The Things We Do For Love

The vote on John Bolton's nomination to UN Ambassador, a nomination that I've gradually come to oppose, has been postponed in light of louder rumblings from centrist Republicans:

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday unexpectedly postponed a vote on the nomination of John Bolton to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations after a bitterly contentious meeting in which Democrats and even a few Republicans expressed reservations about the nominee.

The meeting came to a surprising halt when Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, suggested he wasn't "comfortable" voting on Bolton's nomination in light of new allegations leveled against Bolton that some members claim they have not had time to investigate.

Sen Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., who along with Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said he was inclined to support Bolton unless any significant "disqualifying" evidence surfaced, asked Chairman Richard Lugar, if he might reconsider holding the committee vote in light of Voinovich's comments.

Lugar suggested he wanted to move ahead with the vote anyway, but Hagel later added his voice to the pitch, saying that he suspected if the committee moved ahead to a vote, "the Bolton nomination will not come out of this committee."

If Bolton's nomination goes down, it will be for the right reasons.  There is decent evidence that Bolton has engaged in a pattern of bullying subordinates who give the wrong answers on intelligence matters.  Being an occasional bully probably isn't enough to deny Bolton the job (though recent allegations regarding Bolton's mistreatment of a Hagel staffer may explain why Sen. Hagel is wavering).  Nor is being a consistent critic of the UN.  But being a bully who allegedly tried to twist intelligence is simply indefensible in the post-Iraq world. 

It isn't personal.  The issue isn't whether Bolton is an honest man; it's whether he is credible representative of the US's interests.  In the current climate, it's increasingly clear that he's not.  The President's choice doesn't trump the national interest; being the Executive is not the same as being inerrant.  It's time for Bolton to step aside, and serve his country in another way.

Comments

[Macallan]

The issue isn't whether Bolton is an honest man; it's whether he is credible representative of the US's interests. In the current climate, it's increasingly clear that he's not.

What a crock. This is a smear job and cheap character assassination, and nothing more. It might work, but it's bulls***. I guess it’s the only thing the minority has left, but I wouldn't be patting anyone on the back about it.

[Edward]

don't hold back Mac...let us know how you really feel

why do you like Bolton, btw?

[Jason Kuznicki]

If the only thing the minority has left is to stand up for accountability and decency... well, ok.

Incidentally, I was rather favorable to the nomination when I saw Bolton's criticisms of the U.N. I've got no love for the organization, and in my opinion it badly needs either to be reformed or abolished. I'm disappointed that he does not seem to be the man for the job.

[liberal japonicus]

Sorry, but the post title baffles me, unless this sort of a 'tough love' philosophy for those on the right. Or is this the notion that having Bolton approved would actually be a gift to the Dems?

[Macallan]

why do you like Bolton, btw?

Actually, it has nothing to do with Bolton per se, as much as it has to do with a distaste for bureaucratic long knife fighting. This is an orchestrated smear, and should be opposed by everyone because we shouldn't want this kind of thing to become even more prevalent that it already… depressingly… is.

[Jay Sundahl]

The cspan video is here (requires realplayer) It is facinating to watch the dynamics shift in the meeting.

Von, I hate to complain, but your block quote comes out tiny and hard to read on my screen. The page source shows a font size of 0.8em. Hllzoy's quote in the post below is much more readable. It uses a blockquote tag instead of an explicit fontsize.

[hilzoy]

Macallan: how do you know it's infighting? I tried to research it fairly carefully, and couldn't see any evidence that it was.

[John Thullen]

Hagel is in the minority now? I mean, I knew Voinivich had a few long Tacitusic and Red State daggers whizzing by his head, but Hagel?

This is how business is done everywhere, private and government, with the exception of The Apprentice, where Bolton would stride into the job dragging his suitcase full of Machiavellian right into Trump's hairpiece.

The guy throws chairs. Somebody threw one back. Rough world.

[CaseyL]

Character assassination?

Mac, I'd be *fascinated* to know what character assassination you're talking about.

[Anarch]

This is a smear job and cheap character assassination, and nothing more.

A bold claim. I suppose you have the factual basis to back it up?

[rilkefan]

LJ - I'd hazard von means Bolton should, for the love of his country, withdraw his name.

[cleek]

But being a bully who allegedly tried to twist intelligence is simply indefensible in the post-Iraq world.

may i ask when the post-Iraq era started?

[cleek]

Von, I hate to complain, but your block quote comes out tiny and hard to read on my screen.

ditto.

[bob mcmanus]

I think this is a clear question of loyalty. And a question as to whether the Republican Senators have the confidence in the President's ability to perform his duties, of which quite likely the most important is the appointment of subordinates the President has determined are competent and deserving of his trust. If Bolton is not confirmed, he should be resubmitted again and again. If President Bush's judgement has become so faulty that he can no longer be given the benefit of the doubt on his appointees, then Republican Senators should either leave the Republican Party, or out of duty to the country, ask the House to initiate impeachment proceedings.

