 |
|
Chris Nelson on where we are on Bolton:
A gloomier take from Slate's Fred Kaplan, who thinks all Bolton needed to do today was "survive." But he gets the disappointment that is Chafee just right:After 10 days of really hardball politics from the White House and Republican partisans, it’s hard to say who was more surprised...Democrats, or the White House...but enough Republicans are still showing enough signs of discomfort at the idea of John Bolton representing the United States at the United Nations that his defeat on the Senate Floor remains a real possibility. Today’s Foreign Relations Committee action may be confusing to outsiders...basically, Bolton’s nomination is still alive because it was sent to the Floor for an “up or down vote”, so that’s a “win” for the White House, right? Not exactly...the move came with a “no recommendation” which is highly unusual, and almost unheard of for a nominee of the controlling party.
What has Dems feeling pretty good about their chances, IF the Bolton nomination is not withdrawn by the White House, is that while Dems led the fight, it was a Republican, Ohio’s George Voinovitch, who cited substantive concerns in blocking the committee from approving Bolton. And the former Mayor of Cleveland clearly not alone. Listening to the debate gives one a definite sense that other Republicans, including ‘08 GOP presidential hopeful Chuck Hagel, possible party-switcher Lincoln Chaffee (if bullied by fellow Republicans), and Lisa Murkowski...all remain open to persuasion. So suddenly the math looks dangerous for Bolton, since only two more Republicans would be needed to have him lose an up/down Floor vote...if it gets to that point.
There is talk today that Dems might resort to a filibuster (freezing ALL Senate business with stalling tactics) if it looks like they can’t beat Bolton on the merits. We don’t think so...from a partisan Democratic standpoint, the “nuclear option” is best reserved for an issue a whole lot more important than Bolton...that is, the federal judge approval process. Our sources feel it would take really active Administration stonewalling on still-pending information requests before Dems seriously considered anything like a filibuster on Bolton, and it seems clear they understand why a filibuster would be both risky and unnecessary.
First, Dems clearly feel pretty good about how they managed to oppose Bolton on the merits, and to avoid making this “purely partisan”, thanks to Voinovitch and the others; second, Dems continue to think Chairman Lugar privately regrets the Bolton nomination, and that today’s result may well cause him seek to persuade the White House (or Bolton) to pull the plug in favor of an acceptable conservative...say, current Undersecretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky; third, the battle for more information isn’t over yet...Dems plan to keep up the pressure on State and the Administration to hand over classified documents which may show genuine misfeasance by Bolton in the use or misuse of intelligence...and thus make it easier for more Republicans to come out against him.
Just mentioning the popular Dobriansky may be the kiss of death for her chances, but her “merits” are being talked up by Dems (and quietly, some Republicans), and that includes the argument that “surely conservatives deserve a better candidate than Bolton? Is he really their BEST?” This is followed by noting that most “support” for Bolton is of “the President deserves support” variety...not exactly a ringing personal endorsement.
And on the merits, there’s increasing attention being paid to former Secretary of State Powell’s refusal to endorse Bolton. The implication is now raised that Powell’s move isn’t just personal, but professional, based on a negative assessment of Bolton’s performance on behalf of his primary responsibility...non-proliferation. Newsweek currently has a tough critique of Bolton’s failure to get the US properly positioned for the NPT crisis with Iran, and for his mishandling of the battle over IAEA director ElBaradei’s reappointment, just when the US desperately needs the IAEA, and its director, on its side. Newsweek even quotes expert observers who say Bolton wasn’t the key man behind his claimed triumph, the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) against N. Korea...because he was so busy bullying and posturing that it was the NSC’s Bob Joseph who did the heavy lifting on PSI.
Another good summary of the day, and the fight to come, from AP's Barry Schweid.Chafee took over the seat when his father, John Chafee, died in 1999. John Chafee, a Marine veteran who fought at Guadalcanal and in Korea, was a principled moderate and internationalist who served 23 years as a Republican senator for a Democratic state. Lincoln Chafee, who faces his first real vote next year, may go down, not because he voted for Bolton but because he did so knowing full well that it was the wrong thing to do.
It takes enormous self-deception to believe that John Bolton is truly qualified—much less the "best man"—for this job. He has long held the United Nations in contempt. He has disparaged the legitimacy of international law (the basis for enforcing U.N. resolutions). As an undersecretary of state in Bush's first term, he repeatedly sought the removal of intelligence analysts who dared to disagree with him. He was such a loose cannon that Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state, forbade him to say anything in public without prior approval. A half-dozen officials, most of them Republicans who served in this administration, say that Bolton would make—in the words of Colin Powell's chief of staff—"an abysmal ambassador."
Voinovich said today that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assured him that Bolton would be firmly supervised in his new job. Voinovich wondered, "Why in the world would you want to send somebody up to the U.N. that has to be supervised?"