The AP is reporting that Bush will go nuclear with his contempt for the United States, the Senate, the American people, the United Nations and the world.
Two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the president had not made the announcement and Congress wasn’t in recess yet, said Bush planned to exercise that authority before he leaves Washington on Tuesday for his ranch.[snip]
Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee said he would vote against Bolton — if given the chance — and would oppose a recess appointment if it is accurate that Bolton’s form was originally incorrect. [snip]
Also Friday, 35 Democratic senators and one independent, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, sent a letter to Bush urging against a recess appointment. “Sending someone to the United Nations who has not been confirmed by the United States Senate and now who has admitted to not being truthful on a document so important that it requires a sworn affidavit is going to set our efforts back in many ways,” the letter said.
What an awful, morally bankrupt administration this is. Just pathetic.
I’m betting he has no choice because of what Bolton knows. But… sooner or later the truth about all the dirty tricks they used to hijack this country will come out, anyway. They are just buying time.
I’ve learned to stop being shocked and upset by this kind of news.
I simply expect the Bush Administration to act in the most loathsome, self serving, egregious manner possible, and I’m never disappointed.
I say sometimes I miss Nixon.
This reads like the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction contest below.
the Senate is kinda pathetic too – how about staying in session so Bush can’t do a recess appointment?
The Latest Breaking News:
Frist just put consideration of John Robert Bolton on the agenda for the post-break session. (C-Span 2 8:20pm)
(a) Fact: Pres. Bush is loyal to his friends and nominees (whether you think its the right character trait or not is not the issue here).
Compare that to Pres. Clinton’s abandoning Lonnie Guinner’s nomination.
Conclusion: Bush would get Bolton the job, one way or another.
(b) Fact: Pres. Bush does what he says. (whether you think its good or bad is not the issue here). Remember his campaign speech – “Whether you agree with me or not, you know where I stand.”
Conclusion: Bush would get Bolton the job, one way or another.
(c) Fact: Pres. Bush gives the neoconservatives what they want in the foreign policy, including the UN Ambassadorship. Bolton was the neocon’s man.
Conclusion: Bush would get Bolton the job, one way or another.
(d) Fact: It appears Bolton will get nominated (through a recess appointment). End of story.
(e) Fact: The battle to stop Bolton’s nomination is lost.
Conclusion: As a practical, realistic, pragmatic matter the Senate Democrats lost this battle!
3. PR battle:
(a) Democrats will accuse the Administration for failure to cooperate. Nothing new. The score: No gain or minor gain in favor of Democrats.
(b) Republicans will accuse the Democrats for filibuster. Public in large, and the independents don’t like “filibuster.”
If the confirmation was held (again regardless of what you think of the proper role of the filibuster), Bolton would get at least 51 votes.
The score: Net loss for Democrats.
(c) Republicans will accuse the Democrats as obstructionist. To sum up the campaign against Sen. Daschle in one word – “obstructionist”. Sen. Daschle, the Senate Minority Leader,a very very powerful position, lost.
The score: Net loss for Democrats.
Practical consequences: Watch out for the accusations (b & c – supra) in 2006 against the Democratic Senators.
(a) oppose CAFTA, which affects real people with real families losing real jobs. It passed 217-215 votes. Was it hard to find 2 extra votes? A Bread and butter issue.
(b) prevent or find a compromise in order to prevent the labor split. A real nuts and bolts issue for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
(c) oppose the Bankruptcy Bill. It affects low income and middle income people. Another Bread and butter issue.
(d) oppose the new gun legislation. A safety issue.
6. (a) If Sen. Biden (D-MBNA/Bank of America) thinks he will become the nominee by riding high on his opposition to Bolton, he is mistaken. Outside the Beltway and a few politically active/astute blogospheres, like this one, people don’t know who Bolton is.
(b) Don’t hold your breathe for Sen. Biden (representing MBNA and Bank of America) to help the ordinary people against the credit card companies. He would rather wage a losing battle against Bolton. Thanks Senator. You get the Democratic nomination.
7. Sen. Biden – “the smartest man” in the Senate, why didn’t you filibuster CAFTA or the Bankruptcy bill, but filibustered Bolton? Hmmm.. That’s a tough one to answer.
