Bush may sidestep Congress on Bolton for U.N.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This view, of course, will do nothing to improve my standing in GOP circles...

Neither will your support for Snowe for President in '08! 

[© tweed]

I thought the left hates America talk would calm down after 2004.  I was wrong.

Bolton's "There's no such thing as the United Nations" of course will anger some who feel the presence of the UN is important.  They don't oppose Bolton because they dislike the American way of life. 

If Bush wanted the UN to jump in a river, or however you put it, he also could take a course of action that breaks off US relations with the United Nations. 

Now I'll go continue my American way of life and play MVP baseball, I'm on a 8-game winning streak.  And with ot without John bolton, we can continue the American lifestyle we all love.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I thought the left hates America talk would calm down after 2004.  I was wrong.

Yep, you are wrong, for Pacifica Radio is still spouting anti-American propaganda day in and day out.

[© tweed]

I thought the left hates America talk would calm down after 2004.  I was wrong.

Yep, you are wrong, for Pacifica Radio is still spouting anti-American propaganda day in and day out.

So you think Al Franken (or is he Air America?) or whoever represents the Democratic base in the senate?

Also if possible I'd like some quotes from Pacifica (which I've never listened to as far as I can remember) to back up what you're saying.  I'm sure that they've said pretty stupid things, as that's what extremists will do, but I'd like to know just what.

[Smash255]

But he could no doubt find a somebody who would take exactly the same course of action and be confirmed easily.  That's why I say it's more of a personal issue with Bush not wanting to lose to congress than Bolton being irreplaceable.

Dude, wake up!  This country is at war and the outcome is not a given.  Yet, the Dems see Bush as more of a threat than our enemies!

The Dems in the Senate wouldn't even allow a vote on Bolton.  Now, if the Dems want to try to prove Bolton was unacceptable to the Senate, then they can allow an up or down vote on Bolton as soon as the August recess is over.

George Bush is as fault for not having a vote.  It was this easy, provide the documens you get the vote.  Bush for some reason (probably due to the damaging stuff that was in those documents) chose the path of ultimate secrecy yet again & refused to release relevant documents regarding his appointment, so their was no vote.  The fault of having no vote lies in the hand of Bush.  & the reason he probably didn't release the documents is probably that stuff in those documents were damaging and could have caused some Republicans who were teetering to be against the nomination.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Also if possible I'd like some quotes from Pacifica (which I've never listened to as far as I can remember) to back up what you're saying.  I'm sure that they've said pretty stupid things, as that's what extremists will do, but I'd like to know just what.

here is the link:

http://www.pacifica.org/

It is the basic Dem base kind of stuff:  anti-capitalism, anti-globalization, anti-fossil fuel, pro-gay, anti-military, pro-labor, pro-Castro, anti-Americanism, anti-Christian, anti-Israel, pro-Muslim, etc, etc, etc.

They have speakers who visit Cuba and say the vast majorities of Cubans are better off than the average America.

Basically, it is as if opebo had his own radio network.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

George Bush is as fault for not having a vote.  It was this easy, provide the documens you get the vote.  Bush for some reason (probably due to the damaging stuff that was in those documents) chose the path of ultimate secrecy yet again & refused to release relevant documents regarding his appointment, so their was no vote.  The fault of having no vote lies in the hand of Bush.  & the reason he probably didn't release the documents is probably that stuff in those documents were damaging and could have caused some Republicans who were teetering to be against the nomination.

So why would Bush want Bolton if any reasonable person would look at these documents and conclude Bolton is a wacko?

[Snowe08]

George Bush is as fault for not having a vote.  It was this easy, provide the documents you get the vote.

I think that's a fairly silly statement. The documents were requested, and while there was still a question of whether they should be released, there might be a reasonable point to delaying action. However, as soon as it was made clear that those documents would not be released, it became a delaying tactic on the part of Senate Democrats. That's not to say that they don't have the right, under the current Senate rules, to use procedural delaying tactics. I do not retreat from my previously-states view on the Constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the Nuclear option (Frist's, that is, not the one traced by Gold & Gupta in The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures, 28 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 205); merely that it is unwise, for the Democrats to continue to filibuster (which is what this is, whether they deny it or not) since continuing to use those tactics as a matter of routine will swiftly lead to their removal from the rules by correct procedure at the start of the next Senate.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Since he is so scared of making the documents public & to let the senate  see them, he is going to pull this crap??

