God save the Republic!
It's an "outrage" "glaringly abusive!" It's "blow[ing] up the Senate to please the American Taliban!" It's the White House's "no-compromise style."
What new abomination of desecration has the Bush administration wrought to trigger such hysteria? Well... nothing, yet. But there is some speculation that (brace yourselves!) Bush may use a recess appointment to send John Bolton to the U.N., thus threatening to unravel the very fabric of our democracy. Or so you'd think, given the frantic, over-the-top rhetoric of some lefty bloggers.
Jazz at Middle Earth Journal is so appalled that he wants to end the president's power of recess appointments altogether, to prevent Bush from "using an obscure, archaic clause in our laws to do an end run around Congressional oversight." Yeah, that sounds pretty bad. Almost as bad as using an obscure, archaic parliamentary maneuver to block judicial nominees who enjoy the support of a clear majority of the Senate.
Ah, how quickly they forget. Anyone remember James Hormel? Bill Clinton used a recess appointment to put him in the job of ambassador to Luxembourg after his nomination ran into opposition from Catholic groups. Clinton also used a recess appointment to navigate around Senate opposition to Bill Lan Lee for his staunch support of affirmative action. JFK appointed Thurgood Marshall during a congressional recess to avoid a confrontation with Southern senators. Dwight Eisenhower placed no fewer than three Supreme Court justices on the bench using recess appointments. Can you imagine if Bush were to do that?
The recess appointment has been used by presidents since George Washington, occasionally out of necessity but more often as a matter of convenience. The only thing new or outrageous about a (still hypothetical) Bolton appointment is the hyperventilation it's causing on the left.
Heh, I particularly enjoyed that ridiculous piece of hyperbole equating it to "blowing up the Senate."
(Hat tip: Tami)
Comments
A recess appointment is fine by me.
Posted by: PE | July 13, 2005 05:05 PM
Heh. I don't know what makes me happier, all these lefties moaning and frothing at the mouth or the prospect of George Voinobitch breaking down into tears again.
Posted by: The Warden | July 13, 2005 10:41 PM
And now that I think about it, how unbalanced does one have to be to get all worked up about this? It's an appointment to the U.N. for God's sake.
I understand the politics behind the attacks on John Bolton, but it is truly amazing to see so many on the left buy-in to the rhetoric. I'm sorry, what was the problem with this guy again? That's he's allegedly mean to employees? Oh, no! Outrage!!!!!
Posted by: The Warden | July 13, 2005 10:52 PM
You're right, what am I thinking to not like the idea of someone known for yelling being put into a diplomatic job? Silly me.
Better stand back, I might accidentally froth on you.
Posted by: OTTami | July 14, 2005 09:10 AM
Oh. So yelling is the problem? Then I suppose you voted against Bill Clinton, a man well known for throwing temper tantrums?
Posted by: The Warden | July 14, 2005 02:06 PM
I guess Howard Dean is "right out."
I think a lot of people confuse the term "diplomat" with a professional nicey-nice. That's not quite what it is. Also, we have to remember that Bolton will be ambassador to the U.N. I mean, it's not like it's a real "country" or anything. ;-)
Posted by: Barry N. Johnson | July 14, 2005 02:09 PM
Howard Dean, another fine example.
Politicians and bureaucrats come in all types and temperments. It's a little silly to get worked up about a potential U.N. ambassador simply because he is alleged to have a temper.
Perhaps the real issue among Democrats is that Bolton reflects President Bush's view that U.N. is a corrupt organization that should be neutralized as much as possible. Ok, then. Of course there's room for disagreement, but why not just be honest about this difference of opinion and let go of the personal attacks?
The bottom line is that it is President Bush's prerogative to make appointments that suit his political philosophy. This is why we hold elections - to determine which party's philosophy will dominate. Obviously Democrats won't like some of these appointments because they have different political beliefs. That's to be expected. But it's absurd to argue that President Bush must bow to the wishes of the minority party.
Posted by: The Warden | July 14, 2005 04:11 PM