« BA Flight 0215 update | Main | Is Dolly Parton Satanic? »

Bolton hearings

Did anyone watch the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's John Bolton hearings yesterday? I caught pieces of it on C-SPAN's website, and I must say that for someone who's been repeatedly characterized by the MSM as "blunt," "pugnacious," and "a bull in a China shop," Bolton remained remarkably subdued and composed.

The strategy was clearly to provoke an outburst from Bolton which would provide fence-sitting senators cover to vote against him (one does wonder whether that's really what the framers had in mind with "advise and consent," but, well, there you go.) Ironically, however, Bolton remained unflappable while his inquisitors came across by turns as cranky, belligerent, churlish, irascible, or (in the case of Barbara Boxer) just plain damn loony.

I don't want to count any chickens prematurely, but so far it seems as if the Bolton nomination is in very good shape. For more on the confirmation hearings, check out Dana Milbank's piece in today's Washington Post.


The characterization is accurately based upon his quotes and you know it. The fact is that the only thing that could stop his confirmation is if he lost control and composure. He obviously knows that.
I think it's sad that issues like this split down party lines. Why is it that all the democrats oppose him and none of the republicans do? It's politicking. Never mind the fact that this man obviously abhors the concept of the UN. His past statements say as much.
Barry, I know you're a conservative - but you have your own mind. You would never support someone who who wasn't right for the job just because he was on your political team, nor would you oppose someone right for the job who was on an opposing team.
I think that's a fair statement regarding you.
Yet politicians do the opposite all the time, not just some of the time or most of the time ALL OF THE TIME.

That's the problem. They've completely sold out to the game. It disgusts me that not one republican bats an eye at whether Bolton's history might make him an inappropriate choice. I can't believe none of them have reservations. But they don't break ranks - not even if it might be the right thing to do for the country.

The dems are not any better - I just think in this case they are in the right.

You spoke of the framers and what they had in mind. A brisk and robust debate most likely. The framers would have expected politics to be a factor to be sure, but they would also expect that our elected representatives would ultimately have the issues of the people in mind, not their own interests.

Godzy, I'm also disgusted by the way every issue always breaks along party lines. In this case, however, I'm not merely playing team sports. Brace yourself, but I actually think John Bolton is a good nominee. In fact, he's one of the few in this administration that I'm genuinely enthused about.

I think there's a big difference between being a tough critic of the U.N. and abhoring its very concept. I think if you were to interpret Bolton's much-publicized comments within the context of his entire career, it looks much more like the former than the latter.

Let's face it, the U.N. *needs* some tough critics now. A few John Boltons, judiciously applied, could do the organization good. Believe me, if the goal is the destruction of the U.N. there's no better way to accomplish that than with the status quo.

Is it really in the interest of the United States to apply the STICK to the UN as Mr. Bolton will surely be instructed to do? Where does this lead? Are we as a tax paying citizenry really prepared for the possible consequences?

The UN is clearly in multiple deep ditches. Isn't this perhaps a reflection (accentuation) of the factionalization of its member states (including us)?

Let's take a close look at our own state of affairs. As a middle class wage earner, with an accountant btw, I pay an obscene amount of taxes into a system that penalizes my real desire to save at every turn. Everyone from the animal control folks to the federal system has their hand in my pocket. Are they addressing the real issues (trade policy, health care, social security [Gott hilfe uns], spending into to extreme ends of the red, etc.) we all face? Perhaps we need some introspection before we throw things at other imperfect houses?

Post a comment