Much as I don't really like Bolton, the Framers did put this provision in the Constitution for a reason. Bush is merely checking and balancing the powers of the Senate; it's a perfectly justified and legitimate action on his part.

Exactly correct:

(G.W. is at 106 so far) -

    President Clinton: 140 recess appointments over two terms. Among them:

_Former Sen. Wyche Fowler, D-Ga., ambassador to Saudi Arabia, August 1996. Put in the post two months after a bombing that killed 19 American soldiers stationed there, he received Senate confirmation in October 1997 and served until March 2001.

_Mickey Kantor, commerce secretary, April 1996. He replaced Ron Brown, who died in a plane crash, but left in January 1997 before his nomination went before the Senate.

_Roger Gregory, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, December 2000. He was later re-nominated by Bush and confirmed by the Senate.

_Bill Lann Lee, assistant attorney general for civil rights, August 2000. Blocked by Senate Republicans, he was appointed acting assistant attorney general in 1997, then received the recess appointment to serve out Clinton's term.

_James Hormel, ambassador to Luxembourg, June 1999. A gay philanthropist whose nomination was blocked by Senate Republicans, he remained ambassador until near the end of Clinton's term.

___

_The first President Bush made 77 recess appointments over one term, and President Reagan made 243 over two terms.

___

Other recess appointments of note:

_President John F. Kennedy appointed Thurgood Marshall to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in October 1961, getting around opposition from Southern senators. Their resistance had weakened by the following September, and the Senate approved him 54-16.

_President Dwight Eisenhower made three recess appointments to the Supreme Court: Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953) and Associate Justices William Brennan (1956) and Potter Stewart (1958). Each later received Senate confirmation.

_President George Washington appointed John Rutledge of South Carolina as chief justice during a 1795 recess. The Senate rejected the nomination and his appointment expired after he served one term.

[jimrtex]

What a bunch of bullsh**t. The framers put it in because it took weeks for Congress travel to the nation's capital in those days.

It used to be that the Senate would hold a special session for a few days at the beginning of the presidential/congressional term in March every 4 years to consider presidential nominations.  They would then go home and not return until December for the regular session.

[Giant Saguaro]

Since he is so scared of making the documents public & to let the senate  see them, he is going to pull this crap??

Much as I don't really like Bolton, the Framers did put this provision in the Constitution for a reason. Bush is merely checking and balancing the powers of the Senate; it's a perfectly justified and legitimate action on his part.

What a bunch of bullsh**t. The framers put it in because it took weeks for Congress travel to the nation's capital in those days.

Haha. That's good! It's pretty rare and underhanded, huh? Seeing as how Reagan, I read, appointed over 200 people to various posts this way in his 8 years and Clinton around 150 in his 8 years...

But Ted Kennedy and that crowd has the nerve to call this appointment "devious" and an abuse of power. Goodness sakes. No wonder that some of the labels that get applied do.

[Smash255]

George Bush is as fault for not having a vote.  It was this easy, provide the documens you get the vote.  Bush for some reason (probably due to the damaging stuff that was in those documents) chose the path of ultimate secrecy yet again & refused to release relevant documents regarding his appointment, so their was no vote.  The fault of having no vote lies in the hand of Bush.  & the reason he probably didn't release the documents is probably that stuff in those documents were damaging and could have caused some Republicans who were teetering to be against the nomination.

So why would Bush want Bolton if any reasonable person would look at these documents and conclude Bolton is a wacko?

Because Bolton is idealogically the same as Bush

Bush had no reason to release the documents other than their is stuff in there he didn't want to be known to the public or the Senate

[Defarge]

This Recess appointment was entirely unneccessary.  Had the White House released the documents, the "Gang of 11" would have gone against a filibuster (unless the documents were extremely damaging).  Bush could have won this one easily.  Instead he took an action which is essentially throwing mud into Democrats' faces.  There's no need to go out of his way to do this (unless the documents are damaging.)