Bolton represents a portion of the Neocon foreign policy strategy that has been shown not to work.  One of the main points of the strategy is to advance 'democracy' through broad and proactive engagements which includes armed conflict, with it's end goal being security for America.

Bolton's demonstrated hegemonic persuasion can be argued that it dooms the presently active neocon strategy to failure.  While it might be a solution with some initial political success, America is bearing the entire cost of democratizing the world virtually alone. This is why the strategy is doomed.  We cannot afford it in terms of dollars, or militarily.  We need to exercise soft power concomitant to use of the stick.  Bolton's appointment to the UN is antithetical to the use of soft power or the diplomatic patience and acuity this requires, and is likely to isolate America politically at a time when we desperately need the opposite.

Democrats should stand firm, let Frist wallow, and force the President to either make the recess appointment or not.

Bolton-less diplomacy works

HE'LL PROBABLY GET ENVOY POST; STATE DEPT. IS FINE WITHOUT HIM

Mercury News Editorial

~~

Bush wants a U.N. skeptic as ambassador, one who will push for reforms. The president should have found someone else who fits the bill -- and is less inflammatory -- but that would not be like Bush at all.

The best hope is that the battering Bolton has endured and the spotlight that will follow him to the United Nations should moderate his demeanor, if not his views.

In the meantime, the Washington Post reports on progress at the State Department since Bolton left his job as undersecretary.

Bolton headed a program to work with Russia to keep nuclear fuel out of the hands of terrorists. It was going nowhere. Now negotiators have achieved a breakthrough to eliminate enough fuel to create 8,000 bombs.

The administration recently agreed to work with the European Union in addressing Iran's ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons, which Bolton had resisted. The United States is again talking with India about sharing civilian nuclear technology, also opposed by Bolton.

The common thread is that a belief in diplomacy is being restored. It ought to be a core belief of the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as well.

_ NK sounds like its doing better :)_

I say let Bush hang himself with the same rope as Frist. But personally I believe they will cut Bolton loose in the end.

a pattern of the current administration's continued attempt to consolidate power in the hands of the executive.  In essense as you mentioned the seperation of power play which can lead one to the route of subjugating the intent of the framers of the constitution.  In essense, the conduct of the President clearly should be of concern to the true Conservatives in that the executive has on many occasions acted in violation of his oath of office and American tradition.  For example the term "activist judges,"(which we all know is the means by which the Judiciary acts as a counter balance the the other branches of government) or the filibuster tradition. The Conservative tradition of literal interpetation of the Constitution or the dismay for government intrusion in personnal lives and families is clearly violated by the Executive's use of faith based initiatives and clearly violates the secular intent of the Consitution's authors.  This is jumbled but my point is "Attack and Divide," the Republicans.  Illustrate the President's other than Conservative conduct all for the purpose of increasing his personal control over the nation.  Show his simplistic answers of complex problems, for example run twenty clips of him saying "up and down votes," on the hundred or more times that he said it. Show his constituants how he and his administration threatens what they hold dear.

Democrats should be speaking to Repulican Conservatives not Liberal Democrats.

I would suggest taking the focus away from the individual.  If it hasn't already been done, come up with a brief and concise list of the criteria essential for this position.  These should be compelling such that two thirds of the Senate would agree, as would the vast majority of the nation.  (Indeed, if you can get those Senators to sign on, all the better.)

Then articulate and focus on these criteria and make that the basis of resisting Bolton.  Make it clear that to violate these criteria hurts America and our effectiveness with other nations.  Make it clear that to proceed in violation (as with a recess appointment) is beneath the dignity and responsibility of the office of president.

just compare Bolton to Hitler.

Seriously tho, I dont know if there can be a good end to this.

I think its important to focus on goals. Keeping Bolton from the UN would be a good way to help the country, but the president refuses to admit defeat. And he has the power to force it through.

Face the facts: he WILL be ambassador. At least for the next 18 months. And he will be HORRIBLE at it.

So what should be the goals? Make sure this whole escapade embarrases the Bush administration as much as possible. Try the best to give Bush reasonable options to gain the democrats' votes, and make sure everybody sees how Bush refuses to work with congress, and crams his policy through in ways that should be unconstitutional.

And work extra hard that the next guy be at least moderately competent. In comparison, the next guy would look amazing no matter what.

The administration is using emotional manipulation to muster support.  Logical arguments don't work on people thinking with their hearts.  Bolton being objectionable is perfect for stirring the emotionally engaged...against the filibuster...and eventually against the filibuster of one or more Supreme Court nominees.  There's the goal; fight Bolton as you will, it is a distraction.

go check 'em out: http://www.talkleft.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=11181

"If Bolton were a combination of Dean Atchison and Geo. Patton, the democrats in the senate should still stand on principle and insist on the relevant State Department documents, as the repubican senators did under Clinton.

The questions about Bolton need to be addressed, not GW's need to have total control."

so bear, or is it bare? with me here-and yes, it is here, not hear, sheesh!-while I just throw this stuff out.

