompasses at least two and possibly three UNSC members (France, Russia and China) makes any true reform problematic.

I agree as to the importance of the mission but I fail to see the route to a UN capable of fulfilling that mission.

Apr 20, 2005 - 11:06 am 28. jerry:

Several assorted comments:

James N: If Voinovich was flying under instrument flight rules (IFR) he was required to file a flight plan with the FAA and follow the instructions of FAA controllers. If he was flying visual flight rules (VFR) he did not have to file a plan but I am sure he would still be required to have permission to take off from a controlled airport. Flying under FAA control has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

As for the main issue the White House should make it clear that the post of UN Ambassador will remain empty unless Bolton receives a floor vote. If the Democrats call his bluff then he should leave the post vacant and wait until Congress is in recess to make the appointment.

There is another possible course of action that just tickles my funny bone. If Jeanne Kirkpatrick feels up to it, withdraw Bolton and send in Ms. Kirkpatrick for a return engagement. If Klown Kerry and Co. think Bolton would be tough on the UN-kleptocrats just wait until she shows up in the Ambassadorís chair.

Apr 20, 2005 - 11:15 am 29. Cecil Turner:

“How does one correct a deficiency that is a result of an inherent design flaw?”

Good question . . . wish I had a better answer. To my mind the larger design flaw is the permanent member “veto” in the UNSC (and the membership), rather than the power of the Secretariat, but I wouldn’t argue with the contention that the flaw is inherent.

“I agree as to the importance of the mission but I fail to see the route to a UN capable of fulfilling that mission.”

Nor am I terribly hopeful, but it’s a relatively cheap option, and has to be tried. I’m also not very hopeful that Bolton will survive the confirmation process, especially as the delay allows new allegations to surface. But I still think it’s our best course of action.

Apr 20, 2005 - 11:18 am 30. erp:

senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov

senator_voinovich@voinovich.senate.gov

senator_frist@frist.senate.gov

senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov

Insert the name of any senator into the formula as above.

Let them all know what you think of them and when you get a fundraising letter, return it with a pithy comment like that from a poster on CQ: no spine, no money.

Apr 20, 2005 - 11:34 am 31. Rick Ballard:

erp,

The problem is that Lugar and Voinovich don’t need dough. Lugar has a very safe seat and delusions of competence that might (in his febrile and feeble mind) lead to 1600 PA Ave. Voinovich won’t face the voters til ‘10. Dim and Dimmer can make complete and utter asses of themselves without fear. One must really remember that these fellows live in a bubble and are easily lead to believe that a little petting by the MSM/DNC is simply evidence that their self-estimation is correct.

Watching the Paliament of Whores in action takes a very strong stomach. It’s just chock full of preening, pompous jerks with jellyfish spines, committed only to their own self-aggrandizement.

Apr 20, 2005 - 12:05 pm 32. Oyster:

Maybe Bolton will not be happy with meaningless hand-wringing and ignored resolutions. If he can’t say so, then he’s wrong for the job. However, I don’t think that will be a problem if he is confirmed.

David Thompson hits the nail on the head when he says of Bolton’s foes that their “…American identity is of secondary importance.” He will be the American Diplomat to the UN just like diplomats from other countries are there to represent the “interests” of their countries. Why should we be held to different standards?

Apr 20, 2005 - 12:28 pm 33. Kyda Sylvester:

This is one of the (many) reasons why in my opinion the US Senate runs neck-in-neck with the UN for the title Most Worthless Institution on the Planet. It infuriates me that these 100 bloviating egos run amuck hold such sway over my life and our country’s direction. Greatest deliberative body in the world my arse. And they wonder why none of them ever gets elected to the presidency.

If the ever increasingly useless Republicans can’t get Bolton out of committee, screw ‘em. That’s why God made recess appointments.

(now that the rant’s over) There are two good pieces in support of Bolton at NRO (here and here) and editorials at the STrib (try BugMeNot if you don’t want to register) and perennial favorite LAT that could use a few dissenting voices in response.

Apr 20, 2005 - 12:29 pm 34. Lancelot Finn:

For all their corruption and crimes, the UN will continue to have a legitimacy that unilateral US power lacks, in the eyes of the global scribal class.

Why? Because the UN is ecumenical in its scope, and its legitimizing narrative– in the wake of the horrors of World War II, the peoples of the world came together to form an institution that would provide peace– is more persuasive to those not born in the US than is the US’s legitimizing narrative, in which most of the world’s population cannot participate.

The UN is like the medieval Catholic Church. No matter what it does, an air of sanctity will linger about it. This moral authority is almost impossible for Americans to understand. But we are in for a long struggle against it, which we will probably lose.

It would help to make the US’s appeal more ecumenical through a policy of open borders.

Apr 20, 2005 - 12:29 pm 35. Oyster:

erp said “Let them all know what you think of them and when you get a fundraising letter, return it with a pithy comment like that from a poster on CQ: no spine, no money.”

Nobody will read any response to funraising letters and they’ll just get a return form-letter thanking them for their interest in donating and ask for more money for the DNC, if not for themselves.

Apr 20, 2005 - 12:34 pm 36. Oyster:

“funraising”? was that Freudian or what?

Apr 20, 2005 - 12:35 pm 37. erp:

We have to do whatever we can or the Democrats will be hellraising and we’ll be on sidelines watching them undo all that the president has accomplished.

The world and the UN, where Clinton and his cadre are hiding out, are waiting for Democrats and their friends on the other side of the aisle to finish off the Conservative movement and resume their rightful place in the halls of power. RINO’s take note. Jim Jeffords isn’t running for re-election next year.

What would it hurt for everybody to send an email and add your voice to what I hope is a groundswell of indignation and demands for Republicans to back the president’s nominees.

Apr 20, 2005 - 1:22 pm 38. sammy small:

Hogarth, the Voinovich story doesn’t add up. The pilot is always in command of the aircraft, no matter what someone onboard wants. If he elected to take off after being notified of a temporary grounding situation, he should receive a violation or maybe lose his license. It was the pilot’s call in the end. If I were Voinovich, I would have fired him after that flight.

Apr 20, 2005 - 1:40 pm 39. Cecil Turner:

“The UN is like the medieval Catholic Church. No matter what it does, an air of sanctity will linger about it. This moral authority is almost impossible for Americans to understand.”

In more ways than one. As Joseph Stalin famously remarked, “How many divisions does the Pope have?” The same question–and answer–applies to the UN. However, the moral authority can be immensely valuable when it comes to diplomatic solutions to thorny regional crises. (In addition to the moral dimension, the purely practical prospect of facing a broad coalition can be daunting to a regional tyrant.)

“But we are in for a long struggle against it, which we will probably lose.”

