[Scape]

The recess apointment has not only weakened Bolton, but the US as well

Here is why
Essentially if anyone in the following nations: Benin, Bhutan, China, Ghana, Liechtenstein, Russian Federation,Trinidad and Tobago, United States or Uruguay has ANY problem with ANY of Boltons declarations they can throw it out. They also can just wait out the 18 months Bolton has as he will not be there long. He may have the Bush endorsement but he does not have the Senate and without that his term has been abbreviated severely.

[RoyalHighlander]

Seems hes not too popular any where that guy huh?? Also shows that Bush is having internal problems at home too

[hwacker]

Scape you watch, Bolton is going to be the most liked guy in the USA in 12 months. The B.S going on in the UN is going to be exposed and Bolton is just the guy to do it. With the popularity, the Liberals that filibustered Bolton are going to have a hard time to deny a proper vote next time. FYI he would have been appointed had these A’holes not played games with the paperwork.

If these do-gooder’s try this with John G Roberts they are going to have the word Nuclear shoved up the out port.

[ShepherdsDog]

I think he'll make the UN more interesting than it is now.

[xerxes]

That's a good one SD.

But seriously, shouldn't you believe that the place you are going to work at actually exists? Bolton's problem is going to be this: he will be representing America. Not all of America like Adlai Stevenson or past UN ambassadors, but Bush's America, the "fuck you world" America. It will do much more harm than good.

[Scape]

He will be a bull in a China shop. On sheer comic relief alone that will win hearts in the US however his job is to make agreements and build coalitions not break them down. This man will isolate the US even further.

[Thematic-Device]

I hope he doesn't get nominated, he's tactless and clearly not a diplomat.

Although I was wondering how boltons appointment is Canadian Politics?

[Proculation]

I was nomitated, he didn't get approved by the senate, then Bush appointed him.

He's the new USA ambassador to the UN, Thematic-Device.

[hwacker]

xerxes wrote:

That's a good one SD.

But seriously, shouldn't you believe that the place you are going to work at actually exists? Bolton's problem is going to be this: he will be representing America. Not all of America like Adlai Stevenson or past UN ambassadors, but Bush's America, the "fuck you world" America. It will do much more harm than good.

That’s a lie, he would have been confirmed if the stupid Liberals didn't filibuster him. A BS tactic used by people without power, just to be a PITA.

Your the them same in every post. Why not call it the way it is, instead of manipulating the facts.

Bush won the last election, and he feels that Bolton should get a up or down vote. Simple as that.

And “Bush's America” is America you dumb A$$

[xerxes]

Even Republicans didn't think he was the right guy you nut. Bush ahad to do a recess appointment because he wasn't sure if Bolton would even get a majority in the Senate.

[hwacker]

xerxes wrote:

Even Republicans didn't think he was the right guy you nut. Bush ahad to do a recess appointment because he wasn't sure if Bolton would even get a majority in the Senate.

Yeah George Voinovich, and yes he would have been confirmed.

Quote:

The Senate voted 54 to 38 to end debate on Bolton's nomination. That was six votes short of the 60 needed to stop filibusters in the 100-member chamber. It suggested that Bolton has lost ground since May 26, when 57 senators voted to end the filibuster before one of them switched for parliamentary reasons.

Yesterday, Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) joined 37 Democrats in voting against cloture. The three Democrats who voted to end debate May 26 did so again: Mary Landrieu (La.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.). Eight senators did not vote, including Republicans John Thune (S.D.), Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Conrad Burns (Mont.).

Several senators said Bolton could have won a simple confirmation vote if the filibuster had been ended. But with no sign of a compromise between Democrats and the White House over the disputed documents, several lawmakers said they saw no strategy that would pick up the half-dozen votes needed to end debate and allow a confirmation vote.

[BeaverBill]

I think he'll try to push reforms ludicrous and lopsided, creating an international stir. Any country who refuses to cooperate will be marginalized by those who have been "bribed". If no one accepts he'll throw the deck of cards into the fire so no one can play. They picked the right man for the job to finally finish the UN off from the inside out.

[Thematic-Device]

Proculation wrote:

He's the new USA ambassador to the UN, Thematic-Device.

Yeah to me thats international or US politics, as it has the same effect upon canada as it does on the international community, or as the nomination is embroiled in US government it is thoroughly US politics, or perhaps even US/Canada relations... but its not really canadian politics.

[nomad37]

hwacker wrote:

[...] and yes he would have been confirmed.

As you pointed out earlier though, this was in extended debate, so "would have if there had been a vote" doesn't matter. They did not have the votes to end debate. Not sure I want to get in an argument over the pluses and minuses of the filibuster. Just keep in mind it has been used by both sides in the history of US politics when feelings ran high enough. There is not much procedural protection of the minority view in the US legislative system imho, so with all its problems, I'm glad we have retained it. I always like to keep in mind that at its most basic, democracy is "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner". We add complexities sometimes for ok reasons. If nothing else, the lack of 60 votes to end debate forces time to think about compromise.
Anyway. So, why do you want to see this guy in there so badly? Is this good for Canada somehow? I don't see it myself.
I agree this thread probably belongs elsewhere - can it be picked up and moved or something?

[hwacker]

nomad37 wrote:

hwacker wrote:

[...] and yes he would have been confirmed.

As you pointed out earlier though, this was in extended debate, so "would have if there had been a vote" doesn't matter. They did not have the votes to end debate. Not sure I want to get in an argument over the pluses and minuses of the filibuster. Just keep in mind it has been used by both sides in the history of US politics when feelings ran high enough. There is not much procedural protection of the minority view in the US legislative system imho, so with all its problems, I'm glad we have retained it. I always like to keep in mind that at its most basic, democracy is "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner". We add complexities sometimes for ok reasons. If nothing else, the lack of 60 votes to end debate forces time to think about compromise.
Anyway. So, why do you want to see this guy in there so badly? Is this good for Canada somehow? I don't see it myself.
I agree this thread probably belongs elsewhere - can it be picked up and moved or something?

A fishing expedition is not a debate, The Liberal senators will have a nasty can of Nuclear Option coming if they try this with John Roberts.

And as for Canada, Bolton will expose the UN for what it is, A bureaucratic mess of biblical proportions. The altar the Liberals worship.