The report relies on a "senior administration official, speaking anonymously to avoid undercutting the rationale for the Bolton appointment" and another that "said that because so much had been achieved, there was little concern that Mr. Bolton's combative personality would jeopardize the agenda." Uh huh. Who in the hell are these people? Inform the public!
"This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about U.N. reform," Mr. Bush said as Mr. Bolton stood to his right and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to his left.
"Because of partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators, John was unfairly denied the up-or-down vote that he deserves," the president said.
President Bush is a liar and the New York Times and Washington Post are pathetic. The liar part comes in three parts. (1) The opposition to Bolton has actually been bipartisan with a few Republican senators actually having the guts to vote the way their consciences were leaning. (2) Bolton isn't the person you'd pick if you actually wanted U.N. "reform" and ...
(3) The acting U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Anne Patterson, would have been. Likewise, she is already on the job, and available. The position really is not "vacant" as such.* The article, by the way, does not MENTION her. The WP announcement also did not do so. She is rarely mentioned and even the vaunted BTC News was not totally aware that Washington Note (who is doing yeoman work on this idiot) discussed her.
This is sooo useful for the administration. It's either Bolton -- divisive but loyalist asshole (just his type) -- or nothing, apparently. Not really, but hey, if the name doesn't even COME UP, it's basically the same thing. Washington Note is right to suggest that the battle over this guy can be seen as a limited success since the win came at a serious cost and the opposition remained united (and picked up some stray votes from the other side) until the end.
This is something of a low bar, given the battle, but so it goes these days. Perhaps, Judge Roberts can be somewhat comparable, taking the using caveats that there are various differences. One thing does stand out -- his role in Bush v. Gore. This underlines, as much as various conservative things he was involved in, that suggests his vote matters, just what is at stake.
What we have lost by having President Bush in the White House. Those who supported the ultimate injustice now will be justices. But, then, remember all the praise Justice -- "oh this is horrible" (Gore might have won) O'Connor received upon retirement. Perhaps, only supporting -- not actually supplying the deciding vote -- such things is nothing much these days.
---
* This is, therefore, a bloody abuse of the recess appointment power. A technical, and in my view quite arguable, reading would oppose any recess appointment of a nominee that was originally chosen when the Senate was in session. This would avoid a means to do an end around of the (full) confirmation process. But, more importantly, recess appointments of important positions should be done with some care and only when truly necessary. Both not the case here.
As an aside, when the Senate delayed the confirmation of Clinton's UN pick -- yeah, this is far from without precedent -- the pick refused to accept a recess appointment because it would open his legitimacy into question. Silly boy.