If we were running a global moral authority popularity contest, we certainly would lose. But the US and UN are not really competitors. (And in fact, in many parts of the world, the UN’s biggest PR weakness is that the US provides the lion’s share of the funding, has the most influence, and it’s often seen as our puppet.) And if the goal is to get them to get off their butts and start taking effective collective security action (e.g., in Darfur), the cause is not completely hopeless.

Apr 20, 2005 - 1:51 pm 40. Cecil Turner:

“The pilot is always in command of the aircraft, no matter what someone onboard wants. If he elected to take off after being notified of a temporary grounding situation, he should receive a violation or maybe lose his license.”

The pilot-in-command is in fact in charge–and has the authority to refuse an order from an employer (though it might get him fired). That can change in some circumstances (e.g., a commanding general embarked aboard a military aircraft retains his authority–including command over that aircraft), but I don’t think a governor is such a case. If the story is accurate, this particular pilot sounds pretty spineless. But the fact that the FAA was going after Voinovich suggests they thought he was the prime mover.

Apr 20, 2005 - 2:02 pm 41. Rick Ballard:

erp,

I should have clarified or extended my post but I had to fill an emesis basin after seeing Lugar on TV.

By all means, sending emails as you suggest can be productive, although letters are better. Here are the Reps who have to defend their seats:

Santorum – PA

Chafee – RI

TN – Frist is retiring

Talent – MO

DeWine – OH

Allen – VA

Kyl – AZ

Lugar – IN

Snowe – ME

Lott – MS

Burns – MT

Ensign – NV

Hutchison – TX

Hatch – UT

Thomas – WY

A respectful letter politely expressing regret at being unable to support a specific candidate due to their lack of expressed support for X (Bolton’s nomination in this case) is probably the best way to go.

I know there are a bunch of Ohio readers here and letters or emails to DeWine complaining about Voinovich being a hurtful idiot would help.

Apr 20, 2005 - 2:07 pm 42. M. Simon:

Ladies and gentlemen,

Re: Voinovich

My guess is that the RINOs want a seat at the table and some moderation by the religious right.

There are no parties. There are coalitions.

A coalitiion is ruled by its weakest necessary member.

The Republicans are being taught a politiical lesson they need badly.

I applaud.

Apr 20, 2005 - 2:24 pm 43. M. Simon:

BTW did I mention I’d like to see Bolton get the position?

Apr 20, 2005 - 2:29 pm 44. Terrye:

I am confused as to the antipathy toward Lugar. It was my understanding that he supported Bolton and delayed the vote so as to avoid a tie which would have killed the nomination then and there. I saw the whole thing play out and I got the impression that Kerry was very unhappy with him.

If Voinivich, who did not even bother to show up for hearings last week, had not blindsided them this might have been worked out.

I don’t know how this will end but I think the partisan politics of Democrats and a couple of weenie Reopublicans could do just what Roger says, help kill the UN.

More and more Americans are losing faith in the Untied Nations and the Democrats do not seem even slightly interested in reform. If this is not rectified the descent of the UN will continue.

Apr 20, 2005 - 2:37 pm 45. lindenen:

The worst part about this to my mind is that some of these people seem to be intentional liars.

Apr 20, 2005 - 2:41 pm 46. J_Crater:

This is all a setup.

The Republicans are diverting attention from the “constitutional option” play, that had been losing steam, and are now using this piece of power politics to rev up the troops.

Meanwhile the Democrats think they are on to something big by holding up the nominee to world’s biggest den of thieves. Rather than sending a dipomat, we should be sending a former prison warden (I can think of at least one former prison warden out of a job). Further, the Democrats are allowing the Administration to continue to ignore, at the Adminstrations’s convience, the organization that has been a constant roadblock to their foreign policy successes.

I bet the guys at the White House are laughing and yelling .. “stop me before I nominate again.”

Apr 20, 2005 - 2:45 pm 47. James H:

I’m not sure why everyone cares about Voinovich’s airplane, but I think he was exactly right to order the pilot to fly anyway. He wasn’t remotely a threat to Clinton. Like most bureaucracy’s the secret service will expand their mission and their powers as much as they can get away with. I think Bush would have run much better in Franklin county last year if he had visited less. Each time he comes to town, the SS shuts down I-670 (the freeway between downtown and the airport) for at least an hour beforehand. They are concerned about roadside bombs but it’s not the Baghdad airport road. We have a Democrat mayor who loudly announced the OT costs to the city from the president’s visits.

The FAA derives it’s statutory authority from the commerce clause in the constitution. Everyone goes along with this since it is reasonable to have a single, intercommunicating air traffic control system rather than 51 separate systems. It is nevertheless an abuse by the FAA to tell the state of Ohio it can’t fly aircraft over Ohio anytime it wants. Imagine the outcry if a lifeflight helicopter was denied landing rights at University Hospital because of a political visit.

Apr 20, 2005 - 2:46 pm 48. Kyda Sylvester:

What would it hurt for everybody to send an email and add your voice to what I hope is a groundswell of indignation and demands for Republicans to back the president’s nominees.

Absolutely. Everyone should add his voice, loudly and often.

By all means, sending emails as you suggest can be productive, although letters are better.

A faxed message can be even better–it’s instant and requires handling. I use the fax to communicate with my elected “representatives”. I’ve never been ignored and get fairly quick responses. Unfortunately, fax numbers can be difficult to come by as not everyone lists them.

Some others worthy of contact:

National Republican Senatorial Committee

Websitecomments@nrsc.org

or use their comments form at http://www.nrsc.org

Republican Committee Attn Ken Mehlman

Chairman@gop.com

Other email contacts can be found at here

Fax: 202-863-8774

Apr 20, 2005 - 2:50 pm 49. James H:

To get back to Bolton, the Democrats are desparate to win something, anything. They want a trophy to mount on the wall and Bolton will do if they can’t get DeLay. The Dems have no hope of enacting any substantive legislation, so they are trying to play defense, make a big deal of social security since they can possibly win there, and keep their base as happy as they can get away with. So far, with MSM help, they seem to be doing ok on the Senate filibuster rule change. I think their position is ultimately untenable but could be wrong.

Apr 20, 2005 - 2:53 pm 50. Kyda Sylvester:

I wonder who will get the first Parton/Duncan interview. I can’t find anything about their resignation anywhere else. Does Roger have an exclusive?

Apr 20, 2005 - 2:56 pm 51. Buddy Larsen:

In your memos to the committee, remind them that Bolton was the impetus and the do-er behind the UN non-proliferation agreement, as well the one-man killer of the UN statementr that Zionism is Racism. And, that in the shape that UN is in, its backers actually NEED a Bolto0n, in order to restore this country’s faith. The Dems arer shooting their baby in the foot.

Rick, if Lugar was wretch-worthy, you must’ve not seen Biden. Omigod, it was the soul of ATWIN (’all that’s wrong in the universe’). Today he decided to top himself. The rant was on a Bolton lie of some sort…Biden went on and on, doing Olivier as Hamlet, while the staffers sitting behind started trying to hide their faces so no one would ever recognize them.