[praktike]

This is a proxy battle between with pragmatists and the aggressive nationalists within the Republican party. The good guys won today.

[Tad Brennan]

Mr. McManus--

Is your proposal offered as a jest? That if the Senate will not consent to the President's every appointment, then it should ask the House to initiate impeachment proceedings?

Surely the Constitution has some reason for providing separate mechanisms for impeachment and for confirmation?

E.g. that a president's competence might fall somewhere in between infallibility on the one hand, and high crimes and misdemeanors on the other?

[Anarch]

a repuke whining about character assassination!

No. No. No.

And I want to see a link to that Lucianne Goldberg quote, too, or it's the rolled-up newspaper for you.

[hilzoy]

The rolled-up newspaper already happened. SteveJ: I deleted your comment, since it violated the posting rules on several counts. On the off chance that you're just unfamiliar with our posting rules, I did not ban you, but for the record: no profanity, no incivility. Incivility is generally taken to include blanket slurs on members of either political party. "Tom DeLay is a loathsome toad": OK. "Republicans are loathsome toads": not OK.

Also, 'loathsome toad' would be more imaginative.

[bob mcmanus]

"That if the Senate will not consent to the President's every appointment,"

I spoke specifically of Republican Senators, a key distinction. And I am afraid I do take a broader view of the impeachment clause. A hypothetical situation wherein the President sent nothing but Las Vegas showgirls up for Judicial Appointments, each rejected, each resubmitted...should the Congress not question his ability to serve? Does Congress have that right? If the vice-President does not invoke the 25th in the face of clear evidence of Presidential incompetence and/or insanity, have we no safety mechanism? Remember the primary reason for Andrew Johnson's impeachment was a dispute over an appointment, a clash with Congress over a firing.

It is a very grave matter for the President's own party to reject a President's appointment. Von asked that Bolton withdraw from consideration, I presume in some sense of protecting the President. Bolton is no stranger to Washington, and I suspect disingenuousness in certain Senators' shock at Bolton's management style. For Republican Senators to reject Bolton is an incredible insult to the President. An intolerable insult.

But yeah I am mostly messing with Mac & von, who will manage to blame Bolton or Democrats or the press, and pretend not to notice this crisis of confidence of a degree that would initiate elections in any parliamentary system.

[hilzoy]

If von blames either Democrats or the press for this, I will be amazed. If he blames Bolton alone, while sparing entirely the administration that nominated him, I will be quite surprised.

[bob mcmanus]

To be fair to von, there was the phrase about "inerrancy".

However, I think it would then require discussing ther precise nature of the President's misjudgement in nominating Bolton. As I said, Bolton is not a unknown quantity, a district judge buried in the hinterlands. He has been a powerful and trusted colleague in extremely sensitive positions for five years. I do not believe the President was ignorant of his nominee's nature.

But boy my memory serves me well:

"Haldeman has disappointed me. I guess I didn't know him."
"Erlichman has shocked me. I would never have thought."
"Mitchell did those things? Bummer, whoda thunk it."

[CaseyL]

I am curious to know what qualifications for the post of UN Ambassador the pro-Bolton people think he has.

He is well established, beyond any doubt, as being extremely non-diplomatic. He is well established as ignoring information he doesn't want to hear, and of distorting information to suit a pre-determined agenda. He is also well established, beyond any doubt, of alienating just about everyone he works with - not because he's right and they're wrong, but because he's wrong and they're right, and he's a big proponent of shooting the messenger.

He also has a rotten memory, or an awfully selective one, when it comes to his own statements. He will insist he said (or didn't say) something, did (or didn't) do something - until presented with evidence that contradicts him. At which point he takes refuge in a bad memory.

If you like Bolton because you want to 'reform' the UN, I want to know how being rude, abrasive, abusive, deceitful, self-serving and playing fast and loose with truth qualifies him to do that.

If you like Bolton because you want someone who can convince the world that American foreign policy objectives should be supported, I want to know how being rude, abrasive, abusive, deceitful, self-serving and playing fast and loose with truth qualifies him to do that.

If you like Bolton because you admire someone who mistreats underlings, then please tell me where you work, because I want to be sure I never, ever apply for a job there.

[moe99]

Casey you forgot one attribute: he fails to keep his superiors fully informed on material facts. We know for W ignorance is bliss. Guess Rove wants someone he can scapegoat when the inevitable happens. This is just coming too early for that.

[Keverino]

Wouldn't Bolton's talents be better served in a more domestic capacity, say running the IRS or the Department of Social Services? That way the beatings he laid upon people would be both useful to the National Agenda AND a great way to abuse people who obviously don't work as hard as the rest of us. Now that I think of it, we could start an immigration prison off the coast of Mexico.

