My content with the Bush administration can only last so long. President Bush today bypassed the advice and consent, not to mention the entire confirmation component granted to the senate by the Constitution and appointed John Bolton as UN ambassador.
I don’t want to hear about this “up or down vote” bullcrap. Nor do I care to hear about the obstructionism of the Democrats. In the 90s the Republican-controlled senate blocked over 60 Clinton nominees, none of them ever received an up or down vote. Plus another 16 judges were denied a committee hearing, much less an up or down vote. In all, during a Democratic administration the Republicans were way more obstructionist than anything the neocons are crying about now. If ones argument is simply an up or down vote or about obstructionism then essentially they know nothing about history or politics and should shut off Fox News and turn their cartoons back on and continue to live in their fantasy world.
John Bolton is not the man for this job. Amidst not having the temper to even coach a little league game, Bolton also forgot to mention to the senate that he had been interviewed by the State Department's inspector general looking into how American intelligence agencies came to rely on fabricated reports that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa (it all falls back to fake WMD). Bolton’s excuse for not mentioning that he had been questioned in the White House cover up: he forgot. So the guy is either totally dishonest or doesn’t have the brain capacity to remember important details. Both of which garner enough reason as to why he should not be at the UN.
Bush will do whatever it takes to get his way. Whether it’s invading countries on fake intelligence to avenge his father, or not answering to the public even when the polls show him having the lowest approval rating since Richard Nixon, or forcing nominees into positions without confirmation, Bush is above all that. It’s easy to see his spoiled rich kid mentality when he’s not given his way immediately. Running the country like it’s your own personal estate is not a quality I find admirable in a president.
By recess appointing Bolton, Bush has opened the door to all sorts of criticisms. It’s true that Bush has every right to exercise the recess appointment, but it will be very costly. Bush’s main objective for wanting Bolton at the UN is because Bush wants to reform it. Let the reformation begin.
8.01.2005
And Then There Was Bolton
Posted by Chris at 11:55 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Hymer thanks for the visit.
I'm not sure Clinton did it 140 times. The number I find on Clinton is around 60, but thanks for bringing that up. Reagan did use the recess appointment over 100 times and the first Bush over 40 in just one term. Now tell me where I said that the recess appointment has never been used or should never be and you just might have an argument on your hands. I've never said such. And the example of Clinton actually solidifies the fact that the Clinton appointees were treated far more unfairly than any of Bush's. Consequences.....hell Clinton was impeached. Should we still continue the comparison of Bush and Clinton?
Bush has every right to use his Constitutional powers. There will, sometimes, be consequences when he does, and this is one case. Of course we could argue the case of when Bush uses his un-Constitutional powers of authorizing military force, but that I suppose is a different topic.
The recess appointment is a common occurence. Even with all that, we should consider the controversy surrounding Bolton. He is not the man for the job.
I think this was and may be in retrospect for him down the road, not that I care, a rather large mistake, course he has the right to use it; I can even see some valid points in wanting to get the appointment prior to September thus having to make a recess appointment. The point here however is the appointee. No matter how much Bush might feel this is the best man for the job it just goes to show the overall attitude of this white house. Appointing this man at this time could be one of the biggest mistakes he has made for us in relationship to the rest of the world, nothing like (again) giving the whole world not to mention some of the voter population of his own country the finger. Way to go Mr Bush.
I can't in my semi sane mind see any comparison to the Clinton appointments in magnitude.
I agree with Hymer on the Clinton recess appointments, I must have seen the same report or one corroborating the story.
President Bush: 106 recess appointments
President Clinton: 140 recess appointments
The first President Bush: 77 recess appointments
President Reagan: 243 recess appointments.
This information was published in the Washington Post on Aug. 1st.
You are right though, Bush should have been more bipartisan and picked a man more fitted to the corrupt, unscrupulous, and out of touch with reality United Nations. That man, none other than the person who personifies out of touch, Howard Dean. I would have loved to see how the other UN amdassadors would react to a screeching maniac on their floor. They would probably do the same thing the Dems did, promote him the the post of running the party. That would teach them a lesson now wouldn't it?
The truth is, if you want your nomination to go through, win back the presidency, and with the data from recess hires by Clinton, it is obvious that you will get your men/women in the posts you want them in,
Correct, both Craig and Hymer are correct. Craig, thanks for the numbers. If you have an address for the Washington Post article that would be great too. I can't seem to find it.
Nonetheless, my argument is that this is a costly move for Bush. He can't possibly have much capital left with his mandate from the people. And I agree with Alice and do not see the slightest comparison between Clinton and Bush, unless one wants to make the argument that Clinton's nominees were treated way more unfairly than Bush's. Or would that be too critical of an argument?
Hey Joseph, great piece. I can't seem to find the blogtemps.com thing. I would like to read it all.
Alice, since you are a girl talking about politics, I will have to answer your comment last :)
I honestly do not think Bush or many other right-leaning conservatives really care what the rest of the world thinks about us. And that is the main reason that they do what they do. It is also the main difference between those on the right and those in the center or left of center. Some of us do care, but the right thinks that the whole world owes us something. I hope Bush is the last of the old machoist power teams to rule this country/world, it's so 1950ish.
Thanks for reading.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080100476.html?sub=AR
I wonder if we should get rid of the recess appointment power. SEems to me like an easy way for presidents to circumvent the senate's rightful power to advise and consent, whether those types of appointments are made by Republicans or Democrats.
The forefathers really did a very good job of laying out rules for a balance of power. Senate must advise and consent, but that can be abused as well. The only problem I see with balance of power issues, is who keeps the Supreme Court in check?
If any president, any elected senate can't be the last word, why should appointed judges be? Just seems to be a gross oversight.
Alice, thanks for the link.
Heretic, since the recess appointment is benefiting Republicans this time, they will not want to do away with it. They only change the rules when it favors them.
MJ, I get the idea we're basically on the same page here. The President didn't do anything wrong other than to pick somebody with incredibly bad people skills at a time when we've already got enough of that going on in our International relations. That said, it's over and done with, and I sincerely do hope that Mr. Bolton will turn out to be the guy the President thinks he is; the right guy for the job in other words.
While I'm not holding my breath on this, I'm hoping for it.
You're welcome.
Craig,
The Supreme Court in theory is charged with the powers of a referee that makes sure that each of the players involved (the citizens, state and local governments, and any other federal governing bodies) play by the rules laid out in the Constitution.
It may, like any referee, make the wrong call but we have to live by it. If we give the president, Congress or any other governing body the power to override a Court decision, we in effect allow them to say they are not going to follow the very rules which give them power and legitimacy.
If a Court decision is outrageous (and there are some that in my opinion rise to that level, such as the Kelo decision), we can push for a constitutional amendment, thereby changing the rules by which the governing bodies would have to adhere to.
MJ,
You are alas right. Governing parties never want to relinquish power and the Republicans are no exception, but this is one constitutional amendment (removing the recess appointment power) that I would consider.
GTL, I agree.
Heretic, I'm not big on changing the constitution, especially just because, or in hopes to continue a power hold for the ruling party. I have no problems with Bush using the recess appointment, even to push Bolton through. Bolton will be useless, but maybe he'll do a decent job like GTL said.
I was in the congressional research office in DC on Monday and I tried to count Clinton's recess appointments. I only found 66, but I'm probably wrong.
Nonetheless, Bolton is a risky move. And from my own political perspective, I think it's going to be costly.
Post a Comment