Senator George Voinovich, my former governor, I salute you! G.O.P. Senator Sends Letter to Colleagues Opposing Bolton link By DOUGLAS JEHL Published: May 24, 2005 WASHINGTON, May 24 - The Ohio Republican whose opposition to John R. Bolton as United Nations ambassador nearly stalled his nomination in committee took a new swipe at him today, circulating a letter urging colleagues to vote against Mr. Bolton when his name reaches the Senate floor, possibly this week. The letter from Senator George R. Voinovich was sent to all senators, but it was aimed particularly at fellow Republicans in a chamber in which the party holds a 55-44 majority (with one independent). At least five Republicans would have to join Mr. Voinovich in opposing Mr. Bolton if the nomination were to be defeated. In the letter, Mr. Voinovich said that while he had been "hesitant to push my views on my colleagues" during his years in the Senate, he felt "compelled to share my deep concerns" about Mr. Bolton's nomination. "In these dangerous times, we cannot afford to put at risk our nation's ability to successfully wage and win the war on terror with a controversial and ineffective ambassador to the United Nations," Mr. Voinovich wrote. He urged colleagues to "put aside our partisan agenda and let our consciences and our shared commitment to our nation's best interests guide us." The White House remains strongly in favor of Mr. Bolton's nomination, and it is unusual for a Republican to break ranks so publicly by circulating a letter opposed to a Republican president's agenda. A copy of Mr. Voinovich's letter, dated May 23 but not circulated until Tuesday, was provided by a Senate Democratic aide opposed to Mr. Bolton. The Senate's Republican leaders signaled today that they would try to push for a vote on Mr. Bolton by the end of the week. Senate Democrats have strongly opposed the nomination, and at a lunchtime meeting today, Democratic leaders were weighing possible moves to defeat the nomination, or to use procedural moves to delay or prevent a Senate vote. It is not clear whether any Republicans might join Mr. Voinovich in breaking ranks with the White House, which has strongly supported Mr. Bolton's nomination despite strong opposition from many critics, including senior officials who worked with Mr. Bolton at the State Department during President Bush's first term. Among the 10 Republicans on the Senate committee, 3 joined Mr. Voinovich in expressing reservations about Mr. Bolton's nomination. In the face of strong Democratic opposition, the Republicans on the panel agreed only to send the nomination to the full Senate without an endorsement, an unusual move. Today, however, spokesmen for two of those Republicans, Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, said their bosses expected to vote in favor of Mr. Bolton when his name came before the full Senate. A spokeswoman for the third, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the senator had told reporters from her home state that she was "likely to support Bolton's nomination on the floor." A spokesman for another Republican, John Thune of South Dakota, said this afternoon that Mr. Thune "hasn't made any decisions" about Mr. Bolton's nomination. One Democrat, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, has sought to block a Senate vote on Mr. Bolton, saying that she would oppose any vote until the State Department provided documents related to the nomination that the department had so far refused to hand over. This afternoon, however, a spokeswoman for Ms. Boxer said that she had decided to lift a hold on Mr. Bolton's nomination. Ms. Boxer's spokeswoman said she would join with Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware in agreeing to a Republican plan to move toward a vote on Mr. Bolton after allowing up to 40 hours of debate. It appears unlikely that any Senate Democrat will try to use a filibuster to block a vote, Senate Democratic officials said. Mr. Voinovich, a former mayor of Cleveland and governor of Ohio, previously described his decision to oppose Mr. Bolton's nomination as one that was based on conscience. In his letter to colleagues, he repeated a statement made earlier this month to the Foreign Relations Committee, in which he questioned whether Mr. Bolton would "have the character, leadership, interpersonal skills, self-discipline, common decency and understanding of the chain of command to lead his team to victory."
I've had a lot of respect for Voinovich for awhile as he seems like someone who isn't an ideologue but actually takes a very pragmatic view of things. I saw his speech on the news it was very powerful how much emotion he had. Especially when compared to my state's Sen. Norm Coleman who more and more is appearing as a party hack toadying to the leadership. I find it interesting that Senators, especially a Republicans like Voinovich and Hegel, have been paying so much attention to the Bolton nomination. Generally less attention is paid to appointments to the Executive branch because the Senate generally considers those the perogative of the Executive as opposed to the court appointments.
