-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official NeoGAF US Mid-term Elections 2006 Thread
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
John Bolton's prospects for staying on as U.N. ambassador essentially died Thursday as Democrats and a pivotal Republican said they would continue to oppose his nomination.
It was another blow to President Bush, two days after Democrats triumphed in elections that will give them control of Congress next year. On Wednesday, Bush had announced that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, a polarizing figure and face of the Iraq war, would step down.
On Thursday, the White House resubmitted Bolton's nomination to the Senate, where the appointment has languished for more than a year. Bush appointed him to the job temporarily in August 2005 while Congress was in recess, an appointment that will expire when the Congress adjourns, no later than January.
Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island, who was defeated by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse on Tuesday, told reporters in Rhode Island that he would continue opposing Bolton. That would likely deny Republicans the votes needed to move Bolton's nomination from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the full Senate.
"The American people have spoken out against the president's agenda on a number of fronts, and presumably one of those is on foreign policy," Chafee said. "And at this late stage in my term, I'm not going to endorse something the American people have spoke out against."
Democrats indicated that even should the Senate try debating Bolton's nomination when lawmakers reconvene next week -- still under Republican control -- they would stretch out debate on Bolton with the aim of killing it. Republicans lack the 60 votes needed to force a vote on the nomination.
"I see no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination again in the Foreign Relations Committee because, regardless of what happens there, he is unlikely to be considered by the full Senate," said Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.
More at: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/bolton.ap/index.html
It was another blow to President Bush, two days after Democrats triumphed in elections that will give them control of Congress next year. On Wednesday, Bush had announced that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, a polarizing figure and face of the Iraq war, would step down.
On Thursday, the White House resubmitted Bolton's nomination to the Senate, where the appointment has languished for more than a year. Bush appointed him to the job temporarily in August 2005 while Congress was in recess, an appointment that will expire when the Congress adjourns, no later than January.
Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island, who was defeated by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse on Tuesday, told reporters in Rhode Island that he would continue opposing Bolton. That would likely deny Republicans the votes needed to move Bolton's nomination from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the full Senate.
"The American people have spoken out against the president's agenda on a number of fronts, and presumably one of those is on foreign policy," Chafee said. "And at this late stage in my term, I'm not going to endorse something the American people have spoke out against."
Democrats indicated that even should the Senate try debating Bolton's nomination when lawmakers reconvene next week -- still under Republican control -- they would stretch out debate on Bolton with the aim of killing it. Republicans lack the 60 votes needed to force a vote on the nomination.
"I see no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination again in the Foreign Relations Committee because, regardless of what happens there, he is unlikely to be considered by the full Senate," said Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.
More at: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/bolton.ap/index.html
ontheissues describes her as a liberal populist. And if you look at how she votes she certainly doesn't seem that conservative.Cheebs said:
But if there are three "blue dog" Democrats, one of them claiming Clinton's administration was "the most corrupt administration in modern memory," it will be interesting to see how they vote.
Also ironic how Clinton supported Webb after he called him out like that, haha.
Cheebs, I'm talking about how they will vote in general though. I know Biden isn't going to allow him back to the UN. But when you look at her record (which I did prior to the interview), I was just really surprised when she said she'd probably vote for Bolton if she had to.
Perhaps she didn't want to look polarizing, since it was one of the first big questions she was asked as Senator-elect. Especially since she knows Biden won't let Bolton go anywhere.
Perhaps she didn't want to look polarizing, since it was one of the first big questions she was asked as Senator-elect. Especially since she knows Biden won't let Bolton go anywhere.
Diablos said:
Yeah, I saw that too. Pretty surprising. Republicans couldn't confirm him when they had 55 Senators so there's no way it's going to happen now, especially with Lincoln Chafee giving the GOP a big, middle finger. I'm all for providing presidents deference when it comes to cabinet positions, but there are times when the failure is so abject that the only approriate thing to do is vote No and let the president send someone with more qualifications and in the case of Bolton, someone without the ingrained hatred of the UN.
Diablos said:
For a few Senators, the matter of deference is a huge issue to them. Again, I don't have a problem with that, elections do have consequences, but sending up crazies to head up international diplomacy at this specific time in our history isn't really conducive to America solving its problems.
Russ Feingold, IIRC, is another Senator who virtually rubber stamps all the presidents nominees based on his views of deference, yet no one would dare call him a conservative or even a conservative leaning Democrat.