Apr 20, 2005 - 2:57 pm 52. J_Crater:

One additional point, this petty partisan power play is removing the mask of the Democrats as a reasonable party to be bargained with. If and when the “constitutional option” is invoked, the Republicans will point to how a nominee to the UN was held up over a sh.t-load of lies, many of them old, just so the Democrats to show that they are still there.

All that can be say good about the Democrats is that they are still there.

Apr 20, 2005 - 2:58 pm 53. Terrye:

I just read the powerline post and according to that Lugar should have asked Voinovich to abstain.

And yet Lugar has supported Bolton all along. I find it all so silly.

I will go ahead and contact some people. The president [whoever he is] has a right to his nominees and it is ridiculous to tie things up like this.

no wonder we can not get anything done.

Apr 20, 2005 - 2:59 pm 54. M. Simon:

J_Crater,

Uh, you must have foged your brain with some kind of DU drug specially morphed for Republican innanities.

It is a Republican who is being obstructionist.

Evidently he wants something and the Democrats want to help him get it.

We will see in time what he wants.

Apr 20, 2005 - 3:13 pm 55. M. Simon:

J_Crater,

This petty power play is removing the mask of the Republicans as a united party.

Cracks are showing.

Must be the gangsta influence.

Apr 20, 2005 - 3:16 pm 56. Tom G:

The comment section here really has a gift for self-criticism.

No Bolton could not have done anything wrong – it must be _bias_ or partisanship. Let’s quickly shift to someone else’s bad deeds.

Apr 20, 2005 - 3:39 pm 57. Kyda Sylvester:

Hey, only Olivier does Olivier as Hamlet. Maybe he was doing Ethan Hawke as Hamlet.

Apr 20, 2005 - 3:41 pm 58. JK Ribera:

I think you miss the point here, Tom G. No one odubts Bolton has a short temper, just as many on the committee apparently do. The problem here is that a proxy war is being fought. This isn’t about Bolton’s behavior per se. It is about sending a real reformer to the United Nations. Evidently you oppose that. The reporting Mr. Simon has done has helped convince me that is necessary.

Apr 20, 2005 - 3:49 pm 59. Buddy Larsen:

No, that was Ethan Allen doing Hamlet.

Apr 20, 2005 - 3:49 pm 60. Buddy Larsen:

JK, I agree. This is about me accusing you of something nebulous and indistinct, then having you deny it, so that I can bend over, moon America and sing “JK is toooo controverssssial”, out my b*tt.

Apr 20, 2005 - 3:54 pm 61. Kevin P:

Roger:

Two of the top three field investigators resign. “Oh don’t worry, they were done with their work.” Lets see if they sign the whitewash.If the field work is finished why didn’t the third investigator resign? Plus the most important point that needs to repeated is that Volcker had no supeona power, no power to threaten jail time to a get witness to confess, and he had to rely on the honesty of the crook to confess. Oh and lets remember the 3 months of shredding that went on before the investigation started. Of course it will be a complete investigation.

Apr 20, 2005 - 3:55 pm 62. Kyda Sylvester:

Roger scoops the AP. Cool.

“You follow a trail and you want to see people pick it up,” Pieth told The Associated Press, referring to the two top investigators who left. The committee “told the story” that the investigators presented, “but we made different conclusions than they would have.”

Seems pretty clear–the committee is channeling Sgt. Schultz.

Apr 20, 2005 - 3:59 pm 63. Buddy Larsen:

Kevin, that echos the earlier point, that structurally the investigation would expect Willie Sutton to pop on over to the police station and turn himself in every time he robbed a bank.

Apr 20, 2005 - 4:02 pm 64. Kyda Sylvester:

Are you suggesting his performance was…wooden?

Apr 20, 2005 - 4:05 pm 65. Buddy Larsen:

and heavily upholstered!

Apr 20, 2005 - 4:07 pm 66. Rick Ballard:

Buddy,

I have no expectations of Biden. I expect Rep committee chairs to have read Caro’s biography of LBJ’s Senate years and to have taken some lessons from it. Frist really needs to step aside as majority leader and let someone step in who is willing to change the seniority rules so that discipline can be enforced. Otherwise the clash of the mighty egos makes the Ship of Fools look like it has lost its steering.

Buy ‘em or break ‘em but don’t let the public know just how many clowns are sitting in the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.

Apr 20, 2005 - 4:13 pm 67. Buddy Larsen:

I think the Founders wanted this self-rearranging furniture. But you’re right, so much easier to tolerate when you don’t have to witness it skidding around the room knocking everything over. Anyhoo, Bolton, even WaPo can’t find enough fault to dump him, and these folks summarize the oppo in a fast quick read.

Apr 20, 2005 - 4:35 pm 68. Buddy Larsen:

meant to mention point, the links are a week old, they’re how the world looked before they gurneyed Biden & co. out onto the stage to do Dancing Bear.

Apr 20, 2005 - 4:39 pm 69. Kyda Sylvester:

The main reason the Kennedys put Johnson on the ticket was to get him out of the Senate. Back in the day there was no one more irrelevant than the VEEP.

Frist is making me nostalgic for Trent Lott. Didn’t think that was possible.

Senator Jon Kyle is on Hewitt’s show right now. He’s really waffling regarding the vote on filibuster (”As you know, things in the Senate move slowly…”), asking us to remember what’s really at stake (the President’s nominees). He wants us to trust the leadership about timing. Says they want a nomination on the floor before they have the showdown. “The facts are on our side and we’ll do what’s right. You just have to give us some leeway on timing.”

Apr 20, 2005 - 4:49 pm 70. exmaple:

Mr. Simon:

From the AP article:

“Parton, as the senior investigative counsel for oil-for-food, had a wide purview.”

The “rest of the story” interpretation: The spokesman read at rogerlsimon.com that Parton complained about his limited “purview” so he better say in the broad media that Parton had a “wide purview.”

“He was responsible for investigations into the procurement of companies under the oil-for-food program and he was the lead investigator on issues pertaining to allegations of impropriety relating to the secretary-general and his son Kojo Annan. Duncan worked on Parton’s team.”

I find this statement strange. (Does Mr. Parton have an agreement whereby he cannot talk publicly?) Mr. Parton was engaged only to investigate Kofi and Kojo? Is that written in his contract, or a decision by Reid Morden? Mr. Parton could not investigate Sevan and the surely numerous other people involved in such a bureaucracy? Doesn’t that make my prior suggestion that Kofi is the fall guy to distract from other players more plausible?

The spokesman also says Parton was resonsible for looking into the “procurement of companies” under OFF. OFF “procured” companies? The language is stilted to my eye. If the spokesman means “solicited” companies for business how in any practical, reasonable sense can one believe that such an investigation could be honestly concluded already given the size of OFF?

And what about the banking of the money with BNP/Paribas? That is the gorilla in the background in my opinion.

