The president would like the Senate to "put aside politics" and confirm the anti-UN John Bolton as the US's ambassador to the UN.
Um ... isn't the Senate supposed
to be about politics? Representing their constituencies, pursuing their political goals, etc.? Sure, doctors and pharmacists should put aside politics (particularly pharmacists), but politicians?
Um, and isn't nominating John Bolton a rather political act? It's not like he's a nonpolitical career diplomat, eh?
It certainly is an unfortunate phrasing. The issue with Bolton of course is not that he's unqualified, it's that (taking all accusations as true) he is an [edited for family friendliness]. If being an [edited] prevented one from working in politics, we'd have 1/2 (or less)as many politicians (of both stripes--sadly, being an [edited] is one of those things that crosses party lines). Bolton, of course, is a Republican [edited], so he is disliked by Democratic Senators both non-[edited] and [edited].
All that being said, I think the Senate Democrats are within their rights to "play politics" and slow up the nomination. But unless something significant comes out in further hearings I don't see any reason for them to vote against him. Being an [edited] is not grounds for rejection for any poltical office as far as I can tell.
Back to Complications Ensue main blog page.