A Turning Tide for Bolton

NY Times ^ | May 12, 2005 | DAVID BROOKS

[Mr. Mojo]

They made powerful presentations against Bolton, which clearly spooked several Republicans.

RINOs spooked by their own shadows.

[Cyclopean Squid]

I'm looking forward to the live thread of the Foreign Relations Committee debate. I just hope it ends better than the last one. I recall almost swaggering confidence, then suddenly there were cryptic entries such as "?!", "Voinovich!", "RINO traitor!", etc. For the next one, I'd much rather see "Bolton!" and "Look out, Kofi!" And instead of a laughing Boxer, Biden and Kerry, we will see them burst into tears.

Let's roll.

[goldstategop]

There was never a fire. The Democrats hated Bolton's guts because he was a partisan. If that's true, that disqualifies every one in Washington, including the people who brought those irrelevant charges against Bolton. Yeah, sure he had an axe to grind. So do his critics.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Darkwolf]

I think the Dems overplayed their hand badly. They are so used to people just rolling over at this point. But if they actually believed what they've been saying about Bolton, why would they think that would be the case with him? If he's such a hardass (gee, can't have that when he's supposed to be standing up for us in the UN), why would he bend for Babs Boxer?

[nopardons]

bttt

[OneTimeLurker]

"RINOs spooked by their own shadows."

I don't blindly support people put forth by this immigration lax, budget busting administration. The original reports of Bolton pressuring intelligence analysts to come to certain conclusions sounded credible. If they were true, the committee would have a responsibility to this country (that far out weighs those to he party) not to support him. Now it appears they were much ado about nothing.

[Lancey Howard]

I am beginning to believe that when the anticipated April 19th vote was (apparently) thrown off track, it was a deliberate ploy by the Republicans. The Republicans wanted to be careful not to look like they were running over the lowly Democrats (ie., the weak underdogs) like a freight train. They did not want to look like bullies. Nobody likes bullies.

All this furrowed-brow chin-rubbing is designed to make the GOP Senators look cool, calm, collected, patient, and deliberative.... as well as compassionate toward their beleaguered Democrat "colleagues". I think George Voinovich either went along with this or drew the short straw (remember how he came out of the blue with his "reservations"?) knowing all along that he would vote to confirm Bolton.

Now, the Republicans can say that after a painstakingly careful review of the "issues" surrounding Bolton which were raised by the Democrats, it is clear that THERE IS NOTHING TO THEM.

[Billthedrill]

This, in the Times? Well, then. Bolton will be confirmed, and deservedly so.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The Republicans wanted to be careful not to look like they were running over the lowly Democrats (ie., the weak underdogs) like a freight train.

I don't think it was calculated. Rather, it is that the current GOP leadership has a way of playing things towards their strengths. Take a hit, come back stronger.

[GOPJ]

The momentum has shifted on the Bolton nomination because John Bolton turns out to be a more complicated figure than earlier portrayed.

And the dems can't make any of their lies stick...

[Mind-numbed Robot]

And the dems can't make any of their lies stick...

I don't think they really expected for their lies to stick. Their game is to destroy someone but at least bloody everyone they can't destroy. If you show even a hint of weakness the Dems and the media will pounce. Stand up to them and they just shrug and say, "Oh well, it was worth a try." What they did to their target they just consider political collateral damage.

[karnage]

Yer givin' the 'Publicans a heckuva lot of credit fer strategery and wiliness. While I think the President is often misunderestimated, I'll wait until Bolton is CONFIRMED before giving the Senate Pubs attaboys.

[neverdem]

This, in the Times?

The author, David Brooks, formerly wrote for the Washington Times, and then the Weekly Standard, before he joined the Times. Now, he also has John Tierney joining him to write for the 'right' in Times' OpEd columns since April 12, 2005.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Good!

[GOPJ]

You need to change your name from "mind-numbed Robot" to "sharp as a tack". You've got insight:

And the dems can't make any of their lies stick... I don't think they really expected for their lies to stick. Their game is to destroy someone but at least bloody everyone they can't destroy. If you show even a hint of weakness the Dems and the media will pounce. Stand up to them and they just shrug and say, "Oh well, it was worth a try." What they did to their target they just consider political collateral damage.

[ricks_place]

The Dems were stopped in their primary goal to defeat John Bolton but achieved their secondary goal...delay, divert, obstruct, and distract the administration.

[Evolution]

David Brooks is just whore for the NY Times and PBS like Safire was.

Watching him debate a liberal is like watching a bobble head just nod. Brooks isnt a conservative but someone who is paid to espouse conservative views sometimes so PBS and the NY Slimes can claim they are fair and balanced. Look at Brooks on the issues he is pro-abortion,pro gun control,pro gay marriage etc., he is only conservative by NY Slime standards.

Brooks always seems dissapointed when Bush actually does something conversative.