Now the big lingering question is: if President George Bush’s controversial nominee for U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton is put to another vote and the vote fails, will Bush opt for a recess appointment?
There are some official GOP voices urging him to do just that, while some GOP voices express hope that something could be worked out with the Democrats — and some journalists say in the end a recess appointment won’t happen.
For instance, Newsday’s Washington Bureau Chief Timothy Phelps suggests a recess appointment is unlikely:
The problem, according to diplomats at the State Department and the UN, is that Bolton may not be willing to accept a recess appointment, which would be good until the next Congress convenes in January 2007. That could not be confirmed yesterday, but sources said it is widely believed to be true at both institutions.
It also seemed to Republicans and Democrats here to be consistent with his character.
Bolton was accused in his nomination hearings of being strong-willed to the point of abuse with subordinates, alienating even some Republican moderates including George W. Voinovich of Ohio.
But Frist’s initial assessment that “bringing up another vote’s not going to change anything” may turn out to be accurate. Bolton got fewer votes Monday than last time, and the administration has said it will not yield to the Democrats’ demand that they turn over the names of people listed in intelligence intercepts whose identities Bolton asked for. Democrats think that among those names may be people at State or the CIA who clashed with Bolton.
As the State Department official in charge of arms control, Bolton at times took a harder line on countries like Syria and Cuba than his boss, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and the CIA. As for the UN, he said in 1994 that if its building in New York lost 10 of its 38 stories “it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”
If Bolton is not confirmed, it is likely to leave both Bush, who in his last term is said by some political analysts to be looking like a lame duck, and Frist, who has been trying to garner support for a presidential candidacy, both weaker politically.
Indeed, you could argue Frist is in worse shape at this point than Bush.
As a matter of historical pattern, it is expected that second term Presidents will have to battle the inevitable problem of their time in the Oval Office being on the wane….and as their time wanes, so does their clout.
But in the case of Frist, he’s Majority Leader (a position he’d like to keep) thinking about a 2008 run for the White House (a residence in which he’d like to live.).
In case you missed the full story here, yesterday Frist first said there wouldn’t be another vote on Bolton.
Then he had lunch with Bush — and Frist may be soon listed in the Guinness Book of Records for the speed with which he changed his position.
It wasn’t an about face; it was a dancer’s twirl.
And other GOP feedback? The New York Times notes some GOPers are urging a recess appointment while others predict that in the end Bush will prevail. For instance, Tom DeLay, who did not prove such a terrific adviser to Mr. Bush on the Terri Schiavo affair, pops up again:
Some leading Republicans, meanwhile, called on Mr. Bush to bypass the Senate by installing Mr. Bolton at the United Nations while Congress is in recess.
“Yes,” Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, said when asked if Mr. Bush should make a recess appointment. “He should.”
But then there is this tantalizing quote:
“We’ve got lots of options,” Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s chief political adviser, said in an interview on Tuesday on the MSNBC program “Hardball.” But he added that the “most important option” would be “an up-or-down vote on John Bolton.”
Theories on why the White House would want a vote presently doomed to failure include: (1)trying to further define the Democrats as the party of obstructionism, for use against them in 2006 and 2008(2)a prelude to help build the case for pushing again for the nuclear option on judicial nominees since there is a belief a slot will open up very soon, (3)a suggestion that perhaps the White House will go for an overall nuclear option (we will say here that’s unlikely to ever pass) on filibusters in general, (4)the White House will do something to try and placate Democrats to save face and get the nomination through, (5)buy time for Bolton to withdraw his name (to “spend more time with his family?”).
The Times piece contains a suggestion about point number 4:
At least one Republican, Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, said Tuesday that he was in “quiet talks” with some Democratic colleagues about how to break the impasse. Mr. Warner was a prominent figure in a recent bipartisan compromise that averted a Senate showdown over the president’s judicial nominees.
But the White House has vowed not to give the Democrats the documents it wants — despite urgings that it do so from one prominent GOPer:
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, also suggested that the White House had no intention of giving Democrats the documents they are seeking related to Mr. Bolton’s tenure at the State Department, as Senator Trent Lott, the former Republican leader, recommended Tuesday. “It’s a thin reed they’re standing on,” Mr. Lott said, referring to the White House.
The prevailing question is why the White House is willing to hold up Bush’s entire agenda with the argument that John Bolton is absolutely irreplaceable as its nominee to the United Nations — that in the vast pool of talent of the GOP no one else can possibly do this job effectively.
Is it because it believes if it doesn’t get him through it’ll take a big hit on its Congressional clout? Is it to drag out confrontation in order to define the Democrats and further mobilize its own hard-core base? Is it because there is something in these documents the Democrats seek that it does not want to come out? Is it truly because of the principle involved in turning over the documents?
Or is a combination of several — or all — of these?
UPDATE: A San Jose Mercury News editorial argues that Bolton will wind up UN Ambassador and his job performance could be positively influenced by the bitter confirmation battle:
Democrats raised important questions initially about Bolton’s apparent disdain for the United Nations, his browbeating of subordinates and his possible manipulation of intelligence reports. Lately, they’ve demanded more information from the White House about Bolton’s actions as an undersecretary of state.
But a president should be granted more latitude in appointments that will end with his administration, as this one will, than with lifetime nominations to the federal courts.
Bolton most likely will get the job somehow even if Frist tries again to get a floor vote and the Democrats again block it. Bush may resort to a recess appointment while Congress is on break in July, allowing Bolton to serve at least until Jan. 1, 2007, without any Senate action.
Bush wants a U.N. skeptic as ambassador, one who will push for reforms. The president should have found someone else who fits the bill — and is less inflammatory — but that would not be like Bush at all.
The best hope is that the battering Bolton has endured and the spotlight that will follow him to the United Nations should moderate his demeanor, if not his views.
And, the paper notes, things have gotten better in Bolton’s old workplace…since he left the workplace:
In the meantime, the Washington Post reports on progress at the State Department since Bolton left his job as undersecretary.
Bolton headed a program to work with Russia to keep nuclear fuel out of the hands of terrorists. It was going nowhere. Now negotiators have achieved a breakthrough to eliminate enough fuel to create 8,000 bombs.
The administration recently agreed to work with the European Union in addressing Iran’s ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons, which Bolton had resisted. The United States is again talking with India about sharing civilian nuclear technology, also opposed by Bolton.
The common thread is that a belief in diplomacy is being restored. It ought to be a core belief of the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as well.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.