Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: oboe on June 21, 2005, 07:41:04 AM
-
Any doubts Bush will appoint Bolton as "temporary" ambassador to the UN after Congress recesses for the 4th of July?
Current law allows for "recess" appointments, and this is an expeditious way for Bush to get his man in without having to provide the additional information on Bolton the Senate Democrats are seeking. (no doubt the information would be damaging to Bolton). The appointment would apparently be in effect through January 2007.
I don't see how Bush can resist. Appointing Bolton over the objections of Senate Democrats is a great way to demonstrate his power, and he is a man who seems determined to have his way, no matter what. Its seems like another fair test of "the ends justify the means" thinking that is often used to explain his actions.
-
LOL
no matter what a bunch of limp wristed, far left, out of touch with America handsomehunkcrats want otherwise??
yep, "no matter what"
I hope he does.
-
That could happen.
Or the Democrats could just allow the vote on Bolton and remove that tactic "end run" from Bush's available options.
If the additional info they've requested is important and it's not forthcoming they should make the case before the Senate and the public before the vote.
I'm saying I'd hate to see Bush try to bypass the Senate and I'd hate to see the Senate shirk its responsibility by refusing to allow a vote.
-
Here's what the AP story said about why the Democrats want the additional information:
"Democrats have demanded that the administration check a list of 36 U.S. officials against names in secret national security intercepts that Bolton requested and received. They also want documents related to the preparation of testimony that Bolton planned to deliver - but ultimately never gave - in the House in July 2003 about Syria's weapons capability."
"Democrats say they want to determine whether Bolton improperly used intelligence to intimidate officials who disagreed with his views. They also suspect the Syria documents could bolster their case that Bolton sought to exaggerate intelligence data. And, they want to see whether he misled the Senate during his confirmation hearings when he said he was not involved in the preparation of that Syria testimony."
I don't see that Bush is going to release this information, period.
Its probably damaging to Bolton, but even if it isn't it must be a power trip for him to withhold the information the Senate is asking for. He gets to paint the Democrats again as obstructionists, and with the recess appointment he gets Bolton in anyway.
Do you think the desired information is pertinent to the vote? Or should they be able to vote without it? If the Senate votes on the assumption that the denied information is every bit as damning as suspected, does Bolton still pass and get confirmed?
I have my doubts just how effective Bolton can be as a reformer anyway. His real mission may be just to hurl insults and further degrade and discredit the UN in the eyes of Americans. I don't think the Bush administration sees any use for the UN.
-
After hearing his views on the UN I think he is the perfect man for the job.
-
Yeah, makes as much sense as Martin making Carolyn Parrish ambassador to the US. :rolleyes:
-
If you agree that his real job is the mission I described above then, yeah, possibly none better for the task.
But if his real job is to lead reform of the UN, I'm not sure how he can accomplish anything, given the nature of his personality and the fact that his confirmation hearing has been so problematic he must be viewed as a weak candidate by the rest of the UN. I think if I was a UN rep I'd basically ignore him and freeze him out of every committee and group I could. I think he'll arrive on Day One as a persona non grata, and it'll only go downhill from there.
-
"I've got political capitol now and I plan to spend it!"- George W. Bush, January 2005
Seems like Dubya's writing checks his oscar can't cash.
-
lends a whole new meaning to the term 'lame duck'.
-
I see three paths, feel free to add a few if I missed one.
I'll list them as most desirable to least desirable.
The Senate "Bolton opponents" on both sides of the aisle get the "missing information" they feel need to have the vote. This assumes they don't just delay, delay, delay with continual, addtional requests. They get what they are asking for now and they vote.
The Senate "Bolton opponents" on both sides of the aisle DON'T get the "missing information" they feel they need to have the vote. The vote is held and all Senators feeling they needed more info simply vote "NO".
The Senate The Senate "Bolton opponents" on both sides of the aisle DON'T get the "missing information" and Bush appoints Bolton during the recess.
I prefer #1. How about you?
BTW, I hate this sort of thing in the Senate no matter which side does it. I hate it when the Republicans filibuster the Dem choices and I hate it when the Dems filibuster Rep choices. Just bloody vote! If you feel you don't have enough info, vote NO. If you can't support the guy, vote NO.
I don't see where it's so hard to just do their jobs.