The UN’s “independent” investigation has the stale odor of bacon and Molson’s.

Apr 20, 2005 - 4:51 pm 71. exmaple:

P.S.

Here’s a good flow chart of Power corp. connections.

http://debbyestratigacos.mu.nu/archives/Power Corp chart.jpg

Apr 20, 2005 - 5:03 pm 72. Roger:

The UN’s “independent” investigation has the stale odor of bacon and Molson’s.

Indeed, as the Professor would say, exmaple But your link above is broken. Could you provide us with another one?

Apr 20, 2005 - 5:12 pm 73. WichitaBoy:

Roger,

Maybe this one was meant?

Apr 20, 2005 - 5:20 pm 74. Fresh Air:

M. Simon–

Voinovich is a big-tent moderate type. Snowe, Collins and Specter are liberals. McCain and Hagel are fruitcakes. Lincoln Chaffee is a nitwit who doesn’t even merit the term “RINO.”

The Senate is filled with weak-kneed Republicans. So what’s your point? That because they flake off like old skin whever the tough gets going that that’s a signal to the Religious Right?

Sorry, but that sounds like wishful thinking on your part. What Snowe, Collins and Chaffee have been doing is using their relatively meaningful votes to send messages not to the Relgious Right (whoever they are, exactly), but to the folks back home in the blue states that elected them. McCain and Hagel are playing to a different audience: the national media, which the guards their pathways to the presidential nomination in 2008.

So what does Voinovich want? Beats me, but I can’t see where withholding support for Bolton amounts to tugging Ralph Reed’s chain. That’s the sort of logic the MSM would use. I’m sure you can do better.

Apr 20, 2005 - 5:25 pm 75. Tom G:

JK Ribera,

I think your comment gets to the heart of what bothers me. Bolton should not be criticized because he is part of a proxy war.

Nothing is left in such a universe but partisanship.

Republican senators who oppose a nominee must be selling out.

Because I oppose a man who would have been fired at any of the firms I have worked for or with, I must also oppose reform of the UN.

Tom

Apr 20, 2005 - 5:44 pm 76. Charlie (Colorado):

The Republicans are diverting attention from the “constitutional option” play, that had been losing steam, and are now using this piece of power politics to rev up the troops.

Wow. You know, my reaction to this is a lot like when I heard stories about “CIA plots” when I was in the intelligence world and actually worked with CIA guys: I wish I believed someone (Karl Rove?) was sufficiently slick to pull something like this off.

Believe me, I know some of these “political wizards” of the RP: if it works out that way, it’ll have been pure dumb luck.

Apr 20, 2005 - 5:54 pm 77. Captain Hate:

“So what does Voinovich want?”

Who knows, he’s been such a submediocrity for so long. If his daughter hadn’t been killed by being hit by a van when he ran against Kucinich for mayor of Cleveland (and what a stinker of a race that was) he’d probably be some midrange civil service hump. He’s never had an original thought in his life, never met a tax he didn’t like and has never been more than a substandard placeholder in high-exposure positions. The local fishwrap is always on his brother for being on the take; dunno if that’s true or not since I don’t trust either side.

Hopefully this will earn Groin-itch a significant primary opponent whenever he runs next and we can finally close the door on another loser pol from Cleveland.

Apr 20, 2005 - 6:07 pm 78. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

This looks like a combination of Democrat knee-jerk obstructionism, probing for weakness, and preparation for judicial nomination battles.

The Democcrats make a probing attack, and some flakey republicans defect. Ah… so now they have learned a bit about how much power they have.

As for the airplane pilot stuff (totally OT)…

The pilot in command is *always* in command. The general in the army cannot override the pilot unless the general takes the PIC position (or if the Army has a dumb rule). This follows from nautical tradition. In the Navy, the captain of a carrier is in command, even though there may be Admiral’s or commodores aboard who outrank him.

The story is fishy, though. The FAA would have fined or suspended *the pilot*, not the guy who ordered the pilot to violate the rule. In fact, they have no jurisdictioni to do the latter. This only makes sense if there was a change in PIC status – the bad guy took over.

Apr 20, 2005 - 6:56 pm 79. James H:

Captain,Voinovich has an overdone reputation as a penny pincher but he is no submediocrity. He was certainly a better governor than his predecessor and sucessor. He is also the most popular politician in the state and won’t have a primary opponent in 2010.

I didn’t know about Voinovich’s daughter. Senator Dewine also lost a daughter in a traffic accident to a drunk driver.

I don’t want the Republican senators to be rubberstamps for the administration. There should be consultations before nominations are submitted.Yesterday’s hearing was weird in the sense that presumably Lugar did a nosecount before bring Bolton up. Either he miscounted or Voinovich flipped sides.

Apr 20, 2005 - 7:03 pm 80. Michael B:

More and more the UN is looking like a poorly produced, deteriorating sitcom. It’s the CCD, not the UN, that is supplying both the vision and the frameworks for a future of accountable governments. Secretary Rice, along with representatives from 141 countries (including well over a hundred member countries and several observer countries, including Iraq) will be attending the next meeting of the CCD in Santiago, Chile at the end of this month.

Apr 20, 2005 - 7:13 pm 81. Buddy Larsen:

Tom, your ‘knee-jerk’ charge rests on your assertion that Bolton would’ve been fired at any company you’ve worked for. I’m sorry to hear that. What do you imagine the president and the secretary of state were thinking when they put such an unemployable forward?

You do know of his masterful work getting 90 nations onboard the nonproliferation treaty, as well as his breaking up and dissolving the strong UN majority ready to Resolve that Zionism is Racism (or was it Terrorism?).

Charlie, so right; what is that clinical term for the finding of connections everywhere and the ‘knowing’ that someone is behind it all?

Apr 20, 2005 - 7:38 pm 82. M. Simon:

Fresh Air,

Where we disagree is emphasis not essence.

The Blue State Republicans need some quiet from the Religous right. I think this has nothing to do with Bolton.

The question is do the Republicans want to keep their coalition together or not? That is what V. is trying to get across.

The President is not going to get a series of hard right religious judges. He will get right moderates. From his own party.

Which is why they are going to back off from changing the cloture rule. With a 60 vote rule they can blame the Democrats. With a 50 vote rule they will have no one to blame but themselves.

Apr 20, 2005 - 7:49 pm 83. charlotte:

what is that clinical term for the finding of connections everywhere and the ‘knowing’ that someone is behind it all?

James Burkean Connections?

Apr 20, 2005 - 7:57 pm 84. Buddy Larsen:

Reminds me of the letter in the NYTimes, just below Kyda’s, it was something along the lines that this uproar is a GOP conspiracy to divert attention from the fact that in lieu of itself, there wouldn’t be any uproar to blame on the Democrats. (pssst, call your doctor!)

