Bolton would be whose Ambassador to the UN?

This just in from our Hubris Watchdog Department!

By C. William Boyer

There are reports surfacing that John Bolton, the angry and infantile Bush administration nominee for Ambassador to the UN, may be ensconced there by hook or by crook. Never mind that members of the Senate representing roughly half of the American public are dead-set against this man ever being a diplomat to the UN. Never mind that members of the president's own party have serious reservations about this fellow, who a career state-department and GOP-card-carrying executive called a "classic kiss-up, kick-down" kind of guy. And certainly never mind that this fellow's personality is best suited to be a repo-man or mafia hitman rather than a diplomat (he's about as welcome as genital warts and as diplomatic as a hand grenade). No, never mind what anybody thinks, the Bush Administration wants to have their own man in place. And they'll utilize the skullduggery of the Midnight Recess to get it done. No vote, just emplacement. No democracy, despite Mr. Bush's professed (and ersatz) pleas of love for it, but rather simple autocracy and hubris.

Everyone sing together: "It's my nomination and I'll cry if I want to."

Which begs the question: Will John Bolton then henceforth be called what he would indeed be? Correctly stated, the Bush Ambassador to the United Nations? Because he will sure as hell not be the United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

It is this same sort of arrogant, 'I want it my way' sort of thinking that could well drive John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court.

The Bush people will claim, nay, demand an up-or-down vote on Roberts and will threaten the nuclear option again to overturn the centuries old Senate tradition of the filibuster, claiming as a sitting president, Mr. Bush has a right to put his man on the bench.

Wrong.

Now, Mr. Bush has every right, in fact possesses a constitutional right, to have his own cabinet nominees granted an up-or-down vote: they are his ministers, helping to guide the executive branch's policy. And it can very well be argued that Alberto Gonzalez's nomination for attorney general deserved the up-or-down vote it received, despite some Democratic posturing vis-a-vis the torture memos, and should never have been subjected to a filibuster. But Mr. Bush has no right to railroad the nominations of an ambassador to the world body nor a man who will sit the bench for the remainder of his lifetime. These are positions demanding united consensus. In fact, the titles of the two positions spell that out quite clearly:

John Bolton: nominee to be United States Ambassador to the UN.
John Roberts: nominee to the United States Supreme Court.

You will notice that nowhere in either of those titles do the words REPUBLICAN or BUSH ADMINISTRATION appear.

The word United is of course the operating and key word. It is incumbent upon Mr. Bush, and all presidents, be they members of the party in power or the party without, to gain consensus and united support for such important and party-transcending positions because, this just in, while the White House is currently occupied by Mr. Bush, it is and always will be owned by We The People.

Mr. Bush, you are nothing more than a renter.

Now, because it's our White House and our Supreme Court and our Ambassador to the UN, just like that's our lawn you stroll about on and our Oval Office you work within, We The People are due a say in how our possessions are treated.

It's our Supreme Court, not yours.
It's our ambassador to the UN, not yours.

Learn to play well with others, Mr. Bush, and get it right.

Get it together.