-
I prefer #1 as well, but believe #3 is not unlikely.
FWIW my impression: 'delaying' is not a valid tactic for the Senate. What can be gained by drawing this out except bad PR for the Senate, who could then rightly be portrayed as obstructionists?
I think its more likely that Bush has released less information than the Senators have asked for, forcing them to make multiple requests. Then the administration paints them as delayers employing stalling tactics.
If a vote is held and Senators vote strictly along party lines, would Bolton get confirmed? Not sure if confirmation requires 60-40 or a simple majority...
Another path would be that Bush apologizes for naming such a controversial candidate, says upon further review it was a mistake and withdraws Bolton's nomination, nominating instead Mark Felt. But I don't think that likely.
-
The Dems have a chance to vote on him and are declining to do so. Who could blame bush for tiring of their stall tactics?
The Un is a joke, it's not of great import who we send in their to deal w/ Annan and his corrupt mess.
-
Mark Felt is a old dying man , and besides he will be bizzy with his book an movie deals.
-
From Fox:
Two-thirds of the Senate must vote for cloture, or to end debate on a nominee. But only a majority, or 51 percent, of the Senate is needed to confirm or reject a nominee.
From Yahoo news:
But Democrats made clear they weren't budging and most stood together to defeat a GOP effort to force a final vote on Bolton. The Senate voted 54-38, six shy of the total needed to advance his nomination. The vote represented an erosion in support from last month's failed Republican effort.
If they don't vote, they leave the road open for the recess appointment, the worst choice of the three I see available.
I'd rather see option two than option three. Let all these 54 that want more info to just vote "no"; no majority for Bolton. Done deal, we move one. Best solution that I see at this moment.
Do nothing and let Bush appoint him "recess" and what have the opponents gained?
-
Originally posted by Steve
...The Un is a joke, it's not of great import who we send in their to deal w/ Annan and his corrupt mess.
I think this is exactly what Bush thinks, and that's why he nominated Bolton. I don't think the administration rhetoric about reforming the UN is sincere.
Toad, I think what the opposition gains by a recess appointment of Bolton is more evidence that Republicans may not believe in following laws, procedures, and protocol of our government. Its the same kind of thinking that brought us the 'nuclear option' to deal with Democratic filibustering. Whether that is a scary thing depends on your own view of government I guess. But if it continues to the point that an average citizen feels the Republicans are subverting our government, it may be bad for the Reps in the next election cycle. I don't know what is so damn difficult about turning over the information the Senate has asked for and then letting them look it over and then vote. Maybe the public has an interest in this as well, after all? I don't think all this secrecy in government bodes well for our democracy.
To be fair, I think all Presidents have made recess appointments, though I'm not sure how many did it as an end run around the Senate.
-
Originally posted by oboe
But if it continues to the point that an average citizen feels the Republicans are subverting our government, it may be bad for the Reps in the next election cycle.
[/b]
If they're hanging their hats on that, I think it's a forlorn hope. My feeling is the true "average citizen" doesn't care about the Bolton nomination one whit.
I'd go so far as to say the UN itself doesn't make much of a blip on the "average US citizen's" radar.
To be fair, I think all Presidents have made recess appointments, though I'm not sure how many did it as an end run around the Senate.
I'd guess most are end runs. I serously doubt the appointments are SO important they just can't wait a few months. Look how long the Bolton thing dragged out.
Found this:
Clinton has used the recess appointment relatively sparingly; his average of nine per year is far lower than Reagan's 30 and Bush's 20.
They all do it to some extent. I'd guess most are "end run". It's certainly not a rare thing, especially amongst the Republicans if that quote is correct.
BTW, the article also said "the Senate hasn't looked kindly on most unconfirmed appointments".
Duh! It diminishes Senate power. The proper thing to do to prevent this, IMO, is exercise the Senate's proper power and vote.
And yeah, I'd say the same thing if the Reps were stalling a Dem President's pick for anything. Give it a good debate, as good as you can get, and vote/move on.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And yeah, I'd say the same thing if the Reps were stalling a Dem President's pick for anything. Give it a good debate, as good as you can get, and vote/move on.
Maybe if they would just release the requested info instead of giving the impression to the average Joe that they are hiding something they would get that vote over and done with.