Apr 20, 2005 - 7:57 pm 85. Buddy Larsen:

James Burke! Along with Jacob Bronkowski, stars of the best TV specials in last thousand years! But, Charlotte, I was thinking moore of the Manson end of the continuum.

Apr 20, 2005 - 8:05 pm 86. charlotte:

Yeah, I know, but I installed a CD player all wrong and had two tracks playing simultaneously. Nirvana crossed with itself was all the pathology I could muster

Apr 20, 2005 - 8:08 pm 87. Buddy Larsen:

Sympathies…you should just take two beds and go to aspirin.

Apr 20, 2005 - 8:12 pm 88. exmaple:

Roger,

Sorry for the bad link. WichitaBoy has it at his post.

If there are artists here who want to adapt it, I would drop some of the Canadians esoteric to Americans. Add pictures of the major players. Oil Well for Total Oil, use the Power Corp. logo, and other representational amendments.

Apr 20, 2005 - 8:39 pm 89. charlotte:

Buddy,

Can’t take two beds now that I’m laughing, which reminds me that there is one thing that rings true about that woman’s story:

I once stayed in a Moscow hotel next to the Kremlin, and think that Bolton may have, indeed, run down the halls. We were treated to beds only 24 inches wide and hard as bedrock, and a room so cold that I had to squeeze in with my kid and put the two Russian prole-blankets and all of our clothes out of our suitcases on top of us.

I think Bolton wasn’t chasing that silly woman, but he may have been running to warm up.

Apr 20, 2005 - 8:43 pm 90. Rick Ballard:

Charlotte,

Take a look at this letter by Bolton’s employer at the time when Townsel claims the ‘incident’ happened (via NRO Corner).

Apr 20, 2005 - 9:03 pm 91. charlotte:

Rick,

Thanks. I read that letter today and am inclined to believe it. I was just joshing about the running through the Moscow hotel (but they can be cold!) That woman doesn’t sound credible at all to me, but then again I’m not a deeply-deeply-concerned-Dem

Apr 20, 2005 - 9:13 pm 92. Captain Hate:

James, Unless you can point out ways in which Ohio improved under Voinovich I’m sticking to my characterization. His popularity is about an inch deep and is based on the state Donks being unable to field a reasonable opponent (their infatuation with Jerry Springer tells you all you need to know). He hasn’t brought in business like Rhodes did. His campaigns have been “Vote for me; I’m not nearly as bad as my opponent.” He probably opposes Bolton because he prefers people that don’t rock the boat, like himself.

Apr 21, 2005 - 3:32 am 93. Kyda Sylvester:

exmaple–Your chart is fascinating. The folks who occupy the corridors of power are quite an incestuous group, aren’t they? From the beginning, I’ve marveled that all that money went to just one bank (I know it was Saddam’s dictate, but he wasn’t supposed to be running the show, was he?). Nothin’ going on there.

Apr 21, 2005 - 4:37 am 94. Hogarth:

John Moore -

You’re correct in that the pilot is in command, technically. All the VIP can do is apply pressure. And that is exactly my point (although I made it poorly, if at all in my original comment).

Voinovich put a subordinate (his pilot) between a rock and hard place: take off or you’re fired. Either path is going to put an indelible stain on that pilot’s record, more than likely making him unemployable in the incredibly competitive professional pilot market. That is no way to treat a subordinate, and in my opinion deprives Voinovich of his lofty moral perch with regards to Mr. Bolton.

I lived in Columbus when this happened, and as a pilot I followed the story closely. The newspaper article I linked to didn’t really convey what happened.

Apr 21, 2005 - 5:27 am 95. Cecil Turner:

“As for the airplane pilot stuff (totally OT)…”

I agree, and this is the last time I’ll address it.

“The pilot in command is *always* in command. The general in the army cannot override the pilot unless the general takes the PIC position (or if the Army has a dumb rule).”

Not true. The pertinent Navy reg is OPNAV 3710:

The pilot in command of an aircraft with a flag or general officer eligible for command at sea or in the field embarked as a passenger shall be subject to the orders of such flag or general officer in accordance with U.S. Navy Regulations. When such an embarked passenger exercises authority to command the aircraft, that passenger thereby assumes full responsibility for the safe and orderly conduct of the flight. [emphasis added]

As to the airspace issue, it may be a constitutional overreach, but the law is unequivocal on airspace:

(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States. . . .

(3) . . . consistent with national security, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall -

(A) establish areas in the airspace the Administrator decide are necessary in the interest of national defense; and

(B) by regulation or order, restrict or prohibit flight of civil aircraft . . .

Apr 21, 2005 - 6:44 am 96. Eric Scheie:

Bolton’s accuser Melody Townsel stated that the reason she waited ten years was that she left politics to raise children. She’s been engaged in PR work since at least 1998, and now has a four year old. What positively irks me is that she helped stage an event (to which she took that same child which caused her to abandon politics) at which children beat on a Bush punching bag. She says her child was not involved. Fine. But it doesn’t say much about the credibility of her claim that she gave up politics to raise kids.

The results of my research into this can be seen at this link:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/002241.html

Apr 21, 2005 - 11:08 am 97. charlotte:

Terrific stuff on Melody and her MOB, Eric. You should forward your piece to the Foreign Relations Committee.

Apr 21, 2005 - 11:44 am 98. Buddy Larsen:

The ‘child-raising’ prevented for all those years her writing the one few-hundred-word j’accuse letter? Gad, she must be one attentive mom! Or maybe the baby never took a nap.

Apr 21, 2005 - 1:44 pm 99. Tom G:

Buddy,

You seem to imply that I am paranoid because I think one Bush candidate is not fit for the job. A view held apparently by several Republican Senators. And frankly many others: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/BoltonLettertoSFR.pdf

Did I read you correctly?

As a side note, your view that Rice supported the choice of Bolton is at odds with most published accounts.

Tom

Apr 21, 2005 - 3:37 pm 100. Buddy Larsen:

Tom, no the paranoia was me misinterpreting someone else’s post; what I meant wrt your post was that you overshot yourself with the “Bolton couldn’t hold a job at anyplace I’ve ever worked” remark. I think the man’s personality falls within matters of taste, and I’d be amazed if any leftish folks had any taste for him. That’s what this is about, and you know it. Politics and taste and fashion and identity-groups. My objection to your position is in forgetting that there was an election that decided the taste question, and the competency question–your proper grounds–has on the pro side many exemplary accomplishments, and has on the con side merely a planned drip-drip of set-up personal attcks and rather vicious OOTB assertions by people who are pretending to believe the previous personal attacks and OOTB assertions. After awhile, the victim is “too controversial”. Can’t you see the rot, Tom?

Apr 21, 2005 - 5:19 pm 101. Luther McLeod:

Buddy

Well said, I might only add that I think what so bothers the detractors of Bolton is the simple fact that the man has a solid upright spine and isn’t afraid to make use of it.

