Here’s an analysis of the whole Bolton issue via Fred Kaplan on Slate. I’ve emphasized a critical part:
Will Bush escalate this battle to the next level and simply brush aside the Senate? My guess is, he will. Otherwise, why would he have taken the fight as far as he has? Why would he have kept today's cloture vote on the schedule? Surely he and his whips knew they didn't have enough support to win. The Senate Democrats had made a case against cloture on two grounds—not just on Bolton's dreadful qualifications for the job, but also on Bush's refusal to turn over documents relevant to the Senate's investigation. It was clear that, since last month's motion, the White House had lost—not gained—ground. Most likely, the president and his spokesmen will now repeat, with renewed intensity, what they've been saying for a while now—that the Democrats are obstructionists, that a majority of the Senate favors Bolton, and so he should simply be placed in the job if need be.I’d like to believe that the American people agree with the concept that a President should be able to choose the members of his administration. Executive branch nominees are rarely rebuffed. I think you have to go all the way back to John Tower in the first Bush administration who was rejected for the Secretary of Defense position under a cloud of allegations concerning ties with defense contractors and (alleged) alcoholism. John Bolton doesn’t come close to the level of disqualification and it’s become obvious in the words of John Podhoretz that “The Democrats have decided that blocking Bolton is the test case of their continuing relevance.”
Just so, but Kaplan misses the big picture. By staging another failed cloture vote by the Senate Democrats, Dubya is setting up “filibuster fatigue.” Between the chronic blocking of democratic up-or-down votes and the agreement to only filibuster nominees for “extraordinary circumstances,” it will be extremely difficult for Democrats to block a Supreme Court nominee. While the Democrats expend energy blocking that all-important position of U.N. ambassador, Bush is keeping an eye on the judicial branch.
In other words, given that John Bolton is almost certain to get a recess appointment, it’s time to chill once again.
1 comment:
The Republicans got their 5 much-delayed judges. In return, they had to acknowledge that they didn't have the political will, the public support, and (perhaps) the votes to unilaterally cut off Senate debate and filibusters, and put the judges in themselves. A minor concession in 2005. And on the whole, a Bush gain. But long-range planning isn't all red; the Democrats are looking to the future, too.
If the GOP couldn't summon the courage and risk the result to get Priscilla Owen to the Appeals Court, what on earth makes you think they could do it for the Supreme Court? Had Frist & Co. pulled the "option" trigger 2 months ago, the extraordinariness of the change might have dulled in a year's time. And moderate voters' outrage over a unilateral Supreme Court appointment might have been muffled. No chance of that now. (And that's assuming Rehnquist even steps down on Bush's timetable, which the Justice is suddenly and surprisingly showing signs of not doing.) Bush can "keep an eye on the judicial branch" all he likes, but his thumb has been surgically removed.
You and Podheretz say the Bolton squabble shows the irrelevance of the minority. Indeed? Did you have a higher opinion of Democratic potency in 2003, or 2002? The true story here is the increasing difficulty Bush/Rove are having in imposing their will. They're going to have to fight harder to achieve less. John Bolton is just the canary in the coal mine.
Post a Comment