« Money Talks | Main | Why Public Diplomacy Matters »
What's At Stake In the Bolton Nomination
If you read the latest on John Bolton you start to get a sense of the screwy politics of this whole thing. It isn't really the case that "the Bush administration" wants to put the guy in and the Democrats are trying to stop them. Rather, the Bush administration was divided on second term national security personnel decisions, the pro-Bolton faction basically lost out (they wanted him to be Deputy Secretary), and he got UN Ambassador as a kind of booby prize. What's at stake here will be the ability of Rice, Zoellick, and Hadley to effectively wage bureacratic war against Dick Cheney and his allies. You can get a sense of this from the behavior of Richard Lugar, whose clearly the sort of Republican who wants Rice to win. He's "supporting" the Bolton nomination out of loyalty to the White House, but he's also made a lot of procedural decisions as Foreign Relations Chair that make it harder for Bolton to be confirmed. Clearly, I think, he'd like him to be beaten (as would Rice, etc.) but he wants someone else to do the beating. And it really couldn't be clearer that Hagel is casting around rather desperately trying to square a desire not to vote for Bolton with a desire not to be too egregiously disloyal.
April 18, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834585d7269e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What's At Stake In the Bolton Nomination:
» A John Bolton roundup from Stygius
We're in the last lap of John Bolton's nomination process. I realize now I've been blogging this pretty steadily for a while. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote Tuesday on the nomination (although I expect it may be stalled a c... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 18, 2005 11:57:16 AM
» What's At Stake In the Bolton Nomination from Grubbykid.com :: Links
What's At Stake In the Bolton Nomination... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 18, 2005 1:33:19 PM
» Should John Bolton be the next UN ambassador? from Daniel W. Drezner
With more Republicans wavering yesterday over John Bolton's nomination, I think it's worth asking the question: should he be the next UN ambassador? [Wait, weren't you defending him last week?--ed. No, I was defending the substantive point he made --... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 20, 2005 5:41:51 PM
Comments
Chuck Hagel is not worried.
http://gotv.blogspot.com/2004/10/senator-chuck-hagel-r-vapor-voting.html
Posted by: Alice Marshall | Apr 18, 2005 11:46:34 AM
Chuck Hagel is not worried.
this may be true, but it would be nice if he could do his not worrying on the east coast. at this point he's hedging his bets.
Posted by: schtaple | Apr 18, 2005 12:04:31 PM
Alice -- um, what do you know about Nebraska? Believe me, Chuck had no trouble getting elected. Despite all the hoo-doo about his involvemnet with these voting machine things, I have no doubt, as a born & bred Nebraskan, that Hagel won his elections fair & square as they come.
Posted by: J | Apr 18, 2005 12:37:56 PM
I understand his first election was an upset and he was behind going in to election day.
Posted by: Alice Marshall | Apr 18, 2005 12:56:27 PM
ONE of 'em is going to have to vote against Bolton.Knowing what they know and not voting against him is a good definition of cowardice.
Charles
Posted by: charles | Apr 18, 2005 1:42:32 PM
I still don't understand what evidence there is that Bolton's nomination is some kind of booby prize.
Posted by: David | Apr 18, 2005 3:23:45 PM
"What's at stake here will be the ability of Rice, Zoellick, and Hadley to effectively wage bureacratic war against Dick Cheney and his allies."
The Civil War aspect of Bolton is what makes it so goddamn fascinating to watch. It's certainly the best show in town at the moment.
Lugar, Hagel, and Chafee all want Bolton to go down, but no one wants to wield the knife.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 18, 2005 3:37:20 PM
They'll vote for him if there's no more bad things coming out. If there was just one more little bad thing - they'd vote against him for sure. Oh, yes. Yes Sir, no doubt.
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 18, 2005 3:55:38 PM
What's at stake here will be the ability of Rice, Zoellick, and Hadley to effectively wage bureacratic war against Dick Cheney and his allies.
I'm sorry--why should I care who wins in a war between extreme evil and pure evil? Who would Condi put up who's measurably better? What's at stake here is the ability to bloody Bush's nose in full view of the public. And whoever is managing this for the Dems is doing a hell of a job.
Posted by: Social Scientist | Apr 18, 2005 7:23:33 PM
I don't know where you guys are getting information, but where's the public evidence that the so-called civil war in the Bush government is likely to break out in a rejection of Bolton? Rice has been extremely supportive in her public statements about the guy. And Lugar, Hagel and even CHafee are showing as much loyalty as one could expect under the circumstances. Appointments are generally regarded as a matter of privilege, and only judged on merits when there is obvious incompetence. The intercine skirmishes worthy of a civil war will be over policy, not the UN post.
Posted by: julian | Apr 18, 2005 8:07:28 PM
I still don't understand what evidence there is that Bolton's nomination is some kind of booby prize.
You're kidding, right? There isn't a single public statement that Bolton has made about the UN throughout his whole career that indicates he would ever be seriously interested in this job. It was the only job Bush would offer him.
Posted by: S.Anderson | Apr 19, 2005 12:39:09 PM
It is realy the best show in town for a moment.
Talking seriously, we need more safisticated, more onest and more disent person for that job.
Posted by: Dr. Igor Riff | May 5, 2005 10:48:05 PM

