Bush Recess-Appoints Bolton: Hilarity Ensues
 

Using a little-utilized presidential power, President Bush appointed John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

Article II, Section 2, U.S. Constitution: "The President shall have th Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

In other words, Bolton will remain the U.N. Ambassador until January of 2007, at which time he would need to be confirmed by the Senate.

Was this a wise move on Bush's part, or will the expenditure of political capital prove foolish?

Personally, I think this was a move of Rovian genious. If Bolton serves as Ambassador for a year and a half without incident, then the Deomcrats will lose every justification they have for filibustering his nomination. Sure, they'll still point out that he is mean to his subordinates, but if it is established fact that this doesn't prevent him from being a good Ambassador, what can the Democrats do except allow him to come up for a vote on the Senate floor?

It's a pretty big gamble. We don't know how the '06 elections are going to go, and if moving him through the senate after that will be possible at all after them.

I'm wondering if the Senate may end up expressing its frustration by taking it out on other nominees, such as our Supreme Court friend. I'm not suggesting any impropriety would take place, rather a more than usual scrupulousness in following procedural details and satisfying requirements...

Well that's a pretty big "If" right there. I think it's pretty clear that Bolton isn't being sent up to the UN to make friends and sit on his hands. He's being sent up there to "reform" the UN. Knowing the temperament of Mr.Bolton, that probably means a lot of yelling and grandstanding with few if any positive results.

I do see a bit of Rovian strategy in what the Bush administration is doing. They are trying to make as many outrageous decisions as possible in order to make it impossible for the Democrats to fight all of them. It'll mean that the White House will probably go unchallenged on lesser outrages like the Roberts nomination. In the end though, this is going to hurt our country, but its not like that ever stopped them before.

Nah, nominating Bolton to the U.N. is going to have no significant effect on "our country". Come to think of it, I can't remember the last time our U.N. Ambassador did have a significant effect on the U.S. as a whole...

I don't see anything remotely outrageous about this decision: it is a rarely used, but definitely legitimate procedure. Likewise, there is nothing outrageous about John Roberts, unless by "outrageous" you mean "more conservative than Justice Ginsburg". I have a suspicion...

As compared to now? :rolleyes:

If you look at it a level deeper, is this why John G. Roberts is turning out to be so unobjectionable? If Bush planned the Bolton appointment this way even a few weeks in advance, then the confirmation atmosphere must have played into his decision.

Is there anything to stop Bush from doing this with his Supreme Court nomination(s)? I mean, it does say ALL vacancies. Then the excuse of "oh,... well he's already appointed and has been doing it for over a year, i guess he should stay" could be used to get whoever the administration wants in power in power.

Edit: Just incase by some freak occurance mr. bolton happens to read this.. or someone he knows... yea..

http://a1061.g.akamai.net/7/1061/541...che/231630.jpg

you wouldn't want to do this for a supreme court position. Since the appointment would be temperary and if dems win the next election it would be more difficult to get him appointed.

Yea,.. but then again this administration has done a lot of things.. most things.. the way you wouldn't want to do them. It hasn't stopped them in the past, it hasn't been stopping them in the present... and i doubt it will stop them in the future. Right now there's nothing from stopping him from appointing the supreme court nomination the same way. Over a year from now no one will really care that it will have happened. Chances are there will be similar problems to worry about that are more pressing (as this seems to happen every other week).

First of all I'd say that's a bit misleading (at least according to this article)

I'd say by no means is it an under used balance that the president has.

In this, I'd say it's a smart move. If there isn't a U.N. Ambassador and we need one, why wouldn't the president appoint the person that he's been trying to support for the last year? It seem slike such a simple and obvious thing to do... You don't even have to have an 'evil genius' to tell you to do that.

Whether it's a smart move in the fact that he's a good person for the job, I couldn't tell you because I couldn't generally care less about the UN's ambassador, but it seems like a smart move politicaly for the president to make.

I can't remember the last time the UN did anything but embarrass itself anyway. I say, put the meanest SOB in there that you can. At least we can watch a good fight.

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

I'd personally say this is a more dangerous slippery slope for democrats then republicans on the Win/Lose variables. If Bolton sucks, well, good for the Democrats - They called it correctly.

On the chance that he does a great job, things go smoothly, things start working out how they should, then all the words used against Bolton will be thrown right in the Democrat's face. Basically it would show that the Democrats were wrong to deny the right man for the job and to deny America a good UN ambassador to the job over petty politics. Making this a huge potential lose situation for the Democrats.

I did say that if Bolton really shines, the Dems will have to eat their words, but I think most Democrats will tell you that they'd be more than happy to do that since that will mean that Bolton has not done what they were worried about, and that is damage the US-UN relationship.

I have to agree with Josh if Bolton screws up even in the slightest...... it will haunt the Republicans. And I am sure there are many in the U.N. waiting to make him look bad. So he better be very smart and wise in his actions and friends.

As for the Dems. it isn't really going to cost them any political clout unless Bolton goes in and does such a great job that everyone in the UN has nothing but glowing things to say about him (don't think it will happen).

My call, 6 months from now he'll be resigning after a scandal and the WH and he will be blaming the Dems and the UN for his mistakes. (I just think he's going to be set up in ways he has no idea of.)

Much of the UN reform that the administration was seeking has already occurred during the Bolton nomination delays. One of the remaining "big" issues is whether to add other nations to the permanent council.

Expansion of the veto group is an old issue which I remember debating back in Model UN days. Then it was Japan and Germany that were supposed to be the ones to look at, now you hear about India being a candidate. In the end it takes the current five being willing to have another power or two able to stop a resolution, and I don't see that happening soon.

I agree with what you said, but maybe for different reasons. If Bolton screws up his assignment--to go into the UN and make it clear that the US isn't playing around with them anymore--then it will haunt the Republicans because the support for candidates of that party will be less forthcoming with money and at the ballot box.

Again, if folks at the UN have nice things to say about him, then he didn't do what I understood he was sent there for. I'm hoping they have nothing good to say about him, and they have lots of reasons to say it.

I hadn't considered that, but given the boat rocking he's been touted as being able to do, I think you're right--someone that is getting toes stepped on will try to make their life easier by setting him up. 6 months may be a little short, but it's something he should truly beware of.