John Bolton Likely Out as UN Ambassador
As speculated yesterday, it appears that John Bolton will be the next sacraficial lamb.
NewsMax has learned that U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton will likely leave his post next month.
After a rocky series of Senate confirmation hearings, Bolton was sent to the U.N. by President Bush in August 2005 under a recess appointment. That allowed the president to bypass Senate confirmation while it was in recess, but the appointee could only serve for the length of the current Congress which is set to expire at year’s end.
There had been indications that Bolton might win Senate confirmation after the election when several key votes might be open to favoring Bolton. But the GOP’s apparent loss of the Senate has doomed that hope. “This nomination is dead and we have known it for several days,” a source close to the U.S. mission to the U.N. tells NewsMax.
Not surprisingly, the news has conservatives hopping mad. Tammy Bruce huffs, “You know, if the president is so desperate to make the Dems happy, why doesn’t he just resign and then apply to be Pelosi’s personal interior decorator?” Pam Oshry adds, “I say here, now, STOP THE INSANITY. Throwing our best, our brightest to the insatiable leftist beast makes them hungrier. Rumsfeld, now Bolton? WTF? and Why?”
Here’s why: We lost six Senate seats Tuesday.
John Bolton was defeated even when we had a large majority, owing to the powers of the minority to obstruct in the Senate. Had we hung onto the Senate, he’d likely have been blocked again. Then, though, Bush could at least have the “he didn’t get a vote” hook to justify another recess appointment. Now, he’d get a vote and lose.
When you lose elections, you lose the ability to make controversial public policy decisions. Indeed, I seem to have read somewhere that this is the reason we have elections. If we could continue to govern as if we had a 55-45 majority when we are in a 49-51 minority, then what would be the point of all the hand wringing over losing?