Why Bolton Will Be Confirmed

by DemFromCT

The tragedy of 2004 wasn't just Bush's election, it was the election of more Republicans in Congress. Since Bush is quacking like a (lame) duck, it takes only a cursory look at the current issues (Bolton, Social Security, nuclear option, DeLay for starters) to see where all the action is.

Terence Samuel (via Kurtz) explains why Bolton will be the next US Ambassador, barring any surprises.

In The American Prospect, Terence Samuel sees the Democrats not as obstructionists but as born-again fighters:

"Suddenly the Democratic Party wants to duke it out on everything, from Tom DeLay to John Bolton to everything in between. Despite the beating that Bolton is taking at the hands of Democrats, there remains a better than even chance that he will be confirmed as ambassador to the United Nations -- as long as White House officials continue to fight for him. The bottom line is not matter how much Democrats frag Bolton in the next weeks; the only way his nomination dies is if Republicans abandon him and defy their president.

t is possible to imagine that Bolton’s interpersonal-skills disorders might cost him support among independent GOP senators. But it is nearly impossible to see how the White House could lose this fight over charges that, when you add them up, amount to the fact that Bolton is a hard-driving, ideological mega-jerk who likes to get his way even if it means running people into the ground to get it. How do these qualities become a sufficient disqualifier giving GOP senators enough cover to go against their president?

They don’t!

For Democrats, however, it does not matter: The Bolton nomination is already paying dividends, and may continue to do so even if they lose. With little reason to think they could win, they’ve put up a fight and have refused to back off. They’ve come off looking organized and determined. And if they manage to win this fight, they may also begin to appear effective.

That’s the shocker. All of a sudden, Democrats are shooting to kill.

Want a representative of the United States to the world that you can be proud of? Stop voting for Republican Senators. Steve Clemons  thinks it's possible even the intelligent and experienced Republican moderates might in the end be swayed by logic. Heh. Although Steve is doing yeoman's work following this issue, Samuel's got it right. It's in the end all about power and loyalty, and none of these R guys are capable of putting country over party. Not for DeLay and not for Bolton. John Bolton will be confirmed because they can, and for no sensible reason you can come up with other than fear of losing. They're too afraid of it becoming a habit.

 

Comments

[Mimikatz]

As an avid follower of Steve Clemons' blog, the knock on Bolton is not that he is a bad boy, but that he is a loose cannon who goes around pursuing his own version of what he thinks George Bush's foreign policy is (or should be). And then in support of that vision, he distorts intelligence and tries to get analysts fired if they have the temerity to contradict him. He thus combines both ideological blinders with an almost pathological hatred of dissenting opinions.

Of course he would be a bad diplomat. But it is not even clear that he can be trusted to be an accurate messenger of Bush's foreign policy (whenever Bush decides what that is).

This fight has Cheney written all over it. Bush is along for the ride, but the horses are being whipped along by Cheney, in his own very dark and dangerous vision.

That should give any intelligent Republican real pause.

[DemFromCT]

Clemons is right.. but alas, so is Samuel.

[DHinMI]

This morning on NPR somebody mentioned that Powell is flitting around dropping word that the bad information he used in his UN speech came from Bolton. I think Samuel is right about the Dems shooting to kill, but I think he may underestimate the number of Repubs who also appear to be shooting to kill, and their facility with the appropriate weaponry.

I don't have any idea what's going to happen on this nomination, because Voinovich is one of the least likely Repubs to be intimidated, and he provides committee cover to Chaffee. And while I expect that he'll vote for Bolton, I don't think it would break Lugar's heart to have to tell the WH that he just can't get the nomination through the committee.

I think Samuel is right on what this means for the Dems. I don't, however, think the confirmation is close to being settled.

[Hill]

"But it is nearly impossible to see how the White House could lose this fight over charges that, when you add them up, amount to the fact that Bolton is a hard-driving, ideological mega-jerk who likes to get his way even if it means running people into the ground to get it."

Mimikatz and DHinMI are correct. Samuels is bad at math.

[NG]

Bolton is a hard-driving, ideological mega-jerk who likes to get his way even if it means running people into the ground to get it. How do these qualities become a sufficient disqualifier giving GOP senators enough cover to go against their president?

I must be missing something here, and I am surprised the writer doen't see it clearly. We went into Iraq because of "bad intelligence" supposedly, and here with Bolton we have the key to why we had/have forced bad intelligence.

People are dying in Iraq, and it is not going to end well. If that is not enough cover for a Senator, then that person has ABSOLUTELY no bussiness being one! People can see this even without a Dem roadmap showing the logic. Throw in such a good and well advertised Dem roadmap, and only fools will tread against it!

[DemFromCT]

My commenters today are being very reasonable and logical and i hope they are right. I am suggesting this is about raw power. If Bush loses on Bolton, so goes the thinking, he loses on everything as he's forced to admit he's lost his mojo. He'll therefore throw the dice and risk all.