It is a reflection/symptom of the bureaucratic/civil service mindset, everyone should just sit around the table and nod their head in solemn gestures as the rot around them is described, but heaven forbid anyone should suggest and/or take action to clean it up. That is why in one sense Tom is correct, their are many organizations in which if you speak up you are advised to ship out.

Apr 21, 2005 - 6:11 pm 102. Tom G:

Buddy, Luther,

No I do not know that “Politics and taste and fashion and identity-group” is what it’s all about. What I do know if that both of you seem to carelessly dismiss all objections to a candidate because hey people who disagree dislike him.

Do you really think that trying to have people who disagree with you fired is bad taste? Do you really think the Republican senators (who as far as I know supported all of Bush’s other nominees) are doing this to win some political goal? What about those diplomats I pointed to earlier?

I am sorry that Luther has had some bad experiences with companies. I have worked at or for two great companies, market leaders, where there was plent of tolerance of dissent. What there is not tolerance of is stuff like this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61304-2005Apr17.html

Bolton’s behavior is the kind that suppresses dissent among those he has power over. That leads to the kind of organizations Luther described.

Tom

Apr 21, 2005 - 6:41 pm 103. Luther McLeod:

“carelessly dismiss all objections to a candidate because hey people who disagree dislike him”

I’m sure you realize that the idea of like or dislike really has no bearing here. I have never met the man, I have no idea if I would like him or not.

I read your latest link and will agree that certain items there could be described as negative, but the most negative appear to be based on unattributed sources. That sounds political. On the other hand, the man has a solid record of accomplishments. Perhaps those accomplishments have been weighed against his ‘alleged’ managerial mis-steps versus his overall importance to the needs of the mission. Quite frankly I have seen nothing so far that precludes the man from being confirmed.

And oh.. I ‘m glad that you have not had to experience bureaucratic ineptitude as yet in your career, may you continue to be so blessed.

Apr 21, 2005 - 7:32 pm 104. Buddy Larsen:

Tom, I do understand that you’re reading these anti-Bolton things and deciding that no one in their right mind would still support the man unless it just knee-jerk Bush-support. Well, as luther says, in a way you’re right. If the policy-making level of the foreign-policy establishment were a for-profit private enterprise, right, any manager who fired dissenting voices is in danger of crashing innovation and profits. But follow this a moment, what is a foreign-policy establishment supposed to do? Is it in the domestic-politics endless-campaign business, or is it charged with carrying out the government’s foreign policy? Bolton’s job is to carry out the president’s policy–the president that won the presidency–and not to shepherd recalcitrantsd through their civil-service careers. We’re losing lives on battlefields, a few civil-service careers ended early because they’re not on the team trying to win this vast many-fronted existential war, is so ridiculously out-of-proportion to the task before *America* in the *UN*, that it’s really almost stupifying that you can’t see it. Look at it this way, you’re a manager of a big outfit making widgets, and among your many subordinates is someone who hates widgets and seeks to stop their manufacture. Are you telling me that there is a collegial remedy available, if only you’re fair-minded enough to compromise? What if you have outside competition breathing down your neck (war)? Are you going to suspend operations and have a retreat with the widget-hater? Is that what the other employees, customers, stockholders, suppliers, and all the dependants thereof, need from you?

Or, how about just firing the malcontents and getting the organization onto the crucial job your team has been elected to do?

Apr 21, 2005 - 7:40 pm 105. Buddy Larsen:

And most of all, Bolton has PASSED the administration’s vetting.

The administration that is having to execute policy WANTS John Bolton.

The people you are listening to are–except for a RINO or two–are the people whose chance to do their OWN foriegn policy is based upon their being DULY ELECTED first.

You are supporting ‘process’ in the name of subverting the very foundation of the goal of process.

Apr 21, 2005 - 7:50 pm 106. Buddy Larsen:

uh, sorry for the caps and all….

Apr 21, 2005 - 7:52 pm 107. Tom G:

Buddy,

Bernard Kerik also passed their vetting process. Bush asked for a mistake in his first term, chose appointing some bad people.

And your position at the end seems to be that trying to fire bad people is a good thing. I agree. That is different though from trying to fire people because they disagree with you on a piece of analysis.

There is some irony here. An exchange ago Luther was writing disparagingly about companies where “if you speak up you are advised to ship out.” He was defending Bolton for standing up for his point of view. In the last exchange though, you seem to be arguing in favor of Bolton’s ability to suppress dissent among his subordinates.

Finally, I guess the point I would really like to get across is this:

Even if you believe Bolton achievements outweigh his liabilities, it is not right to simply dismiss all those who disagree as hopeless partisans. There appear to be three Republicans on the committee who have doubts about Bolton. Are they all RINO’s? The list of diplomats I cited earlier? Powell? The problem is not the policy, the problem is the man.

Sorry for failing to do any copy-checking.

Tom

Apr 22, 2005 - 5:09 pm 108. Buddy Larsen:

Tom, I want Bolton warts and all, because all the big players whoses positions over the years on the big issues have proven to be far more right than wrong, want Bolton.

That ratio of right to wrong on big issues–going back thirty years and called ‘the history of the world’–is reciprocaled by the anti-Boltonians; they’ve hardly been right on anything for those thirty years, whether war-and-peace, the economy, the UN and foreign relations/policy, the culture, or common courtesy and manners in American life.

That the people by and large agree, is evidenced by the arc of election victories over that time. The minority party through Senate smear-tactics is trying to get by brute force what it can no longer get through the electoral process, and the will of the people be damned.

Have you paid no attention to the UN/Canadian Government/OFF scandals? Can you see no connection to these objections to Bolton’s personality? Have you no sense of proportion, Tom?

Apr 22, 2005 - 5:33 pm 109. Buddy Larsen:

Tom, I want Bolton warts and all, because all the big players whoses positions over the years on the big issues have proven to be far more right than wrong, want Bolton.

That ratio of right to wrong on big issues–going back thirty years and called ‘the history of the world’–is reciprocaled by the anti-Boltonians; they’ve hardly been right on anything for those thirty years, whether war-and-peace, the economy, the UN and foreign relations/policy, the culture, or common courtesy and manners in American life.

That the people by and large agree, is evidenced by the arc of election victories over that time. The minority party through Senate smear-tactics is trying to get by brute force what it can no longer get through the electoral process, and the will of the people be damned.

Have you paid no attention to the UN/Canadian Government/OFF scandals? Can you see no connection to these objections to Bolton’s personality? Have you no sense of proportion, Tom?

Apr 22, 2005 - 5:33 pm 110. Luther McLeod:

“it is not right to simply dismiss all those who disagree as hopeless partisans.”

Tom, I have not accused anyone of being hopelessly partisan, though there are those, on both sides of the aisle.