[Paul]

Ah, Voinovich.

Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað ...

[sidereal]

"It is a very grave matter for the President's own party to reject a President's appointment"

That's a rather extreme notion of party loyalty, bob. Surely people within the same party can have good-faith disputes about a number of things, including the appropriateness of candidates for offices.

[Frank]

sidereal- You know, I was sort of thinking the same thing before you said it, but now I'm not so sure. I've been pretty well aware of politics since the Reagan Administration. I think Democrats get less good presidential candidates than we might in large part because Democrats are less loyal to the head of their party than Republicans are to theirs.

[liberal japonicus]

Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað ...

One important lesson from the Battle of Maldon is that you shouldn't agree to any of your opponents' demands to fight fair, or you are going to let them carry your head off on a pike.

[toby]

I always thought that Senators and Congressmen/women where elected by their constituency to represent their (the people) wishes and best interests.

Since when has it been the duty of elected public servants to faithfully vote with their party when one of its leading members brings a vote to the floor that is of questionable merit?

Bush, although the President, is only a man - a man that can make mistakes. Being President does not make him foolproof or omnipotent. As such I would expect those in the position to correct or at least protect us from such mistakes stand up and do exercise that ability.

Voting the party line because it is expected is very frightening and should make everyone stop a moment.

[von]

Macallan --

This is a smear job and cheap character assassination, and nothing more.

If you'll read my post carefully, you'll note that I expressly say that the purported "smear job" against Bolton is not a reason to deny him the nomination. Like you, I do not want to encourage endless repeats of the Clarence Thomas hearings. The as-yet unrefuted charge that Bolton attempted to mess with intelligence, however, casts a signicant cloud over his credibility. If it can be cleared up, it should (and, presumably, would) have been; since it apparently can't be cleared up, Bolton should withdraw.

[von]

All --

I apologize if the size of the block quote looks screwed up to you. (It looks normal on my machine.) I'll try to do better next time.

[bob mcmanus]

"Voting the party line because it is expected"

1)Leaving aside any issues concerning the loyal opposition and presuming that the President and the Senate are of the same party, might I suggest that disagreements are best resolved behind closed doors.

2)Loyalty to the President and deference to his appointments and especially restraint in criticizing him publicly is not simply a matter of partisan unity. Contradiction and dissension with the President in matters of foreign policy and national security can do actual damage to his ability to conduct negotiations with foreign powers.

3) Twice recently, on the Bolton nomination and on the overwhelming vote on tariffs against Chinese imports(63-27) the Senate has demonstrated a lack of confidence in the President's judgement on matters of foreign policy. If I were a foreign power negotiating with the President or his representatives I would have no confidence that promises would be kept, treaties confirmed, policy consistently applied, for the President no longer is trusted by Senators of his own party on matters of security and safety of the United States.

4) I ask, how often has this happened? When before has the Senate, when of the same party as the President, rejected and rebuked him on crucial appointments and policy decisions? It is a humiliation before our enemies, a bitch-slap that will encourage the French and Iranians to hold Bush in utter contempt.

:)

[John Thullen]

Las Vegas showgirls as judicial appointments?

You'd impeach for that?

Shecky Greene for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

Topo Gigot (sp?) as Presidential Press Secretary.

Phyllis Diller as Surgeon General.

Charley Callas for Chief Justice.

[bob mcmanus]

And von, my tongue is only partly in my cheek. This is a great deal more serious than the discussion here has noted.

Senate Republicans discovering after five years that John Bolton is not completely forthcoming, shades intelligence toward outcomes he favors, and is mean to subordinates is very much like finding gambling going on at Rik's Place. It is not mac's "smear job", but it is a bit of Kabuki theater, a search for public reasons to reject Bolton that barely disguises the actual reasons.

Some Senators don't like the policy. They find the President's foreign policy so egregiously bad that they will humiliate him in the places it counts, the halls of Congress and foreign capitols. Everyone important will understand what has happened.

The President must either stand by Bolton, resubmitting him until the Senate understands who is in charge of foreign policy...or the President must resign. Any other outcome may be catastrophic.

[John Thullen]

Siegfried and Roy tagteaming at OSHA?

O.K. Back to my sorry life.

[Paul]

No, no--Pigmeat Markham for Chief Justice. Senor Wences for Press Secretary, and Bobo the Dancing Bear at the FCC.

[John Thullen]

McManus always has another wheel within the wheels. As Claude Rains put it, "I'm shocked .. shocked..!"

Yes, Topo Gigot is spelled "Senor Wences".

[Macallan]

The as-yet unrefuted charge that Bolton attempted to mess with intelligence, however, casts a signicant cloud over his credibility.

von, I think there's a typo there. You spelled 'unsubstantiated' as 'unrefuted'.

[John Thullen]

Pop over and read Matt Yglesias' 12:17 pm post on Bolton's treatment of the pregnant Federalist Society Republican when he was just a boy and didn't know any better.

I want him rejected and then I want the President to renominate. Close down the government until he gets the job.

I hereby abort my opposition to John Bolton.

[blogbudsman]

You get the feeling from the predominant liberal side of ObSiWi's contingent that it is the tactics undertaken in Borking Bolton being celebrated. Keverino jokes about 'beatings being laid' in Boxeresque fashion, but no one really knows that Bolton did anything like that. Standing hands akimbo and calling career bureaucrats to the carpet for torpedoing initiatives would seem to be exactly what the UN needs. I don't see how the UN's performance over the last decade reserves it a place above immigration prisons off the coast of Mexico. As for the UN building's top ten floors...

[Jay Sundahl]

Von,

The blockquote is normalsize now, with blockquote tags. It was changed sometime last night. I assumed you did that and thought I should thank you.

[Anarch]

Standing hands akimbo and calling career bureaucrats to the carpet for torpedoing initiatives would seem to be exactly what the UN needs.

I'll bite: why? More precisely, let me just quote CaseyL's earlier post wholesale:

If you like Bolton because you want to 'reform' the UN, I want to know how being rude, abrasive, abusive, deceitful, self-serving and playing fast and loose with truth qualifies him to do that.

If you like Bolton because you want someone who can convince the world that American foreign policy objectives should be supported, I want to know how being rude, abrasive, abusive, deceitful, self-serving and playing fast and loose with truth qualifies him to do that.

If you like Bolton because you admire someone who mistreats underlings, then please tell me where you work, because I want to be sure I never, ever apply for a job there.

[von]

I assumed you did that and thought I should thank you.

Nope, that was ever-watchful Edward Underscore, who (yet again) saved me from my own incompetence.

[blogbudsman]

Actually Anarch, I'm pretty well liked, if I do say so myself. Hale, hardy fellow and all that. I just don't agree with you and CaseyL's choices. I'll betcha Mr. Bolton is a skilled enough manager and smart enough person that he knows exactly how to temper his demeaner to the situation. That's how you become successful and get desired results.

[toby]

Contradiction and dissension with the President in matters of foreign policy and national security can do actual damage to his ability to conduct negotiations with foreign powers.

it can also restore the international community's faith that the democratic system in place in the US still functions as designed. and that responsible leaders are willing to bring to the attention to the people that such and such is a bad decision which in and of itself could result in the presidents failure to conduct negotiations with foreign powers.

have no confidence that promises would be kept, treaties confirmed, policy consistently applied, for the President no longer is trusted by Senators of his own party on matters of security and safety of the United States.

Bush doesn’t inspire much confidence in policy consistency when you look at his public service career in its entirety. I mean he did say the US should not be in the business of nation building when he was governor of Texas.

[CaseyL]

"I'll betcha Mr. Bolton is a skilled enough manager and smart enough person that he knows exactly how to temper his demeaner to the situation."

Really? Can you illustrate your point by example? What jobs has Mr. Bolton had that he's done well at?

Or do you just mean that Bolton is smart enough to know who he can get away with maltreating and who he can't?

In which case, please explain how the ability to get away with maltreating, say, pregnant women is an indicator of success for intimidating, say, the Chinese Ambassador to the UN.

[Anarch]

I'll betcha Mr. Bolton is a skilled enough manager and smart enough person that he knows exactly how to temper his demeaner to the situation. That's how you become successful and get desired results.

You'll bet me on what grounds? CaseyL beat me to it but again, I'm hearing lots of confidence without underlying substance.

And you're wrong, btw, in your implicit formulation of the problem. Knowing how to temper one's demeanour is indeed one way to become successful and get desired results; another is to be a crony or to have a powerful patron; another is to yell and scream and kick and pout until those weaker than yourself cave in. [I've seen all three of these in my various professional capacities, I'm surprised you haven't.] That Bolton succeeded -- which is to say, he rose up the ladder -- should not be confused with him being competent or controlled. Absent other information I'd agree with you that he'd likely be those two things, but we are not operating in a vacuum and there is, in fact, plenty of information to indicate the contrary is true.

Actually Anarch, I'm pretty well liked, if I do say so myself. Hale, hardy fellow and all that.

I don't believe I ever questioned that, but it's nice to know all the same :) As for me, I find myself in the curious position of everyone liking me -- and more to the point, remembering me clearly and fondly -- without having the slightest clue that they do.

[liberal japonicus]

he knows exactly how to temper his demeaner to the situation

The more people oppose him, demeaner he gets?

(sorry, but the only way to get rid of a bad pun is to tell other people about it. No snark intended, bbm)