Don’t Bolt on Bolton
Why Democrats have to confirm
John Bolton
More than a few Republicans were sweating out Election
Day 2006, but one of them had to be U. N. Ambassador John Bolton.
Remember, he got the job when President Bush made a recess appointment
to put him in the post. Now, Bolton has to be approved by the
Senate, which as we know is tentatively controlled by the Democrats
by virtue of a 49-49-2 makeup, with the 2 Independents tending
to skew Democrat.
Bolton has been a thorn in the Democrats’ sides since he
was brought up as a nominee. Democrats said Bolton would send
the wrong message to the world and to the U. N. because, get this,
he was “too gruff.” Yeah, and calling Bush everything
from stupid to Hitler is pillow talk, right? Either way, the prospects
that Bolton will be confirmed by the Senate to be Ambassador are
dimmer than the people who green-lighted the remake of “House
of Wax” and made Paris Hilton an actress.
Or are they? Maybe it’s my askew way of looking at the world,
but I think the Democrats have to get Bolton appointed this time
because their future as majority party in Congress is at stake.
How, you ask? Here are six reasons I came up with.
1) The Democrats don’t have the political capital
to make such a move. Sure, Democrats control both houses
of Congress (at least until Jack Abramoff starts singing like
Taylor Hicks…and hopefully doesn’t start dancing like
him), but the reality is that their majority is narrower than
the crawl space at Kate Moss’s house. That leaves Democrats
in a situation where they have the majority in terms of numbers,
but not in terms of being able to get stuff done. In order to
build confidence that the Democrats really are willing to work
with Bush and the Republicans (which will go a long way to building
political capital with the public), they will have to throw Bush
a bone and allow Bolton to stay on as U. N. Ambassador.
2) The Democrats haven’t made a good argument to reject
Bolton. Have you seen the reasons Democrats give to reject
Bolton? They’re weaker than the plot of a murder mystery
written by Tony Danza. If they have anything more substantial
than “Bolton is a poopyhead,” I haven’t seen
it, and I doubt they do. The opposition to Bolton has been limited
to his personality than to his ability. He’s too gruff and
blunt? Heck, that’s Simon Cowell’s shtick, and we
let him on American television. Hardly a reason to keep Bolton
out of the U.N.
3) Keeping Bolton adds weight to the Democrats’
call for an end to the “culture of corruption.” Democrats
ran on a platform of ridding corruption from Washington, DC, and
they were swept into power as a result. (Of course, they haven’t
said anything about getting rid of William Jefferson, Alcee Hastings,
John Murtha, or Harry Reid, but it’s still early). It’s
an admirable goal, but why stop there? The United Nations is rife
with corruption, as the oil for food scandal proved. And who has
been leading the charge against U. N. corruption? John Bolton.
If the Democrats really want to appear serious about eliminating
the “culture of corruption,” they need to keep John
Bolton on the payroll because he’s actually doing
it on the global stage.
4) Not enough people know who Bolton is to support the
Democrats on this. It’s no secret that a majority
of people in America aren’t doing their homework on civics.
A poll released before the election showed more Americans could
name the Three Stooges than could name members of the Supreme
Court. (And while we’re on the subject, how come they were
called the Three Stooges when there were six of them?) In order
to get the people behind an effort to oust Bolton, Democrats need
to explain who he is, and even then there’s no guarantee
that they’ll remember. After all, they need to save that
brain power to keep up with “Survivor.” By the time
you get enough people in the general public to know John Bolton
isn’t Michael’s older brother, the vote will pretty
much be over. Save yourself the trouble and just vote for the
guy.
5) Bolton has experience in the job. Like it
or not, the guy’s been in the U. N. long enough to know
how things work there. Taking him out would mean a new Ambassador
would have to be chosen and the learning curve would be steeper
than the interest on the national debt. Given some of the things
out there that have to be dealt with, such as Darfur, we don’t
need someone in a paper “U. N. Trainee” hat at the
helm. We need experience, and that is spelled “John Bolton.”
(Especially if you're using "Whole Language" to teach
spelling.)
And finally, the most important reason…
6) Bush can make another recess appointment.
The President has the power to appoint people to some positions
without Senate approval if he feels it’s important that
someone serve in the role and the Senate is in recess. This is
called, appropriately enough, a recess appointment. Although he
can’t renew Bolton’s spot through this method, he
can appoint someone else through a recess appointment. And from
what I understand, Donald Rumsfeld is out of a job, and he’s
as loyal to Bush and America as Bolton is. If Democrats want to
avoid having to say “Ambassador Rumsfeld,” they’ll
keep Bolton on the job.
And that’s the Bottom Line.
|
