"His Own People"

by Paul on April 19, 2005

One of the phrases I’ve heard being used as cover for a vote in favor of Bolton for UN Ambassador is that the President “gets to choose his own people”. This is simply absurd.

True, it has traditionally been true that Congress courteously gives the President the benefit of the doubt on nominees who are at least in the neighborhood of being appropriate. But if the Founders had intended the President to have the right to pick anyone he wanted, they would never have written the “advise and consent” clause.

The entire reason for having Senate confirmation hearings is that the Senate has the responsibility to assure that our public officials are of the highest qualifications, and to assure that the President, whatever his political stripe, isn’t just filling offices with his cronies or destructive factionalists. The President gets to pick his own people, but he doesn’t get to have his own people, if his choices are obviously inappropriate.

Were Bolton merely a gruff Republican, but otherwise unobjectionable, confirming him would be in line with traditional Congressional courtesy. But Bolton is far from that. Adding to his radical views on the United Nations and the steady drip, drip, drip of revelations about his vindictive management style are more troubling charges that he actually blocked reports of important intelligence to his superiors in the State Department. A new report in the New York Times quotes a top aide to Colin Powell against Bolton:

“… do I think John Bolton would make a good ambassador to the United Nations? Absolutely not,” Mr. Wilkerson said. “He is incapable of listening to people and taking into account their views. He would be an abysmal ambassador.”

This is not a partisan issue. These are assessments of Bolton from stalwart Republicans who have worked with the man. This isn’t Barbara Boxer saying he would be “abysmal,” it’s the former chief of staff of the President’s own Secretary of State. This is clearly a situation where the Senate need not defer to the President’s choice.

But, despite Democratic requests to delay a vote for a closer look at these charges, it appears the Republicans on the committee will force a vote today. We can only hope that Senators Chafee and Hagel resist the temptation to choose party above principle.

If not, it again forces us to wonder what Congressional Republicans stand for. It clearly isn’t the traditional Republican standards of cutting spending, fiscal prudence, and less government intrusion in personal life. In the analysis of Chris Nelson, quoted on Laura Rozen’s War and Piece blog, it’s all about the exercise of power and the end of the rule of law.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: