In terms of his prospects of overcoming a filibuster by Senate Democrats, President George Bush’s beset nominee for UN Ambassador John Bolton might as well be singer Michael Bolton.
Only Michael Bolton might fare better.
The bare-bones news report could not be more grim for the White House — and for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has to endure yet another instance of his goal not being met:
For the second time in a month, Senate Democrats blocked a vote on Monday evening on the nomination of John R. Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations, raising the possibility that President Bush will circumvent the confirmation process and appoint Mr. Bolton when Congress recesses.
Republican leaders fell six votes short of the 60 votes needed to end a procedural hurdle known as a filibuster and advance the nomination to a confirmation vote.
The vote, a setback for both President Bush and Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, came after the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., made a fruitless attempt to negotiate an end to the impasse with one of Mr. Bolton’s chief Democratic opponents, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware. With Mr. Biden and other Democrats holding firm in their demand for the White House to release information relating to Mr. Bolton, his future is unclear.
“At this juncture, I think it’s a pretty tough climb,” said Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, who has tried to broker a deal with Democrats, when asked if he thought Mr. Bolton would eventually be confirmed. He added, “We tried our best and we failed.”
The next move, then, is up to the president, who must decide whether to use his constitutional authority to put Mr. Bolton in the ambassador’s job when Congress takes a vacation, perhaps as early as the July 4 break. The White House has not ruled out a recess appointment, though Mr. Bush did not answer directly when asked about it Monday morning at a news conference with leaders of the European Union.
There are several reasons why this is not good news for the White House and Frist:
- The White House had stresed in comments to various reporters a month ago that getting Bolton passed was a MUST. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell had reportedly given thumbs down on the Bolton nomination. But reports from the White House painted this nomination as a must win in terms of political power — suggesting that if they couldn’t get this through it could mean problems in getting the rest of the President’s agenda through. Bottom line: it’s not going through due to a filibuster. There is no sign of erosion of Democratic opposition.
- Frist is stacking up an unimpressive record as Majority Leader. A Majority Leader either must have the gift of compromise, so he can piece together a winning coalition, or be feared enough to squeeze out the votes. So far Frist is not showing he has either quality. Unless things change, that spells trouble for his leadership in Congress and his 2008 Presidential hopes.
- This shows the continued cohesiveness of the Democrats in Congress and how the filibuster can be used as a tool. The DANGER for Democrats: Democratic partisans will applaud holding up the vote; Republican partisans will decry it. But how is all of this playing with Mrs. Smith in Peoria? Time (and political polls) will tell…
Now the operative question is whether GWB will bypass the political stalemate (and mess) and go for a recess appointment and from all indications it sounds like the White House is seriously considering doing it. But there’s opposition to the idea — and from Republicans:
It was the second failed attempt by Senate Republican leaders to bring the contested nomination to a vote. The White House would not rule out the possibility Bush could appoint Bolton to the post during an upcoming congressional recess.
“It is critical that we get him in place,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
But Senate Republicans raised concerns about a recess appointment
Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the country would be better served by a U.N. Ambassador who was confirmed by the Senate.
Appealing again for a confirmation vote on Bolton, Roberts said, “I hope that people will take a little longer look at our national interests and say that let’s not go down the road to a recess appointment.”
Sen. George Allen, a Virginia Republican, said it was a “legitimate concern” that Bolton would be seen as damaged goods and lack credibility if he is appointed rather than confirmed.
“I would hope that the president will stand by John Bolton and keep fighting for him,” Allen said.
The bottom line is: Bolton is a highly controversial figure and it has become clear that many GOPers are not happy they’re being forced to go to the mat to try to pass one nominee when there are other qualified candidates around who can fill the slot.
Is the recess appointment idea a viable one? To be sure, this administration sets goals and tries to meet them no matter what. But Bolton going to the UN to in effect serve through most of Bush’s second term after not having been approved by the Senate — even if a filibuster was involved — will create an unprecedented situation. Bolton would go as damaged goods: by not winning a Senate vote to Democrats and to some countries in the UN he would lack legitimacy and go to his post with the image not of an above-it-all UN Ambassador but of a political hack.
Bush argues that he’s needed to reform the UN. But how can he reform the UN if he looked down on as someone whose nomination couldn’t clear the Senate?
So the overiding question becomes: what is the best way for the White House to cut its losses? By yielding on Bolton does the White House lose crucial clout it needs to pass the President’s agenda and make a mark in his second term? By opting for a recess appointment would it send a man to the UN who will be tarnished by the lack of a legitimacy-bestowing Senate vote and lack any clout there?
And how will yet another loss impact Frist, who in order to maintain his own clout is going to have to get at least one solid Senate victory under his belt soon? What will he do on a future issue to compensate for yet another one more unmet goal?
UPDATE: On Red State Republican John Cole strips away all of the political rhetoric and talking points and asks the basic questions thoughtful Republicans might ponder:”The question- Does Bolton really matter? Assume that on the merits, all the objections that the Democrats have raised regarding Bolton are false. Other than the political defeat that this will hand the administration, will Bolton failing to be confirmed as UN Ambassador matter? Can one man really change the organizational culture at the United Nations? “
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.