Please don't mention Norm Coleman, who if not for the tragic death of Paul Wellstone, would not be a senator. I think if Wellstone were still alive today, Demorat party would be more vibrant and forceful facing Republicans. I am sure Wellstone would have spoken passionately against the Iraqi war. If Al Franken decides to run for Minn US senator, I expect him to beat Coleman. But I think Bolton is one extreme case. IMO, Hagel may have his own agenda - i.e., running in 2008 presidential race, so I am not surprised if he tries to appeal to centrist democrats. Voinovich, on the other hand, who has just won his re-election by land slide, has nothing to gain politically. So I truly believe he acts on his conscience. Voinovich was also probably the only Republican senator opposing Bush's initial huge tax cut, which was bigger than the current one.
If Bolton is confirmed and only one or two Republicans vote against him it will be a travesty. When will centrist conservative and moderate Republicans reclaim their party? When will the far-right, fundamentalist minority with their grip on the GOP get kicked to the curb? When are Republicans going to stop being a party ruled by extremists and return to the party of Everett Dirksen, the champion of civil rights when it took courage to take that stand, and who famously said, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money." Unbelievable. That such a man could be nominated to be the face of the United States at the UN is unthinkable. Republicans should be ashamed of their party and ashamed of their President. Keep D&D civil!!
I got to listen to him all the time. I've even met him twice and he's as weasly in person as he is on TV. Of course both times he was running for office. I wouldn't count on Al Franken beating Norm. MN is a lot more conservative than people think. The old Democratic Farmer Labor party of Humphrey, Mondale and McCarthy is in tatters and is probably more rudderless than even the DNC.
Excuse me for my ignorance...but I havent been keeping up witht he news the way some of yall do.. Why is this guy a bad choice for the post? What has he done in the past to warrant this? no tricks here..I honestly dont know.
i tnkin you need to check where the opposition to boltonis coming from.. he's not a member of the "religious right." it's all about attitude, and whether someone who is critical of the UN can be effective there. i guess if we think the UN functions fine as it is, then bolton is the wrong man for the job. on the other hand, if we believe the UN is a disfunctional mess, perhaps it needs someone w/ a strong personality to try and whip them into shape. i think it's indicative of how important the bush admin still views the UN that they've nominated someone so obviously close to the president. bolton's nomination should be cause for joy among anyone in the US that still believes the UN has a role to play. if you're not in that group, then by all means, let's w/draw the nomination and appoint a cipher.
I think its somewhat disingenious to believe that the current Admin wants to strenthen the UN. A strong UN is going to be a threat to the US because there's no guarentee that it will work in US interests. Given the current widespread antipathy towards the US an empowered UN could very pass resolutions against US actions and also work to blunt US global aspirations. Bolton is meant to whip the UN to be more compliant to US interests but I don't think many of the other UN member countries are going to take kindly to being whipped into line.
Well it is also a matter of how you think reform gets done. Bolton so harrangued and bullied employees at his job in the state department that under Powell the number two person at the state department forbid Bolton from directly delivering messages to others, until it had been run by him first. This was another military man and not someone that would have been considered soft. Others in the state department had to go back and apoligize for the guys action. He bullied people and threatened to fire them not because they didn't do their job, but because the intel they found wasn't the 'truth' he wanted. I understand why people who might to reform the UN, don't believe his tactics are the best way to reform them. I can also see why at a time when we have already created distance between ourselves and many other nations including traditional allies, they don't want this man as our representative. Basso, it isn't as if people who want real UN reform must be for this guy, and if you dont' want real UN reform then he shouldn't get the nomination. I think the case could be made that people who do want real UN reform wouldn't want Bolton to be nominated.
It is good to get to the UN to work with the US more, but whipping them into line, acting as a bully, and being dismissive of other nations isn't what I belive to be the most effective way of doing that. The heavy handed approach usually isn't the best way to run a business, a govt. a classroom, a sports team, or diplomacy. It may seem nice like action is finally going to get done, but it is seldom the most effective way to do things.
