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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.