Remember Sen. George Voinovich, Republican from Ohio? He was briefly a hero in these parts when he opposed the nomination of John Bolton to the post of Ambassador to the UN.
He then disappointed us when he said that although he thought Bolton would make a lousy ambassador, the Senator would not block the nomination in committee, out of "modesty" which compelled him to allow the nomination a full vote. It seemed he didn't want to piss off the GOP machine too much.
Well it turned out not to matter, beacuse the Senate was about to shitcan the nomination anyway. Bush, ever respectful of the separation of powers, installed Bolton with a flick of his merry wand using a recess appointment.
And now, comes this strange chapter...
Out of the blue, Voinovich writes up an
Op-Ed in the Washington Post. In it, he swears that having observed and worked with Bolton, he finds that while Bolton is still kind of a douche, he's not that bad. Therfore, when the recess appointment expires this fall, we should all make sure to bend over for Bush:
Should the president choose to renominate him, I cannot imagine a worse message to send to the terrorists -- and to other nations deciding whether to engage in this effort -- than to drag out a possible renomination process or even replace the person our president has entrusted to lead our nation at the United Nations at a time when we are working on these historic objectives.
For me or my colleagues in the Senate to now question a possible renomination would jeopardize our influence in the United Nations and encourage those who oppose the United States to make Bolton the issue, thereby undermining our policies and agenda.
Now it's hard to know where to begin with this. But the line that leaps out to me is "jeopardize our influence in the United Nations". Ha! Maybe senators should worry about their influence in the United States!! To illustrate, he has this beauty:
I call on my Democratic colleagues to keep in mind the current situation in the Middle East and the rest of the world should the Senate have an opportunity to vote.
Because you know, sometimes ol' Bush just does what he pleases! But if he does graciously allow us to vote, let's make sure not to help the terrorists by opposing him!
This is the weakest, most pathetic statement I've seen in a long time from a Congressman, and that's saying a lot. The whole article has the feel of something written by a guy with a gun to his head. I don't doubt it's the result of some arm-twisting by some goons insisting that he'll lose his seat next time if he doesn't publicly fellate the Dear Leader immediately.
So, that's present-day democracy in America.
UPDATE: I'm going to move a couple downthread comments into the diary body here because I think they get at another important point that I missed initially. Arabiflora highlighted this excerpt from Voinovich:
I do not believe the United States, at this dangerous time, can afford to have a U.N. ambassador who does not have Congress's full support.
And my response: Why is it the duty of Congress to overwhelmingly confirm a guy who sucks just to say he has full congressional support? Why not expect the president to instead nominate someone who really does have full congressional support??? It's a strange logic Voinovich operates by.