Are You Low on Political Capital?

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
August 1, 2005
Bush Appoints Bolton as U.N. Envoy, Bypassing Senate
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS

President Bush bypassed the Senate confirmation process today and appointed John R. Bolton as the new United States ambassador to the United Nations.

The appointment, while Congress is in recess, ends a months-long standoff between the White House and Senate Democrats who deem Mr. Bolton unfit for the job and have been holding up his confirmation.

"I chose John because of his vast experience in foreign policy, his integrity and his willingness to confront difficult problems head on," Mr. Bush said in making the announcement at the White House.

Referring to the difficulty of the confirmation process, the president said that "partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators," had denied Mr. Bolton "the up-and-down vote that he deserves."

The president has the power to fill vacancies without Senate approval while Congress is not in session, an action known as a recess appointment. Mr. Bolton's term will expire at the beginning of the next session of Congress, in January 2007.

The move comes after 36 senators signed a letter to the president last week, saying that Mr. Bolton was "not truthful" while answering questions by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March, and should not be given a recess appointment. Some Republicans have said the approval of Mr. Bolton is long past due and that Mr. Bush is well within his rights to make the recess appointment.

Some senators, including some key Republicans, have also raised questions about Mr. Bolton over his history of criticizing the United Nations and over charges that he has tried to influence intelligence assessments to conform to his views.

His nomination has the support of the majority of senators, but fewer than 60 - the number needed to forestall a filibuster that Democrats had threatened until Mr. Bolton answered questions, particularly about his use of classified intelligence about conversations involving administration colleagues.

Democrats had also been seeking more documents from the White House regarding Mr. Bolton's past service, a request that some Republicans say is not necessary.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/p...&en=6014f62ea8a1344d&ei=5094&partner=homepage
 
So much for the "up and down vote". It'll be interesting if Bolton was in fact, Judith Miller's source.

Looks like Bush didn't even take any questions. What's he afraid of?
 
yosemite-bolton-un.jpg
 
Now, this is the benefit of having one political party--be it Democrats or Republicans--dominating two of the three (and soon to be three out of three) branches of government; things get done! We are not bogged down in endless debate. We seize a course of action and run with it.

At least it is obvious that Bolton never had any doubts as to his appointment, given that he ordered the expansion in office space of the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations while controversy over his appointment still reigned. We are in for exciting times, folks!
 
[quote name='RBM']Now, this is the benefit of having one political party--be it Democrats or Republicans--dominating two of the three (and soon to be three out of three) branches of government; things get done! We are not bogged down in endless debate. We seize a course of action and run with it.

At least it is obvious that Bolton never had any doubts as to his appointment, given that he ordered the expansion in office space of the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations while controversy over his appointment still reigned. We are in for exciting times, folks![/QUOTE]

And if that course of action is antagonistic, isolationist, narcissistic, and helps create more enemies than friends, then I'd settle for gridlock any day of the week.

And, to be precise, oh, nevermind, you pointed out that them not controlling the Supreme Court is merely a temporary formality.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Why do I have to be blindfolded?

HEY! This meat whistle you told me to blow has stuff comming out of it, WTF?
It's delicious! [/QUOTE]
...
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Note to original poster.

Re-itle thread "Whining Crybaby Minority Party Moans Their Power Is Non-Existent".

K THNX BYE[/QUOTE]

If it were nonexistent, the administration wouldn't need to circumvent all democratic processes of approval to shove through someone with no credible reason for being installed in the first place.

Perhaps I should retitle the thread "Republicans becoming more and more facist: Democratic nomination process abandoned for personal, single-handed installation."

But that might be too many words. ;)

KTHXBYE.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']...[/QUOTE]

Oh looky here, I found a new bag of hammers to put on ignore. I don't give a shit if your political ideologies side with mine; you're a troll, you're a misogynistic homophobic twit (and if you weren't, your insulting posts might have less to do with emasculating others through forced fellatio scenarios), and it has occurred to me far too late that you not only bring nothing to the table, you're the drunk cousin whose appearance at holiday affairs the entire family dreads.

Like Steve Buscemi in The Wedding Singer ("AWOOOOOO!").

So, post all the pictures of poop you want to, captain maturity. Be my guest, 'cuz I ain't seen 'em anymore.

The short version: PAD can be very racist and fascist from time to time, but those are viable points of contention. It is perfectly appropriate to have that kind of conversation in the vs. forum. You, on the other hand, are the most deserving recipient of "someone please ban this guy"-itis that I have ever seen.
 
Mykey, regardless of your feelings about D's not giving him an up or down vote equaling some type of defect in qualifications what Bush did was legal.

If you go back and look at the assortment of recess appointments done by Presidents over the past 50 years you'll see that the average is 75 per 4 year term for various positions. It's been done for Chief Justices, Supreme Court Justices, Appelate Court Justices etc..

If you're not going to give an up or down vote for fear you're going to lose means stuff like this is going to happen. The killer quote was Kennedy's who completely ignored his own brother did it over 100 times for various positions.
 
I can't and won't argue that it's illegal, and I don't think that I've suggested it was; it's simply not democratic (but, admittedly, a part of the process to avoid "gridlock").

My contention is that Bolton is a highly controversial candidate; there are still a great deal of unanswered questions (relevant ones, I feel) about him and his past, there is new information coming out that he lied during his congressional hearings (pithy as it may seem), and the concern that you simply could not find a more extreme candidate to put in the UN (unless you found someone *willing* to take out ten floors of the UN). He's simply undeserving, of questionable character, and, if he's anything like the administration that nominated him, incapable of anything resembling compromise. Those may be laudable characteristics from your perspective, but they're downright frightening to me.
 
But Bush needs someone at the UN to legitimize the upcoming Iranian/Syrian invasion :lol:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I can't and won't argue that it's illegal, and I don't think that I've suggested it was; it's simply not democratic (but, admittedly, a part of the process to avoid "gridlock").

My contention is that Bolton is a highly controversial candidate; there are still a great deal of unanswered questions (relevant ones, I feel) about him and his past, there is new information coming out that he lied during his congressional hearings (pithy as it may seem), and the concern that you simply could not find a more extreme candidate to put in the UN (unless you found someone *willing* to take out ten floors of the UN). He's simply undeserving, of questionable character, and, if he's anything like the administration that nominated him, incapable of anything resembling compromise. Those may be laudable characteristics from your perspective, but they're downright frightening to me.[/QUOTE]

Nominate me.

Bolton would be a left wing world government lover in comparison.
 
[quote name='RBM']Now, this is the benefit of having one political party--be it Democrats or Republicans--dominating two of the three (and soon to be three out of three) branches of government; things get done! We are not bogged down in endless debate. We seize a course of action and run with it.[/QUOTE]

Yet that has absolutely nothing to do with anything but one branch of government, the executive branch, abusing its power to make recess appointments. Unfortunately, this has been a feature of every administration in recent memory. If you'll recall, Clinton made some very controversial recess appointments. I suggest doing a little research before jumping to these sorts of misinformed conclusions.
 
[quote name='RBM']Now, this is the benefit of having one political party... things get done! We are not bogged down in endless debate. We seize a course of action and run with it. [/QUOTE]

The problem with this format is that there are no checks and balances in place, so the whole situation just begs for abuse by those in authority. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, so they say. :D
 
bread's done
Back
Top