|
The move was basically assumed even back when the Bolton nomination began to get bogged down. Delaying the vote for approval may prevent the Senate thumbs up for the guy, but it doesn't take him off the docket. Basically it means that without the support of the Senate, the Pres isn't prevented from the appointment, but it doesn't carry the weight of a Senate-approved appointment, and as noted has to be revisited by the Senate in 07. Call it a stale-mate solution.
The Prez gets his guy in there and if he can behave himself, he probably will have a shot at staying there longer. As previously mentioned, if this happens the Prez can point out how this proves that he should have been confirmed. This is a win for him, but not without risk. If Bolton goes nuclear it will prove he made a bad choice, while even he doesn't, US interests will likely suffer due to Bolton's poor ability at building consensus and putting together cooperative teams. This may work out but it is not a win-win situation for the President.
On the other hand, this is a win-win situation for the Democrats. The Dems get to take some credit for anything positive that Bolton does in the post. They can claim that their denial of confirmation forced Bolton to be deprived of a mandate and thus have to be on his best behaviour in order to show he was worthy of the appointment. However, if there is a meltdown at any point, Dems can highlight it as evidence that they were right to challenge his nomination. Only if Bolton does a sterling job and is able to build a willing coalition within the UN to forward US interests will the Dems be in danger of looking like they we were wrong about him.
Josh
|