Basso think about it this way. Did Nikita Kruschev banging his shoe on his desk shouting 'Nyet!' make anyone more inclined to work with the USSR?
wtf people, when r2k asks a question you JUMP TO IT Bolton has in the past allegedly verbally abused employees and tried to get them fired for coming back to him with intelligence reports that said things other than what he wanted them to say. The argument is that this is not the type of personality you want in the guy who is representing you to the United Nations.
Thanks Sir Zachary....regardless of what moes says...you are a gentleman and a scholar. to be fair to the D&D Denizens...they kind of answered it in their ensuring posts...or shall I say...I kinda got the general picture from them. and since I have no specific gripe with the UN... I would say that this guy doesnt sound like a diplomatic type of guy...why appoint him to a job that requires diplomacy?
Rockets2K, Bolton aside from being a bully with his underlings and undiplomatic, is widely seen as being about as hard core of a UN hater as you can find in any sort of diplomatic position. As Basso says he probably reflects Bush who is probably pissed at the UN, among other things, for not approving the current Iraq War. ******** See the following article. If you were sitting in the Oval Office and George W. Bush asked, "Hey, tell me, who could we appoint to the UN ambassador job that would most piss off the UN and the rest of the world," your job would be quite easy. You would simply say, "That's a no-brainer, Mr. President, John Bolton." And on Monday Bush took this no-brain advice and nominated Bolton to the post, which requires Senate confirmation. Bolton is the rightwing's leading declaimer of the United Nations. He once said, "If the UN Secretariat building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." And when the Bush administration failed to persuade the UN to back its war in Iraq, Bolton observed that was "further evidence to many why nothing should be paid to the UN system." Bolton has expressed much more vitriol for the UN than those two (representative) remarks, for he has been a UN-basher for years. Sure, the UN has many flaws and deserves reform. But what message does it convey to the UN and the world to send to the UN a fellow who has essentially called for total defunding of the institution? link
Democrats to the country: "Our refusal to vote for cloture and end advice and consent on the Bolton nomination so that he can receive an up or down vote is not -- we repeat, NOT -- a filibuster." “Instead, what we are doing is simply using deliberate and delaying tactics, such as a long, pointless speeches, in an attempt to interfere or obstruct with the business of the Senate. “Just so we’re clear." http://www.proteinwisdom.com/
Wow that blogger has even less understanding of what's going on with Bolton than most people. But if posts linking to blogs with little real substance is what we are after this was a good one.
Others are encouraged to provide (or link) anecdotes on Bolton's kiss-up, kick-down (and kick-laterally) management style. I compiled a few of John Bolton's great hits (some have been mentioned earlier in this thread) on his views of United Nations, International Criminal Court, international laws. - On the U.N. bureaucracy: "If the U.N. Secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." - 1994, president, National Policy Forum - On the International Criminal Court: "A product of fuzzy-minded romanticism [that] is not just naive, but dangerous." - 1998, senior vice president, American Enterprise Institute. - On May 10, 2002, in his letter to the United Nations reversing President Clinton's decision to back the founding of the International Criminal Court, he wrote the U.S. "does not intend to become a party", and therefore "has no legal obligation arising from its signature" on the Rome statute that established the ICC. - On a verification plan for the bioweapons ban: "It's dead, dead, dead, and I don't want it coming back from the dead." - 2001, State Department arms control chief, privately to U.S. allies. - "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so -- because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States." - Soon after Baghdad fell, Bolton said, in his usual, measured way, "We are hoping that the elimination of the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein and the elimination of all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would be important lessons to other countries in the region, particularly Syria, Libya and Iran, that the cost of their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially quite high." - [when asked about the use of sticks and carrots to settle a particular crisis]: "I don't do carrots." - (To be fair and balanced, which I always like) Lets give some credit to Bolton when he said in his Feb. 21 news conference in Brussels, "We're working closely with Britain, France, and Germany as they oppose Iran's nuclear ambitions and as they insist that Tehran comply with international law." Oh, a little background information won't hurt: During 2000 Florida presidential election dispute, the Wall Street Journal reveals, his "most memorable moment came after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a halt to the recount, when Mr. Bolton strode into a Tallahassee library, where the count was still going on, and declared, "I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the vote." After thanking Bolton for his services in Florida, Vice President-elect Dick Cheney had this reply when asked what job Bolton should get in the new administration: "People ask what [job] John should get," Mr. Cheney said. "My answer is, anything he wants."