Fine, but by playing the R "stay in power for your own interest" card with fellow Rs, it's his last ace. He may win the hand and lose the game, or he may lose the hand, the game and the pot.

[Kagro X]

But it is nearly impossible to see how the White House could lose this fight over charges that, when you add them up, amount to the fact that Bolton is a hard-driving, ideological mega-jerk who likes to get his way even if it means running people into the ground to get it. How do these qualities become a sufficient disqualifier giving GOP senators enough cover to go against their president?

They don’t!

Of course they don't! They are, in fact, sufficient qualifiers for promotion in this administration. The man personally driving the nomination is himself a hard-driving, ideological mega-jerk who likes to get him way even if it means running people into the ground to get it. Why, then, would that quality in Bolton put anyone off their feed?

What accounts for the peril the nomination is in is the fact that the raw reality of Bolton's personality is putting voters off their feed. And that bugs Senators. Being a jerk? Even a jerk who possibly imperils the survival of the United States of America with his incredible disorder? Who gives?

[DemFromCT]

Yep, that's the summary, Kagro, making this fascinating. Party over country? And where is the party over self-interest part going?

Note that if this were a normal situation, Bolton would alredy be pulled. Then again, so would private accounts.

[Nell]

If it's so hopeless to peel off non-fundie Republican Senators in the Foreign Relations Committee, then why are so many Republicans from the State Dept. and CIA and elsewhere coming out publicly to try to torpedo Bolton?

I agree Dems have gotten some good mojo out of sticking together and creating a floor of resistance, but I just don't see that they did the damage themselves. Armitage, Powell, McLaughlin, Ford, Hubbard....

[DemFromCT]

No one running for office, in other words. The 'old' repubs and career people, not the Condi Rice political yes-bots currently in power.

With Dems the minority party, it's all about the repubs. What's remarkable is how well the Dems have done with such a poor hand. What's also remarkable is how gutless the handful of moderates are. They fear primary fights like Toomey v Specter. And that's the logic behind a little competition for Joementum in his primamry.

[DHinMI]

As a generalization, the Repub moderates have been gutless as long as I can remember. Gee, might that have something to do with the fact that there are so few left?

As for this not being a normal situation, I agree. I think mimikatz is correct that Bolton's got Cheney written all over it, and I think that's why they're not abandoning him like they did Linda Chavez. But I also think the Bushies have made a policy commitment to undermine the international institutions by installing Cheney's capos/stoodges, and by undermining the welfare state by sabotaging SS and putting extremist judges who will push things back to the 1920's. They've always succeeded on the domestic stuff, so that explains the missteps on domestic issues. As for Bolton...well, when did Cheney ever do something well? He's gotten away with plenty, but he's screwed up everything in site, and this just happens to be a very visable screwup.

I think that on the big things, they're so used to getting their way through intimidation and lying that they have no idea how to pivot, take half a loaf and declare victory.

On Nell's point, I think she's correct that the establishment Repubs have been key, but I think that without the Dem unity and resolve, Powell, Armitage et al would have sat on their hands (or tongues). If Bolton is rejected, it will be from Powell et al finished the job the Dems started, and only because the Dems built the initial momentum.

Oh, one last thing. Even from before the war, a lot of apprehensive supporters wished that we had more support from the UN. I think Bolton reinforces the disappointment that Bush did this alone, and it's turned into a mess.

[Kagro X]

Linda Chavez... that brings up an interesting point.

The administration's policy appears to be that if you fail to pay Social Security taxes for your nanny, you're an unacceptable nominee. Whereas if you torture or verbally assault your nanny, they'll fight to the death for you.

Fantastic.

[cs]

Want a representative of the United States to the world that you can be proud of? Stop voting for Republican Senators.

I am weary of reading stuff like this from folks trying to make reputations form themselves by what they consider savvy analysis. Such head-in-sand naivete is no less self-absorbed than Republican fear and denial.

[DemFromCT]

I am weary of reading stuff like this from folks trying to make reputations form themselves by what they consider savvy analysis.

Heh. I don't need to make a reputation for myself. I already have one. What I wanted to do was retire quietly.

[Kagro X]

Ew. What's that in your Cheerios, dude?

[Kelly Miller]

Remember, too, George Bush is incapable of admitting a mistake about anything, ever. By comparison, he makes Benedict XVI look like a paragon of self-doubt. Bush will continue to push the Bolton nomination because it is impossible (in his own mind) for him to have made a mistake in the first place.

This isn't meant to dispute your contention that it's "all about power and loyalty, and none of these R guys are capable of putting country over party."

Party, loyalty, and infallibility make a very bad mix.

[DemFromCT]

Perhaps better to have said "none of these R guys seem capable" since the story's not over yet. But I have my doubts based on past performance. This would seem, with Steve Clemons clearly delineating why, to be a no-brainer. As others have noted, Cheney writes his own rules, and he's Bolton's sponsor.