I think pointing fingers at the White House and claiming obstructionist really does not work. It is shrill and simply adds to the over-all apathy about politicians, etc, etc, etc.

The competency angle might work if the info they are holding back is damaging. But then look out for some grandstanding, distracting behavior from one of the faithful religozombies (Oh, sorry, can't help myself. I'll try to restrain myself) shuffling around the capital.  But, I expect that any Democrat's behavior already condemned by the Republicans (see, I can use restraint-but man, it sure hurts doing so!) but not yet mimiced by them is sure to be used. Or, any behavior repeatedly exhibited by the Republicans (see, there I go again with that restrain....) that they have yet to accuse the Democrats of partaking is sure to be the next shrill-fest to distract.

Oh, and what about a good, old-fashioned whisper campaign? You know, take that whole group sex thing and talk off-hand about it around town. Someone most know of a good bar, restaruant or other such social setting where a good whisper dropped within ear shot of a motor mouth will start the ball rolling.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with a good, old-fashioned tantrum. Seriously. Just have someone throw a tantrum about anything. And make it a whopper of a tantrum. Leave no finger unpointed, bring out the kitchen sink, and let it go all cathartic right on the Senate floor. Maybe they could pull their hair and goose-step around like Nickelson in "The Witchs of Eastwick." And to make it really effective, it should be over something archaic and insignificant. Then step back, watch the reaction, and see if anything useful falls from their mouths.

I've done that. Throw a tantrum, not goose-step while pulling my hair. I do have some dignity. Not much, but some. Anyway, I digress.

Nothing wakes up a group of residents not doing their jobs or working their treatment plan faster then when their counselor loses it and throws a chair against a wall over something small and insignificant. Let me tell you, suddenly, people are behaving in group, house jobs are getting done and they are getting their assignments done.

Of course, it was done as a last resort, and only with a group of individuals who's lives where filled with pain and suffering far worse then seeing their counselor lose his patience.

But still, I suspect a good blow by someone just might be a jog in the right direction. However, it can not be over something meaningful. It can just be blown off as frustration-and used against them. However, do it over something insignificant, and suddenly people start to wonder, what's next?

Remember, sane men whom voice their anger and frustration over reasonable issues are called unhinged while those who act in truly strange and bizarre ways are simply stared at and rarely called on for their behavior (that is until they start to harm themselves or others). You don't talk about the truly insane.

Besides, the reactions will definetly give you some new information on how to approach this fight. Right now, there needs to be more information gathering about what's going on with the other side. Feign, see what falls out.

You know, if they don't respond, and it's possible they won't, then they are probably out of ideas for getting Bolton through the process. And if they do, then they've tipped their hand, you get an idea as to their plan.

but I think it is a poor political angle. I think it might actually be a line of attack that could be used against anyone trying to bring it up. Just my gut feeling, I have no example as to how. Further more, as Liberal Oasis pointed out, up till now the means to stop Bolton has been more about Senatorial power then Bolton's competency. They are fighting by technical rules.

Using these facts switches the strategy in mid-fight.

Of course, switching strategy might catch them off guard. That is, if they have not worked on developing a fight against any attack on Bolton's competency.

My guess is, though, no strategy aimed at pointing out his lack of competency will work until the information is released by the White House. And since they have not yet done so means they must be formulating some plan to defend, or distract attention away from, the info they currently are holding back.

And yes, I do believe they will eventually release the info. In some post a while back, Kevin Drum noted the White House eventually caves in and gives up what they initially hold back. They are, if anything, creatures of habit. I expect they will stick to form.

and I think every time someone online on a lefty sight makes juvenile jokes about his mustache or similar arguments hurts the cause.

It's possible that humor and disdain work AFTER someone has been put into a powerful position. But while that person is being considered, all you do is make your cause look petty and ill-motivated; it gives ammunition to the opposition if you don't keep your arguments on a professional level during confirmation processes.

This is an important point to keep in mind for the future vis-a-vis judges.

It's just a function of the talking points circus many in the blogosphere now help contribute to. The opposition can easily pick out pettiness, i.e. "look at those nutty liberals again" or "look at those nutty fundies again," picking personally on so-and-so. I truly do believe it resounds. You see it in the late-night comedy shows that the rest of the country watches.

personal attack humor as more of a bonding process for the "echo" group involved. It's "amens." It's a morale booster to some, I guess, but it doesn't help advance anything, and can hurt if the opposition uses it correctly.

stick with the current technical focus for fighting the appointment.

like this one from Clemons' most recent post:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000755.html

"Word is that John Bolton may not accept a recess appointment. The bottom line there is that any U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. not confirmed by the Senate will not be perceived as legitimate. Without legitimacy, the person in this position can accomplish little of real value as he or she would have no perceived "weight" of the American public behind him or her."

AS I told the folks at StopJohnbotlon.com, "this is key and needs to be hammered away now. Don't wait. Start this line of attack immediatley.

benefit of making Bolton ineffectual on a different level. Without legitimacy, he could make all the noise, huff and puff, even behave poorly, and all other people at the UN can ignore him. That would limit the damage he otherwise might be able to inflict.