Skip to comments.Weakened Bush set to lose a second ally
Posted on 11/10/2006 6:00:59 AM PST by Mrs Ivan
President Bush suffered a fresh blow today as the victorious Democrats moved to oust John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.
Democrat leaders made clear they would not endorse President Bush's attempt to keep the hawkish Mr Bolton in the key diplomatic post.
In what has been dubbed "High noon for the neo-cons," Mr Bolton looks likely to be the second high profile member to leave the President's team after the sacking of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
The mid-term elections saw the Democrats seize the Senate and the House of Representatives from the Republicans and they now have the muscle to block White House appointments.
Mr Bush appointed Mr Bolton to the job temporarily in August last year while Congress was in recess.
Under the constitution the appointment has to be re-submitted for Congressional approval.
But the Democrats, who regard Mr Bolton as a bully short on diplomatic skills, said his nomination was "going nowhere."
Democrat senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, who is expected to chair the Senate foreign relations committee, said: "I think John Bolton's going nowhere."
The row over his appointment was further evidence of the shift in the balance of power in Washington.
Despite promises by both sides for a more partisan approach - signalled in a staged meeting between the President and new House speaker Nancy Pelosi - behind the scenes the Democrats were starting to unpick a decade of Republican domination.
The Republican chairman of the Senate environment committee, who has questioned the science of global warming, is also expected to be replaced by a Democrat.
In Britain, former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind questioned whether the verdict in Saddam Hussein's trial had been delayed to help President Bush in the mid-term elections.
The White House has dismissed such accusations as "preposterous." At a meeting with Ms Pelosi, the President made clear the shift in power would not hasten the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.
He said he would listen to all suggestions about Iraq except for pulling out troops before the mission was completed.
This would be a Huge mistake for the dims.
Leave the post vacant and send a message to the UN that it is not important enough to us to justify a cabinet-level individual filling it. What they should have done in the first place.
Peace, Love, No War, Hug a Terrorist is the Dems plan
Someone help me out.
How do the Dems have a majority in the Senate when 2 of the members are Independents?
Granted, these independents may caucus with the Dems, but no one party has a majority in the Senate right now.
Yesterday there were cheers that this nomination would go right through as a result of some "deal" struck with the Dems and W. What happened to that sentiment?
This is fine except I really don't want B. Clinton over there running around in his self-assumed God-like posture, acting as if he can and will make determinations he has no legitimate authority to make; not that I think there is any way to stop him now.
Pity if anyone actually believed that the dems would be anything but divisive and viciously obstructionist.
Why would they change now, they think all those nasty attacks got them something.
Lieberman and Sanders have stated they will caucus with the Dems. The Dems have a majority in the Senate. We lost, okay! Accept it. There are too many FReepers in denial.
Is this the petulence we can expect for the next two years? What exactly is the matter with Bolton - he's been ambassador for a year and as best as I can tell he's played well with the other kids and hasn't thrown anybody out a window or anything. Or do they just not like the mustache?
That's exactly what needs to be done.
The goal should be to stop sending money to the U.N.
Resign from the U.N.
Back out of all treaties that have the ability to override our national sovereignty.
And for God sake, stop spending my money by giving it to other nations!
Well, I guess this means Bush will nominate Jimmy Carter to be our guy at the UN. Since ole Jimmy would be approved by the Dim Congress.
Dims are incapable of recognizing their own mistakes. That's one of the things that makes them so dangerous.
They are going to mess things up big time. I'm significantly reducing my equity exposure in the market; don't want to be left holding the bag in the aftermath of Dems screw-ups when they wreck the economy -- and everything else in sight.
It will be interesting to see what Bush does. He can still appoint Bolton to another recess, but will he totally cave?
What the Pubbies could do is nominate Lieberman for positon of Senate majority leader, even though he is Dem at heart, but as independent he would be in a position to play king maker and perhaps quash some those who back stabbed him. If the pubbies went 100 percent with Lieberman voting for himself, the Vice president could break the tie and Lieberman would become Majority leader over his other Dem rivals....though I'll bet some other Dems might actually join with Lieberman.
It would be interesting to watch the fall out!!
"Lieberman and Sanders have stated they will caucus with the Dems. The Dems have a majority in the Senate. We lost, okay! Accept it. There are too many FReepers in denial."
I had the same question that you just replied to. I do understand that Lieberman and Sanders will caucus with the Dems. So what you are saying is that they will vote with the Dems every time? I expect Sanders would, but as far as the war and funding of our troops, I would think that Lieberman would not vote with the Dems. Guess I'm wrong.:(
Now that is an interesting strategy.
Any of you Republican congressmen listening out there?
I hate that Bolton is one of the targets of the Dems...even though he has been all along..and this is nothing new.