Thanks you Sen. Biden. You are the next Democratic nominee for the President.
9. A good Strategy at this time and place of the game:
LET THE VOTE BEGIN
(a) If there is a vote, the Democrats may
(i) win, or
(ii) lose.
(a) If there is no vote, the Democrats will
(i) lose, or
(ii) lose.
(See the analysis supra)
Let the confirmation go on and use the debate for PR battle and avoid seeing as a “No No Party.” (I know its not very popular, and arouses a knee-jerk reaction against it).
Your “pragmatic/practical/realistic” view appears to be based solely on the viewpoint that a ‘win’ can only be achieved through the democrats winning a vote. I pose the same question that I posed to you here: Please tell me one battle the democrats can win (given your definition of ‘win’).
This would have been rammed through the Senate had it not been for Senator Voinovich speaking up in the comittee hearings, and for the threat of the few Republican Senators who would have voted their conscience on Bolton on a floor vote. This was the closest we would have come to potentially actually winning a contested floor vote. When are you going to ask the dems to stand up for what is right? When is the battle that is ‘the right time’? As I stated in the above discussion, we can’t win shit until we get more seats in the Senate. I am proud of them for doing everything they could to prevent this jackass from going to the U.N. This was not a time for capitulation. They were right to do what they did, and the Bush Administration and Bolton are weaker for having had to go this route.
Even if you disagree with me, after my reply, I still respect your idealism and your willingness to fight.
A. “Doing everything they could to prevent this jackass from going to the U.N.”
(a) “doing everything” is not enough. Choosing the battles carefully is more important. And choosing not to appear losing is also important.
(b) “prevent” is not enough. If your purpose is not to have Bolton at the U.N., your purpose was not achieved. By definition its a loss. It is not a victory.
B. (a) “doing everything” for Bolton, but not “doing everything against (i) CAFTA, (ii) the gun legislation, (iii) the Bankruptcy Bill? Thanks again, Sen. Biden. You really are making a difference in the everyday life of working men and women.
C. Why did Sen. Biden filibuster Bolton, but not (i) CAFTA, (ii) the gun legislation, (iii) the Bankruptcy Bill? Please please anyone answer.
D. “Winning seats in the Senate” –
(a) The Democrats will say “Bush nominated an unqualified, incompetent person to the U.N. That does not speak to an average voter, who is not reading the blogs, watching the news about the Beltway politics. No win or minor net gain for the Democrats.
(b) the Republicans will say “The Democrats are filibustering. That looks bad because it appears (right or wrong) that the Democrats don’t want to get along. Minor or Major net gain for the Republicans
(c) the Republicans will say “The Democrats are obstructionist. That looks bad because it appears (right or wrong) that the Democrats don’t want to play fair. Ask Sen. Daschle who was defined as “Mr. Obstructionist” Major net gain for the Republicans
E. Times change. August 2005 is not May 2005. Therefore, the tactics must change. Its called being flexible and realistic (aparently two ugly words in the politics). There are two choices
(i) a recess appointment (The Democrats Lose)
(ii) an up-or-down vote (The Democrats Win or Lose)
Its not hard to figure out what is the best pragmatic choice.
F. This reminds me of the “pure, ideological” approach like NARAL does for abortion – “its our way or no way” – and blocking qualified pro-life Democrats who can win the general election from winning the nomination, like in CT.
G. If there is a vote, the Senators will go on the record . Let the Republicans defend Bolton (a) and his role in the Plame affair, (b) his forgetfulness, (c) his testimony or the lack thereof in front of the grand jury.
And if he is indicted, then the Republicans in 2006 Senate election are toast.
Remember that 2006 Senate is not about Bush (or his recess appointment), but about a particular Senator (and his vote on the record). Otherwise, all the Democrat Senators would lose in the Red States and all the Republican Senators would lose in the Blue states.
I hope this answered your question. Have a good night.
I admit, I don’t know what the hell happened with CAFTA. I really thought it would fail in the HoR (and it should have), but I just looked at the Senate vote and….well shit, I didn’t realize that 12 Republicans voted against it. Come on Harry, get the troops together.