Chafee seems like a good guy. I especially like how he wrote in George H.W. Bush in 2004 :lolCheebs said:
Makes you wonder that if he kept his seat, he'd still say negative things about the GOP and perhaps start voting with the Democrats. Especially if he said Democrats winning control is a good thing, heh.
Cheebs said:
I'm not sure. He could have saved both parties a lot of money and even salvaged his own career had he decided to switch parties before the election, so we'll see how this plays out. He was opposed to Bolton before the election and I'd assume his opposition has become even more strident since he knows once Jan 3 comes around, he's done. The Chafee name in Rhode Island is huge -- to be sure, the seat he's vacating now was once the seat of his father's who appointed Lincoln back in the late 90s. Jack Reed, the senior Senator, has locked that seat up until either 1. he retires 2. dies, and is a very, very popular Democrat. He's often the point man when Democrats need to talk about Iraq, so I think Linc is going to have to just enjoy life as a private citizen for awhile.
Diablos said:
The RNC personally made sure that Chafee was reelected in the primary, even though Club for Growth and other outside conservative groups were heavily supporting his opponent, Laffy. If it weren't for the RNC dumping $$$ into the race the last few weeks, the seat was virtually assured to turn Democratic. As it stands, it still turned Democratic, but they made a race out of it.
ConfusingJazz
Member
Well, that was fast. Bush is trying to shove Bolton through congress before the Dems get into power.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/bolton.congress/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/bolton.congress/index.html
Fragamemnon
Member
I think a lot of conservatives don't like the UN because, especially in the Security Council, since it provides a sort of check on American hegemony to bully smaller countries into agreeing with its positions without those countries having to take on the U.S. themselves.
A majority of Americans overall have a positive view of the UN. Here's a 2005 poll from Pew:
http://typology.people-press.org/data/index.php?QuestionID=47
A majority of Americans overall have a positive view of the UN. Here's a 2005 poll from Pew:
http://typology.people-press.org/data/index.php?QuestionID=47
The voting power of individual countries at the UN should be weighted according to population and resolutions should pass on the basis of majority, not be rejected on the basis of a veto because one country doesn't like it.
The system isn't democratic enough, and it panders to the interests of the five permanent members.
The system isn't democratic enough, and it panders to the interests of the five permanent members.
The UN is one of those "great in theory, shitty in practice" deals. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the way that it's structured, specifically the Security Council. I'd like to think that one man could fix it, as the next Secretary General:
But all of the little podunk countries aren't going to stand for an American Secretary General, even though Billy Boy is the only one with the worldwide political capital and elbow grease required to get the job done. So really, even though I dislike Bolton, the only reason not to send him back to the UN is that it antagonizes other countries, but I guess that's reason enough for me.
But all of the little podunk countries aren't going to stand for an American Secretary General, even though Billy Boy is the only one with the worldwide political capital and elbow grease required to get the job done. So really, even though I dislike Bolton, the only reason not to send him back to the UN is that it antagonizes other countries, but I guess that's reason enough for me.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Well, after this election at least Republicans in the Senate can be glad of one thing: they didn't get rid of the filibuster a year or two ago.
ConfusingJazz
Member
Johan van Benderschlotten said:
Well, there is a tradition in the UN that the Secretary General isn't a member of the Big 5, damnable small ass countries.
Johan van Benderschlotten said:The UN is one of those "great in theory, shitty in practice" deals. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the way that it's structured, specifically the Security Council. I'd like to think that one man could fix it, as the next Secretary General:
But all of the little podunk countries aren't going to stand for an American Secretary General, even though Billy Boy is the only one with the worldwide political capital and elbow grease required to get the job done. So really, even though I dislike Bolton, the only reason not to send him back to the UN is that it antagonizes other countries, but I guess that's reason enough for me.
That's why he started the CGI. From all reports, it's a UN that gets shit done. Granted, on a far less scale, but they put their money where their mouths (and hearts) are.
Beer Monkey
Member
JoshuaJSlone said:
The dems ought to bring it back up in January, just for laughs. YOU STILL WANT IT NOW, BITCH?
Al-Qaeda also says "thank you America":
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4325560.html
LIBRULS = TERRURISS
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4325560.html
LIBRULS = TERRURISS
US military leaders are preparing to recommend changes in strategy on Iraq, America's top military officer says.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Peter Pace said commanders were having their own dialogue and would make the changes that were needed.
President George W Bush is to meet members of a panel drawing up proposals for ending the conflict on Monday.
Iraq was a key factor in the Republican defeat in mid-term polls and US defence chief Donald Rumsfeld's resignation.
Mr Rumsfeld will be replaced by former CIA director Robert Gates, a member of the Iraq Study Group set to report to Mr Bush next week.
The White House says it is open to new thinking on the conflict, and correspondents say it would not be surprising if a real change of policy emerged soon.
Gen Pace told CBS that military leaders were taking a hard look at what they were doing in Iraq.
"We have to give ourselves a good honest scrub about what is working and what is not working... and what should we change about the way we are doing it."
But Gen Pace said Mr Rumsfeld's departure would not have a direct impact.
"We continuously review what's going right, what's going wrong, what needs to change," he added.
His comments came as the White House announced Monday's meeting with the bipartisan task force asked by Congress to examine the effectiveness of policy in Iraq.
The panel, which is led by former US Secretary of State James Baker, reportedly think that "staying the course" is an untenable long-term strategy.
It is said to have been looking at two options, both of which would amount to a reversal of the Bush administration's stance.
One is the phased withdrawal of US troops, and the other is to increase contact with Syria and Iran to help stop the fighting.
Democratic Party leaders visiting the White House in the wake of their poll victory have raised the idea of an Iraq summit.
Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat set to be the next speaker of the House of Representatives, has called for a change of strategy, describing the current policy as a "catastrophic path".
In Iraq, the health minister has said between 100,000 and 150,000 civilians have been killed in the war, far more than other previously accepted figures.
Officials say the total is based on estimates of the number of bodies brought to mortuaries and hospitals.
Casualty figures are a controversial topic, with estimates or counts ranging from 50,000 to 650,000 deaths.
Separately, the US military says three of its personnel have been killed in two separate incidents in Iraq.
At least 23 US troops have been killed in November.
In October, at least 105 soldiers were killed, the fourth highest monthly toll since US forces overthrew Saddam Hussein, and the worst for US casualties in nearly two years. http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6138280.stm
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Peter Pace said commanders were having their own dialogue and would make the changes that were needed.
President George W Bush is to meet members of a panel drawing up proposals for ending the conflict on Monday.
Iraq was a key factor in the Republican defeat in mid-term polls and US defence chief Donald Rumsfeld's resignation.
Mr Rumsfeld will be replaced by former CIA director Robert Gates, a member of the Iraq Study Group set to report to Mr Bush next week.
The White House says it is open to new thinking on the conflict, and correspondents say it would not be surprising if a real change of policy emerged soon.
Gen Pace told CBS that military leaders were taking a hard look at what they were doing in Iraq.
"We have to give ourselves a good honest scrub about what is working and what is not working... and what should we change about the way we are doing it."
But Gen Pace said Mr Rumsfeld's departure would not have a direct impact.
"We continuously review what's going right, what's going wrong, what needs to change," he added.
His comments came as the White House announced Monday's meeting with the bipartisan task force asked by Congress to examine the effectiveness of policy in Iraq.
The panel, which is led by former US Secretary of State James Baker, reportedly think that "staying the course" is an untenable long-term strategy.
It is said to have been looking at two options, both of which would amount to a reversal of the Bush administration's stance.
One is the phased withdrawal of US troops, and the other is to increase contact with Syria and Iran to help stop the fighting.
Democratic Party leaders visiting the White House in the wake of their poll victory have raised the idea of an Iraq summit.
Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat set to be the next speaker of the House of Representatives, has called for a change of strategy, describing the current policy as a "catastrophic path".
In Iraq, the health minister has said between 100,000 and 150,000 civilians have been killed in the war, far more than other previously accepted figures.
Officials say the total is based on estimates of the number of bodies brought to mortuaries and hospitals.
Casualty figures are a controversial topic, with estimates or counts ranging from 50,000 to 650,000 deaths.
Separately, the US military says three of its personnel have been killed in two separate incidents in Iraq.
At least 23 US troops have been killed in November.
In October, at least 105 soldiers were killed, the fourth highest monthly toll since US forces overthrew Saddam Hussein, and the worst for US casualties in nearly two years. http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6138280.stm
- Status