-
Well, that would be the easy way, wouldn't it. I wish they'd have released it the first time they were asked. We'd be done already.
For whatever reason, and I'm sure not privy to it, it seems the Bush Admin has decided "vote now or we recess appoint".
Given that choice, if I were a Senator from either side, I'd vote.
I'd vote "no" too, if I felt that info could be/shold be a key factor in my decision process.
As it is now, it looks like they can vote and have a chance of stopping Bolton or they can sit on their hands and let Bush put Bolton in till 2007.
Again, I'd go for the vote faced with this choice. There's my .02
-
Originally posted by Toad
For whatever reason, and I'm sure not privy to it, it seems the Bush Admin has decided "vote now or we recess appoint".
Given that choice, if I were a Senator from either side, I'd vote.
I'd vote "no" too, if I felt that info could be/shold be a key factor in my decision process.
I'd vote Nay as well, simply because Bush is intent on forcing a vote without releasing the info the Senate has requested. I normally don't respond well to being strongarmed.
-
Yeah, I gotta believe there's more than a few guys ticked at the "up yours" attitude Bush is giving them on Bolton.
If the info they're asking for isn't "national security" or something, if I were a Senator of either stripe, I'd vote no unless I got what the Senate asked to see.
Doesn't look like "national security" to me. This back in May:
The State Department is refusing to make public internal documents sought by Senate Democrats in their attempt to seek more information about repeated clashes between John R. Bolton and American intelligence agencies over Syria, administration officials say.
In rejecting the request, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that the information involves "internal deliberations" and their disclosure could have a chilling effect on debates within the administration
-
My dissertation advisor once had a discussion with now-Attorney General Gonzales (then-White House Counsel) about why the Bush administration so vehemently fights the release of even basic and non-incriminating documents to Congress. His response was that he felt the Supreme Court featured a majority in favor of expansive executive priviledge, and the idea was to force Congress into a constitutional battle over the administration's unwillingness to provide documents on demand.
What you have seen is a Congress unwilling to bring an executive power issue before a Supreme Court that is likely to side with the executive. No doubt the Bolton documents issue plays into a number of administration strategies -- first of baiting Congress into an executive power debate, and second by painting Democrats in Congress as obstructionist.
Why would Democrats prefer that this vote not go to the floor? Simple. A president forced to appoint a nominee through non-traditional ways appears weak. A president who can not invoke cloture on a nominee appears weak. Even if Bolton becomes U.N. ambassador by a recess appointment, Bush begins looking more and more like a lame duck.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Fine by me. If he's weak, he's weak.
Let the games begin.
Oops! It's probably half-time already!
-
I wonder if the American people are in favor of more expansive executive privilege?
-
Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio called the diplomat arrogant and bullying.
"This United States can do better than John Bolton,"
"the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be." He said Bolton would be fired if he was in the private sector.
Yea... lets have him representin.:aok
-
Originally posted by Toad
Found this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton has used the recess appointment relatively sparingly; his average of nine per year is far lower than Reagan's 30 and Bush's 20.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/B]
Sounds like the Dems have mastered obstructing nominations. No one will be surprised if this lesson will be used on the next democrat in office.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Sounds like the Dems have mastered obstructing nominations. No one will be surprised if this lesson will be used on the next democrat in office.
Or maybe Clinton made more of an effort to nominate people who were less objectionable to the Republicans.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I wonder if the American people are in favor of more expansive executive privilege?
I say in questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.
Oh wait...... somebody else already said that. ;)
Originally posted by Krusher
Sounds like the Dems have mastered obstructing nominations.
Originally posted by Oboe
Or maybe Clinton made more of an effort to nominate people who were less objectionable to the Republic
C'mon guys. The Dems and Reps are as alike in this as two peas on a pod. Both sides have been obstructing judicial appointments and the like for as long as I can remember and that's a pretty long time.
Now where's my "enter" key to get this posted?
-
Originally posted by Toad
I say in questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.
Oh wait...... somebody else already said that. ;)
C'mon guys. The Dems and Reps are as alike in this as two peas on a pod. Both sides have been obstructing judicial appointments and the like for as long as I can remember and that's a pretty long time.
Now where's my "enter" key to get this posted?
Thats why I voted for Perot twice, I wanted a third party to keep the other two honest.
Oh well