I do understand your point…but you also have to remember that the Bolton votes came before any of the other issues that you mention. And I guess that is one of the big reasons that I give the Dems leniency for fighting here. They should have, and they did, and I appreciate that. Hindsight is always 20/20; I’d do it again the same way if I could go back.
It sucks that we should have to pick our fights like this. Honestly, I’m surprised that Bush didn’t recess appoint Bolton over the July 4 recess. At the same time, I really, honestly do believe that he (meaning Bolton and/or Bush) is weaker for going this route, and if that is the only victory we can claim, so be it.
1. You hit it right on the nail – “before”
That’s the key word. I am glad you italicized it.
2. I should have emphasized it more. Its my fault.
I mentioned it in # 9. A good Strategy at this time and place of the game:
LET THE VOTE BEGIN
Oh, a little below, in my Reply I emphasized – AT THIS STAGE
I just read that earlier. I was misunderstanding what you were saying, I think, so let me try to see if I have it straight now…
Basically your argument comes down to:
The Dems did the right thing in fighting hard against Bolton, but once it was clear that Bush would install him with or without their approval, they should have forced a vote to get people on the record.
Is that right? I originally thought you were saying that they should have just allowed the vote to happen way back when it first made it to the floor.
Step two – Bolton will be nominated, and there is nothing that can be done, because the Pres has the right to do so
Step three – turn it to your advantage and force the Senators to vote (instead of hide with their double talk)
(a) If Bolton loses – then its fantastic;
(b) If Bolton gets through use it to your advantage in 2006 Senate elections by (i) pinning the Senators to their vote and (ii) do not let the Rep portray you as “an obstructionist”. Can you fight it, yes you can. But is it worth spending extra time and money fighting a negative term? No.
OK, then I think I agree with you. I at least don’t disagree with you, anyway. I can still see the benefit of making Bush go around the Senate from a public opinion and Bolton credibility standpoint, but I’m not sure if it offsets the benefit of getting people on the record, as you say. I think you are probably right in the context of looking at what is best for ’06.
I was thinking about this earlier today: If Bolton were to go to a vote in the Senate, and be voted down, I don’t believe that there is anything stopping Bush from recess appointing him anyway, is there? Now that would be one helluva juvenile abuse of power.
1. Imagine the scenario you described – (1) Bolton loses the vote; (2) Thereafter Bush appoints him.
Now that will be a political quake of enormous magnitude.
And you know what – Bush could do that.
2. Stay focused on 2006. And make a lemonade out of a lemon.
1. “I admit, I don’t know what the hell happened with CAFTA”
Did you know the vote in the HoR was 217-215. Some even say it was 216-215 (for some procedural reasons when the clerk was tallying the votes).
My goodness, 2 votes made a huge difference. Just 2 (or even 1 if you go with 216-215 vote).
2. Pres. Bush went to HoR to lobby for CAFTA. I don’t believe that Sen. Biden lobbied or twisted 1 vote in the HoR? Yet he spends all his capital against Bolton (not my first choice, nor even fifth choice).
Q: Sen. Biden, “the smartest man in the Senate,” can you spend some of your capital where it counts? Ahh… Don’t answer.
P.S. When I called Sen. Biden’s office inquiring about his voting, and told his staff that I blog, she laughed at me. These guys have no clue about the power of the blogs or they just disdain us. Way to go, Sen. Biden.
Did you know the vote in the HoR was 217-215
Yes…my comment about not knowing what the hell happened with was in the context of the Senate…I didn’t pay much attention to it while it was there. Looking back at the vote, I’m glad both my Senators at least voted against it…
I was aware of the lobbying efforts by the president, and the Republican leaderships’ tactic of holding the vote open for an extra 45 minutes so that they could round up the votes they needed (it had been voted down at the actual time limit). That was why I said it “should have failed in the HoR”.
I haven’t been impressed with Biden lately. He’s good on TV, but his actions (or lack thereof) and motivations are often questionable. He’s exactly what the democrats don’t need in 2008.
1. I know, it was held open for an extra 45 minutes. I think the Medicare bill was held up for few hours too. It is not the rule, but the exception.
Darn, politics is a dirty business. The Rep. needed extra time to find out how many votes they need and whose hands to twist.
Here is another analogy, which I forgot to put in my prior reply.