The point I am trying to make is that the President has the right to nominate whomever he pleases. Are mistakes made, of course. I don’t recall any administration being error free in its appointees. But bottom line, this is the person GWB has chosen. Unless Bolton were to have serious moral and/or criminal problems somewhere in his past, as did Kerik, then the President should be allowed his choice. Whether Boxer, Feinstien (sp), Biden and yes, even Powell (which is not a fact as yet) ‘like’ Bolton or disagree with his managerial methods really has nothing to do with the Presidents right to appoint those he feels are best for the particular mission he has in mind, warts and all, as Buddy says.

Apr 22, 2005 - 6:16 pm 111. Buddy Larsen:

Well said, Luther. The USA has a president, the president has nominated a UN Ambassador, and the SFRC constitutionally protects the people against a tyranny of the executive, via the approval process. The SFRC in the Bolton case is trying to write a new job description for the job, a sentence to the effect that the UN Ambassador can’t be a John Bolton personality type. This is new ground for the SFRC. Their first “Borking”.

This is good background, as is this.

Apr 22, 2005 - 7:22 pm 112. Tom G:

Luther,

To be fair, my comment on ‘hopeless partisans’ referred to Buddy. Your statement that

‘I think what so bothers the detractors of Bolton is the simple fact that the man has a solid upright spine’

comes close to what I meant. You seem to imply that the Senate’s approval can not relate to fitness for the job. Is that correct? If so, what is the basis for that point of view? I seem to remember Republicans blocking an Clinton ambassador because he was gay. Would you disapprove of that?

Tom

Apr 23, 2005 - 4:56 am 113. Tom G:

Buddy,

I am curious. Who are the “all the big players whoses positions over the years on the big issues have proven to be far more right than wrong, want Bolton.”

I assume they include Bush. I am tempted to engage in on whether Bush has been more right than wrong on say the economy (consider

1) his belief there was plenty of room in the surplus for taxes

2) his projections on the impact of each of his tax cuts

OK, I gave into temptation.

But my larger point would be that you are (I would guess) a conservative Republican because you believe conservative Republican get things right. I am a centrist Democrat because I believe they are the best. It is not persuasive to argue that this candidate is a good one because your party chose him.

Tom

Apr 23, 2005 - 5:13 am 114. Buddy Larsen:

There ya go, Tom…all a matter of taste. But I’m a Republican only because there aren’t so many liberals in that party. Liberalism–the modern, illiberal incarnation–is wrong about the human condition. But that, too, is in the end a matter of taste and temperament. Policy is only the reflection.

I didn’t short-shrift your points, it’s just that to me they all amount to the same thing–your party’s leadership has staked out an anti-Bolton position and you’re dutifully defending it. Fine, more power to ya, that’s what politics is. Or ‘are’.

Apr 23, 2005 - 6:07 am 115. Cecil Turner:

“I am a centrist Democrat because I believe they are the best.”

Fine, but if you want centrist Democrats to be nominated for Administration positions, you should elect one president.

“It is not persuasive to argue that this candidate is a good one because your party chose him.”

However, the President is entitled to choose, and the Senate is obligated to give his choice a fair hearing. If the worst that can be said of this nominee is that he attempted to get an intelligence officer with whom he disagreed reassigned, or 20-year old uncorroborated tales of unspecified harassment from a dubious source, then he ought to be confirmed. Besides, the objections are clearly not based on suitability, but on partisanship (from WSJ’s Best of the Web): “Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., played a three-minute videotape of Bolton speaking angrily in 1994 about the United Nations.”

There is no such thing as the United Nations,” Bolton said on the tape. “There is an international community that can occasionally be led by the only real power left in the world–and that is the United States, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that telling the truth makes him unsuitable.

Apr 23, 2005 - 6:13 am 116. Buddy Larsen:

Just for grins, tho, my vision of your people running the war–much less the economy–is positively Miltonish:

Which way shall I fly

Infinite wrath and infinite despair?

Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell;

And in the lowest deep a lower deep,

Still threat?ning to devour me, opens wide,

To which the hell I suffer seems a heaven.

So farewell hope, and with hope farewell fear,

Farewell remorse; all good to me is lost.

Evil, be thou my good.

That practis’d falsehood under saintly shew,

Deep malice to conceal, couch’d with revenge.

(Sequential but not consecutive, from “Paradise Lost”)

Heh heh…not to overstate the case, I hope.

Apr 23, 2005 - 6:22 am 117. Buddy Larsen:

“Fine, but if you want centrist Democrats to be nominated for Administration positions, you should elect one president.”

Hear, hear, Cecil!

Apr 23, 2005 - 6:27 am 118. Luther McLeod:

Tom

First off, I haven’t had coffee yet.

‘Fitness’ is in the eye of the beholder. My comment about ’spine’ and what I meant by that, was just pointed out very well by Cecil in the quote above extracted from the video that Boxer played. I note no particular untruth in Bolton’s statement, I do note the ability of Bolton to state things in and of a manner that displeases certain Democrats. But you know what, they are not the party in charge. As I said above, either find serious moral/criminal issues with the man or give the President his choice. After all, if it turns out that Bolton is unsuitable you get to blame Bush, isn’t that what you would call a ‘win win’ for the demos.

Almost forgot, yes Tom, I did and do disapprove of the Senate allowing sexual preference to be a factor in presidential appointments. But that is a completely different issue from what we are discussing here. Also you should know that not everyone who reads/posts here is a conservative, republican or otherwise.

Apr 23, 2005 - 6:46 am 119. Buddy Larsen:

Agree…I have zero political affection for the country-club wing of the GOP–except insofar as that wing effectively opposes the left wing in this country.

I’m a centrist with a great fear of liberal cultural as well as economic, as well as foreign, policy (having lived through Carter & Clinton, and having watched George Mitchell and Tom Daschle stun the Senate into nothing but the abyss of needful action).

I hate the Democratic philosophy of never solving any problem that offers easy demagoguery.

People suffer for their pols’ careers–and aren’t allowed to know it unless they understand how to read MSM between the lines.

Tom, if you want to do your party a favor, take a hard look at it–take a hard listen to Howard Dean–and then raise hell inside until your centrists take the party back. really–your country needs you.

The world is all over us, and this treacherous ward-heeling is weakening the nation in the battles that the nation cannot afford to lose.

Foreign policy success must be unhooked in your party’s mind from the spectre of endless GOP dominance. You’ve got it exactly backwards.

You prescription–sandbagging the White House hoping to thereby discredit and thus win it later, has become so obvious a tactic that it simply cannot work anymore–promarily because it hurts the entire nation–including yourselves, and can’t be kept secret anymore anyway, the entire nation now understands it.

That 47% apparently approved of the Fabian tactic, last election, gives you cheer–but remember the learning curve; it can’t be a good bet to have the truth about the world and human nature be the exclusive province of your opposition. Google’s 1st Q revenue just reported, an unprecidented, astonishing six-fold rise. People are now spending 15% of their time on the net–exclusive of email. What this means is that the Dem secret weapon is running out of ammo. You need to adapt, Tom.