BUT, everyone just think about these instances, and there will be many, maybe one or two a day for a while, as opportunities for the dems to shoot themselves in the foot..over and over.
What we need to pray for, is someone to have the spine, in the GOP to get on TV everyday and confront them..and get the news out to the Americans that the dems are only up to mischief, NOT working to make our country safe.
The fact that they caucus with them is what determines that they have the numbers to get the committee chairs etc.
There is a vote for Majority Leader. Those two will vote for Reid for Leader. That means the Dems get control of Senate chairmanships.
You don't base majority status on individual votes on various bills. It's a single vote: who do you elect to be Majority Leader. Republicans and Democrats and Independents can vote for anyone. Republicans usually vote for the Republican candidate for Leader and the same with the Dems.
We know that the media will distort every word the President says. Have ten democrats on TV to disupte his statements. Buying airtime seems a viable alternative...to me.
Absolutely that would work. The only issue is that Joe ran as someone who would caucus with the Dems. Voters chose him because he said he'd caucus with the Dems.
What's to lose?
Why not nominate Bill Clinton? It's a different game now. In a split government, you have to pick your battles. This one doesn't seem worth any of the little political capital Bush has at the moment to me. The UN is a vacous debating society, it's perfect for Bill. Would give Nancy and Harry some face with the moonbats and let Bush save the Presidential mojo for protecting our troops and holding the line on taxes.
Yeah but zillions of Repubs in Connecticut also voted for Lieberman.....I would expect that Lieberman would state that the Dem's were still the majority in the Senate as he "Caucuses" with them...but if he has always had an inkling to break free of the pack and to truly be bipartisan this is the way to do it!
But one that they will make anyway.
No surprise here -- as expected. And Bush and the Repubs won't have the stomach for a fight.
Another battle in the War against Islamofascism LOST.
See my post at 18....I'll bet Lieberman would go for Senate Majority leader if he was asked with the Vice president being the tie breaker. Now I understand he is a Dem at heart and Liberal...but to watch the fall out with the Dems would be Amazing...
We do have a Senator who is ailing from Leukemia so my strategy is somewhat in doubt, should he die. Lieberman might also be able to garner support from some of the newer Blue Dog Senators who will be emboldened to break and keep free of their would be Liberal leash holders!
I'm sorry "IamConservative", but this notion gags me!
In a split government, you have to pick your battles.
Seems to me we've been living with a split government for years now.
Would give Nancy and Harry some face with the moonbats
Call me ignornant, but I think both Nancy (I can hardly bear to print that name)and Harry have quite enough face!
and let Bush save the Presidential mojo for protecting our troops and holding the line on taxes
People often call me idealistic, but here even I cannot for the life of me see any presidential mojo.
I REALLY am trying to understand your point. it's just escaping me. But I will continue thinking about it.
It may be a very long couple of years for you. Republicans controlled legislative and executive branches and we didn't get much of what we wanted. We are now set to get much, much less and only on a give and take basis. This is a perfect opportunity to give on something (the UN) that is meaningless to us anyway and save the take for something that is central to conservatism. Who knows, perhaps Bill can find a new intern over there and sink Hillary's Presidential ship.
They will caucus with the Dems and the Dems do have the majority and the votes to put Reid in as the Majority Leader
In USENET the country club republicans are trying to act upset over this
Sorry for the doom and gloom, it's just that I feel that same sickness come over me that I had during the Clinton years.
Independents typically go along with Demoncrats.
He HAS to, because the alternative is to be forced to withdraw from Iraq and give the jihadis the victory they seek.
Withdrawing from Iraq would be incalculably worse than withdrawing from Vietnam, because Charlie didn't feel the urge to follow us back here and keep killing Americans.
They don't like him because he is holding up funds and tied their getting paid to cleaning up all the corruption.
Unlike what you seem to think, being President involves doing real-world things that have real-world consequences, and there isn't any time to go a$$-hatting just to annoy others, no matter how much you dislike them.
I never believed that. I don't understand where that sentiment came from, that some kind of deal trading Rummy for Bolton had been struck. I made no sense to me in this real world, given the players and all the circumstances here.
The Democrats can and will do just that, unless they can get something better.
31,000,000 AINOs voted to stab the troops in the back. If ye want to prevent that, you're REALLY going to have to give up a bunch of other things.
Do they vote in party caucus for the leader of that party, or do they vote as a whole for the leader of the Senate they want?
Bush should nominate John Kerry instead. They either block him, and have to explain why (too French! oh, wait...), or vote him in and lose a Senate seat. With all respect to Mr Bolton, we lose nothing, and it would freaking hilarious to watch. And if they turn Kerry down, well OK, nominate Bolton again.
Thanks Mrs. Ivan for the thread.
It is a sad state of affairs. But, me being a Christian, it just means the Lord is coming back sooner, rather than later.