1. I read some bloggers or commentators saying “Impeach Bush.” What does it achieve?
(a) emotional impact – it makes one feel good, or expresses anger or frustration or anxiety or disappointment
(b) practical impact – it does nothing because there are not enough votes for an impeachment.
It depends. Again, you can’t measure all of this in quantitative terms.
We have to remember that we (meaning those of us who pay attention, both on the left and the right) are the minority. There is a huge demographic of people who really just don’t give a crap about politics. They vote, but that’s as far as they feel their democratic obligation goes. Believe me, I live with one of them.
If bloggers saying ‘Impeach Bush’ even plants the nugget of the possibility of impeachment (assuming it is deserved, as I believe it is in this case) in the minds of those who pay only fleeting attention to political affairs, then I think it is probably worth it. The uninformed masses are, sadly to say, a very powerful political force. And it’s my belief that the more informed they become, the better it is for progressive causes.
Also, do you have a source for what you say about the MSNBC embargo? I’m not trying to call you out, if you don’t remember that’s cool…I just think that is something that should be brought to the greater attention of the blogosphere if possible.
1. You are right – “It depends. Again, you can’t measure all of this in quantitative terms”
My point was to be practical and pragmatic, especially with the 2006 elections.
(a) Sen. Chafee “Would” does not count!
(b) Let’s vote and see how Chafee (R-RI) actually votes.
(c) Let’s vote and see how Lieberman(D-CT) actually votes.
Cheers.
so any way of preventing this is acceptable. If it is forced through in a recess then at least the world can ignore anything old Bolty says because he will already be damaged goods.
Cheers
and forcing Bolton to be appointed in a recess means he is weakened and cannot do as much damage. If he goes to the UN with the backing of the senate he cannot as easily be ignored. We should do what we can to help the world, and I seriously doubt if any senate races will be won or lost on how people vote on Bolty anyway.
Which supports my general sense that Bush is not just the figurehead many claim he is. Oh, sure, he leaves the boring stuff to others; but when it comes down to it, he stubbornly does what he wants, even if it’s not the most politically astute move.
-Alan
I think this will backfire on Bush. It makes the Republicans look weak – Bush doesn’t have the votes to get Bolton confirmed – and Bolton goes to the UN with less than zero credibility.
Besides, we know he’s entangled in Treasongate. It’s only a matter of time…
Fuck you, Lisa. And fuck you, BooMan.
— I’m the NEW Teflon (which makes me also toxic — ha!) president, disrespectfully NOT yours, George Wannamakeme?! Bush
Bwahahaha! Take that Susan!
(Was that a finger, or a thumb?) 🙂
Eeeeeek!
Channeling Bush again: “You weinie. I was giving the press the thumbs up! Didn’t you read Boran’s diary?! The rest of you liberals got it ALLLLLL wrong.”
Channeling myself again: “Boran’s diary is persuasive. But those pics are soooo fuzzy.”
At least we’ve still got old faithful.
It’s, umm, a looonggg thumb!
UN have already started to work out strategies for working around Bolton’s inevitable pathological obstructionism.
Certainly the veto is a weapon in his hands and there’s no question he’ll use it whenever he can to destroy any meaningful UN initiative, nut maybe member countries can find ways to implement and fund some of their ideas and programs without going through official UN channels. Sort of like a “UN in Exile” scenario, just waiting for the Bolton affliction to pass.
“Post” is not the same as “Preview”!
“Nut” above, is really “but”. The other thing I was going to say is how great it would be if everytime Bolton said anything in session at the UN, everyone would simply greet his remarks with silence, giving no reply to him at all. He’d blow a fuse inside a week if they did that to him. Lunatics like him can’t stand to be ignored.
I agree. We must all inform ourselves on the administrations deception concerning 9-11. This is the important issue. I have been banned twice from dailykos for posting the facts. I am wondering what will happen here. Nobody wants to know all the facts about 9-11 except maybe the widows and orphans and other loved ones of the dead. It will come out just like Pearl Harbor,the Maine and the Lusitania(spelling). Then all the media that hushed it up will come screaming out of the closet how awful,how terrible, etc.
Doesn’t this make you wish Patterson were to be our ambassador?
Steve Clemons, July 27, 2005
they are all just blackmailing each other- just like all criminals do.