President George Bush today bypassed the Senate and used a recess appointment to send embattled UN Ambassador nominee to the UN, …
]]>It isn’t as if Bush hasn’t demonstrated the ability to stand tall and forge ahead in the past.
The message he is sending here is not strength and leadership, but stubbornness and recalcitrance.
]]>Leadership sometimes requires you to stick by your decision, even in the face of strong opposition. I think this enhances Bush’s ability to lead since the senate now knows they have to go to the mat instead of just bicker and complain in the press.
This also gives those under him confidence that he will support them, and not drop them at the first sign of trouble. Again, something that enhances leadership.
What kind of people do you have working for you if it is found out you waffle any time the going gets tough. I think you need to view this decision through a leadership glass rather than a political one.
]]>Angering your opponent, weakening your ability to get what you want done, and looking petty in the meantime.
World, I give you the John Bolton recess appointment:
]]>If, as you say, “we could put a kid into the position” (a bit overstated), then why create this kind of trouble over Bolton?
It isn’t always about who “wins” the competition between the Donkeys and the Elephants.
]]>At some point politics is about the individual, not how many political points you can score. And as this position has little, if any, affect on the lives of U.S. citizens - we are talking ambassador to the UN, not supreme court justice - the president should be able to put in who he wants.
As I commented on OTB, doesn’t the UN guy just vote how the president tells him? We could put a kid into the position without any problem.
]]>