That which is counterproductive to your own ends should have become obvious to you last Nov 3rd. Yet you continue as if it is forever Nov 1st, with Bolton being merely the latest GWB proxy.

Apr 23, 2005 - 7:54 am 120. Tom G:

There were a lot of points there. To take a few:

1. ‘The Republicans won the election theme’ – Yes they did. They retained the presidency and they won 55 votes in the Senate. But the Democrat’s won the right to cast their 44 votes as well. Which is what they will be doing, what they have the right to do. Above, several of you seem to be denying them that right. Bolton’s problem is not the Democrats; it’s that a few Republicans appear to have turned on him. Do they have the right to vote against him?

2. Cecil, if “the objections are clearly not based on suitability, but on partisanship,” you have nothing to worry about. You’ll clearly get all those Republican Senators back on board as soon as you tell them. Alternatively, if those Senators are not really Republican, are you sure you have a majority?

3. Buddy, “your party’s leadership has staked out an anti-Bolton position and you’re dutifully defending it.” I, at least, added an ‘I would guess’ before even stating a political affiliation for you. The ‘dutifully defending’ role seems a better description for you when you wrote: “I want Bolton warts and all, because all the big players whoses positions over the years on the big issues have proven to be far more right than wrong, want Bolton.”

I came to a conclusion about Bolton on my own. I actually come to all of my conclusions on my own. I favored the war in Iraq, I would cut Social Security benefits if I could. And yes I think Bush can find another, better conservative Republican candidate. He did a much better job the second time around on homeland security.

Tom

Apr 23, 2005 - 10:53 am 121. Buddy Larsen:

Sorry to have been brusque, Tom, but I can’t see inside your mind, and to an outside POV, the Demos have a Bolton position, and yours is in effect identical. Ergo, my statement. That you may have have arrived there independently is beyond both my purview, and any consequence vis-a-vis a yes-or-no on Bolton. But I do appreciate your friendly way of arguing, and regret that I failed to equal it. BTW, good catch that my position mirrors yours. My point all along has been that we mirror each other and are thus arguing taste. And as they say, “de gustibus non est disputandum”.

Apr 23, 2005 - 12:13 pm 122. Cecil Turner:

“Bolton’s problem is not the Democrats; it’s that a few Republicans appear to have turned on him.”

The Foreign Relations Committee makeup is 10-8. Assuming the Dems vote in a bloc, it takes exactly one Rep defection for a 9-9 tie. (And in this case, that’s what they got.) Casting the one Rep as “the problem” seems a bit unfair.

“You’ll clearly get all those Republican Senators back on board as soon as you tell them.”

Not necessarily. Some like having the issue (portraying the Dems as obstructionist)–long term, it seems to be working for them.

As to party loyalties, I’m also not terribly excited about branding. As a serious hawk, I’m stuck with the GOP (because of the Dems’ utter fecklessness on national defense), much as the peaceniks are stuck with the Dems. But this case directly relates to national defense, and a hard-charging, unapologetically pro-American, “nations have interests, not friends” type is exactly what we need . . . not just a “conservative.” Especially as it becomes more and more apparent that the UNSC voting process is rife with corruption (and perhaps for sale). It appears to me the Dems are attempting to block an optimal pick for just those needful attributes–and it’s even money whether a couple clueless Reps are going to let them. Disheartening.

Apr 23, 2005 - 1:53 pm 123. Tom G:

Buddy,

It’s good to close an argument on a friendly note.

I think the main driver for me here is the attitude that no reasonable person could reject Bolton – that opposition is purely partisan. I now don’t think that you think that, but a lot of people here seem to.

A minor quibble is I think from your previous statement that your primary support for Bolton comes from that fact that Bush chose him My opposition is not based on the Dem’s opposition (I would let the judges through that they block), but on my belief that Bolton is a bad candidate.

Cheers,

Tom

Apr 24, 2005 - 4:49 am 124. Tom G:

Cecil,

You seem to offer two theories:

1. Republican Senators will block Bolton because they want to make the Democrats look obstructionist

2. Republican Senators will block Bolton because they are clueless.

For 2, is that clueless about the facts of the case or about the way the world really works.

For the recond though I prefer 2 to the they-are-sell-outs lines earlier in the comment section.

Tom

Apr 24, 2005 - 4:59 am 125. Cecil Turner:

“You seem to offer two theories:

1. Republican Senators will block Bolton because they want to make the Democrats look obstructionist

“2. Republican Senators will block Bolton because they are clueless.”

Again, it’s “Senator” (no “s”), and I think “clueless” captures Voinovich’s position (at least on this subject) fairly well. It might have something to do with not attending the meetings. And now, of course, if he backtracks, he has to do so in a way that doesn’t make him look like a Bozo.

As to looking obstructionist, there’s absolutely no need for the Reps to do anything on that score . . . the Dems are building an entire strategy around the threat of filibuster, which is the definition of obstructionism. And while normally the minority party voting in unison to block legislation and nominations would be met by a party-line majority, in this case the political issue is useful, and made the critical bit of difference in a couple of key races (e.g., Daschle-Thune) last year, which may explain why the Rep leadership in the Senate is so bad at enforcing party discipline. (Alternate theory: Rep leadership sucks at party discipline.)

In any event, I have no idea how much each of these factors weighs on each senator’s mind. And obviously there will be some variation among individuals. Just pointing out that when you only need to peel off 10% of the majority’s votes, especially when it’s one man, it becomes a bit more dicey. (Exacerbated by the tendency of individual senators to weigh their own reelections as somewhat more important than the President’s nominations.) In this case, most feel as you do, that this is not a terribly important nomination. I happen to think it is.

Apr 24, 2005 - 5:52 am 126. Tom G:

Cecil,

While no Republican Senator has said they will vote no, at least 3 have expressed reservations and some have suggested that a 4th in Lamar Alexander is questionable.

1. From ABC: A spokeswoman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said the senator felt the committee “did the right thing delaying the vote on Bolton in light of the recent information presented to the committee.”

2.From LA Times: “I wish this wasn’t the nominee to the United Nations,” Chafee said plaintively.

Are they clueless as well?

Tom

Apr 24, 2005 - 2:34 pm 127. Buddy Larsen:

They’re said to be reacting to their constituencies, which are predictably confused after all the DC shenanigans. Clueless? No, these are senators with large professional staffs, but they are perhaps a bit watery on politics vs principles.

Anyhoo, this is a good short read.

And thanks for partially withdrawing the knee-jerk characterization, Tom–same to you–though I still wonder why you have so little confidence in the president’s judgement. Esp. in light of the recent record on the over-arching issues.

Apr 24, 2005 - 9:05 pm 128. Luther McLeod:

You know what the hell you’re doing Buddy. And you too Cecil. Tom, you just have to broaden your horizions.

Apr 24, 2005 - 9:59 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: