WSJ Question of the day: [View All]

Was Bush right to appoint Bolton as U.N. ambassador without a Senate vote?

YES 45%
NO 55%

http://discussions.wsj.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=wsjvoices&tid=3590&vote=2&submit=Vote

And comments:


- No.

Mr. Bush is pigheaded to a fault. There's enough of a clamor about Mr. Bolton that this is almost a no-win scenario for the Bush administration. Unless Mr. Bolton does an utterly unimpeachable job -- which appears unlikely, given his record -- Mr. Bush will be roundly criticized for letting loyalty get in the way of good judgment yet again.

I must confess that I'm mystified at the suggestion that Mr. Bush is "getting the job done." Exactly which job? Winning the war on terror -- um, beg pardon, the global struggle against extremism? Reforming social security? Capturing Osama bin Laden? Bringing a stable government to Iraq while gaining a Middle East stronghold and supporter for the U.S.?

How about improving access to health care? Or international relations? (Were those even on the agenda?)

Mr. Bush has excelled at one job: Rewarding his cronies.


- Bush may be getting the job done, but that depends on how you define what his job. If the job is providing America with the best possible representation at the UN and facilitating good working relationships with the world's governments, then he has failed miserably. Bolton simply isn't the best qualified person for this job no matter how you measure it. But, if the job is rewarding a political hack, then Bush as done well. As the vice president noted, Bolton "deserves any job in this administration that he wants." Well, he got it even though it was through the back door.


- It is the talk about the Senate's "advise and consent" roll that I find troubling. Did the framers of the constitution view the Senate as a bunch of yes men (and women) when it came to the choice of ambassadors, Federal Justices, and other appointed offices? Unlikely. These are the people who believed in division of power.