The current situation with John Bolton strikes me as falling into the realm of what I call the “Deion Sanders Effect�?: which is that a good number of observers are viewing it through a lens which sees the situation solely as one that either allows the Bush administration to score, or that allows the Democrats to score.
As such, I expect a large number of partisan Republicans (politicians, pundits, bloggers, etc.) to see this as a “victory�? because the Elephants will have “scored�? by sticking it to the Donkeys-all well and good if politics and government is nothing more than a game.
However, there are legitimate issues of governance to be considered here. First, will creating a substantial confrontation over this nomination make it harder, or easier, for the President to govern? I would argue that it will damage his ability to govern, to some degree, given that it will enrage a substantial number of Senators and will do nothing to help his image in the public at the moment. Given that there are substantial questions about the President’s Iraq policy, and since pre-war intelligence on Iraq is at the heart of many Democrats’ critiques of Bolton, one of things that this recess appointment will do is bolster views that the administration is unwilling to learn from the past and give critics more ammunition.
Second, as I noted below, if the goal here is UN reform then surely having the alleged agent of that reform entering the job in such a damaged state isn’t a very good idea. If it is known that any proposals made by Bolton that might require congressional action may be blocked out of political spite, if nothing else, then certainly doesn’t that damage the ability of Bolton to foster reform in the UN? Granted, many (indeed, most) changes that could be made at the UN aren’t going to require congressional action, but US politics will come into play on any changes at the UN.
Third, since this position isn’t high profile, and isn’t one that is wholly dependent on the philosophies of the office holder (unlike a judge, for example), then why fight like this over the holder of the position? Any ambassador is ultimately a messenger for the President and the State Department. As such, does it matter this much as to whom it is who sits in the seat?
Given these factors, and given that the recess appointment in question could damage the President, then I have to ask “why?�? and I have to point out that just because the President “scored�? on the Dems doesn’t make this a “good�? move.
[…] under: United Nations — Paladin @ 10:29 am
Poliblogger Steven Taylor has this post this morning, with which I largely agree. Certainly I agree with the main point — Bolton, or […]
Pingback by A Knight’s Blog » Speaking Softly v. The Big Stick — Monday, August 1, 2026 @ 10:07 am
I agree with you. This just keeps the divisive atmosphere fully charged, but again it also shows Bush’s true colors; he can’t think strategically only in immediate terms of win or lose.
Comment by The Misanthrope — Monday, August 1, 2026 @ 10:11 am
“… why fight like this over the holder of the position?”
Because, as you stated, it’s turned into a game of “one upmanship” in a time when playing games is a VERY bad idea. You brought up some EXCELLENT points here. While I do not dispute the President had every right to appoint Bolton, I do think he’s the wrong man for the job, and I think the President and the GOP have just stirred the pot by appointing him. Why appoint such a controversial figure when he could have appointed a more moderate choice like he has (seemlingly) done with his Supreme Court nomination?
Great blog, by the way. A tip of the hat from another fellow Alabama blogger!
Comment by Gun-Toting Liberal — Monday, August 1, 2026 @ 10:40 am
Muchas gracias.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, August 1, 2026 @ 10:43 am
I have a question. Does this appointment expire automatically or does Congress have to act on it?
Comment by The Misanthrope — Monday, August 1, 2026 @ 10:45 am
It will expire automatically.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, August 1, 2026 @ 10:54 am
[…] n the three-ring circus that is the United Nations. In this I concur with Dr. Taylor, who notes: since this position isn’t high profile, and isn’t one that is wholly dependent on the philosophies […]
Pingback by Arguing with signposts… » Recess appointment for Bolton a screw-up — Monday, August 1, 2026 @ 12:59 pm
It was the Donkey who tried to “stick it to” the Elephant!
It is silly to suggest that the Donkey ought to have turned aside and be deterred by the proddings of jackasses!
Gather your thoughts and rethink it. Bolton speaks for the President and not 36 members of the Senate. And, what other country even has a check and balance process that permits the disloyal opposition a voice much less a veto?
Comment by Henriet Cousin — Monday, August 1, 2026 @ 1:04 pm
Well, actualy, Mr. Bolton speaks for the United States of America…
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, August 1, 2026 @ 1:06 pm
CORRECTION: …for the Elephant ought to have turned aside…
Comment by Henriet Cousin — Monday, August 1, 2026 @ 1:07 pm
Mr. Bolton speaks for the USA?
The President speaks for the USA in foreign affairs! Amb. Bolton speaks for the President. Get over yourself.
Comment by Henriet Cousin — Monday, August 1, 2026 @ 2:47 pm
Flagged as a spam? Courage….
Comment by Henriet Cousin — Monday, August 1, 2026 @ 2:48 pm
I repeat. The President speaks for the USA! Amb. Bolton speaks for the President.
Comment by Henriet Cousin — Monday, August 1, 2026 @ 2:50 pm
You sir are a phony! Flagged as spam.
Comment by Henriet Cousin — Monday, August 1, 2026 @ 2:51 pm
Henriet:
As I noted in an e-mail I sent you, I sometimes get over 10k pieces of comment and trackback spam in a given day. Hence, I have aggressive anti-spam software.
It may be that I am not the one who should “get over” themselves…
And yes, the President speaks for the US and any ambassador is the spokesperson of the President. However, it is also true that any given ambassaor is not just a spokesperson for the policies of a given president, but is the representative of the Unites States of America, not just the President.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, August 1, 2026 @ 3:11 pm
Bolton Appointment
I haven’t written much about the appointment of John Bolton to the UN, mostly because I don’t care much about the UN. It’s a vile organization run mostly by criminal thugs, tyrants, and theocrats after all. Nevertheless, Steven T…
Trackback by Dean's World — Wednesday, August 3, 2026 @ 7:47 am