This photo does not in any way depict the views of John Bolton. The John Bircher types scorn the very premise of a United Nations. This is not the attitude of the Bush administration nor the current mainstream conservative movement. Most see a need for such an organization, but realize that radical reform is mandatory. A tough talking Bolton is needed to turn things around. There is also one more thing that must be added regarding the photo: those who put up such signs are almost certainly hostile toward President George W. Bush. Many of these people even voted for John Kerry just to see Bush get kicked out of office.

John Bolton will have little trouble getting his nomination approved. His foes make the mistake of indulging in exaggeration. Bolton is in the enviable position of being placed in the situation of Babe Ruth waiting for a slow pitch over the middle of the plate. He merely must show that he is not a Neanderthal foaming at the mouth.

David -- You are right that the battle against Bolton is an uphill fight for people who oppose him, but his nomination is far more controversial and disconcerting than you seem to want to acknowledge. I realize that this effort I'm supporting may fail -- but to say that he will "easily" be confirmed just seems to fly against the evidence. Did you read Pete Domenici's comments?

In any case, I don't want to split hairs on this -- I just think that you aren't acknowledging the fact that there are people who don't buy the line that Bolton will be a constructive UN-skeptic who can wrangle out a good deal for America in a reformed UN. There are many other Republicans whom I could see in that role -- but I have a very hard time seeing Bolton that way and there is nothing I see in his statements or career that lead me to believe he is the right guy for this job. I don't want to have to support him on faith. I want a better Republican player on UN affairs than Bolton. But we can agree to disagree on that.

However, you should know that the Buchananite crowd is thrilled with the Bolton nomination -- and some of those who post ridiculous signs like the one I posted are very enthusiastic about Bolton. I happen to have not too distant relatives who are some of those isolationist type folks in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Montana, and Wisconsin. They seen John Bolton as quite acceptable -- and razz me about him.

Best regards,
Steve Clemons

the problem is that the right wing idea of "reform" is based on a UN that ignores the will of the vast majority of the people on the planet in favor of corporate interests.

Their vision of a reformed UN is one in which the members which contribute the most have the most power.

You would think that the right wing would support a UN that was modelled on the United States Constitution, but the last thing the right wing wants is to reproduce the American experiment on a worldwide basis.... imagine the outrage if someone were to suggest a "bicameral" UN, where each nation-state was equal in one chamber, and in the other chamber power was apportioned based on nation-state population!

“…but to say that he will "easily" be confirmed just seems to fly against the evidence. Did you read Pete Domenici's comments?”

Pete Domenici says the he is “lukewarm about this appointment." Such a cautiously worded utterance likely means that John Bolton will receive a number of tough questions from the senator---but ultimately the New Mexico representative will vote in his favor. Am I right to describe the process as easy? OK, I concede that this might be a bit of an exaggeration. Nonetheless, the reality is that Bolton’s confirmation is a foregone conclusion. Only a sex or a financial scandal could doom this nomination. Are there perhaps any pictures of Bolton having sex with a kangaroo available?

Are there perhaps any pictures of Bolton having sex with a kangaroo available?

hell, given the GOP's willingness to support nominees associated with death squads, state sponsored terrorism, and the advocacy of torture, it would have to be a picture of Bolton getting it on with a boy Kangaroo! :)

Another thing that is in John Bolton’s favor is the low quality of much of his opposition. The Democrats have Howard Dean, Nancy Peolosi, and Harry Reid as their champions. Is this really the best that they can do? Did Karl Rove pick these people? When will the Democrats replace these less than adequate leaders?

David,
What? You mesmerized by your posts? Put the corresponding Repub names in the same sentence. Just as ludicrous, no?

David, why do Republicans so frequently bemoan the quality of the Democratic leadership? It's usually the hard-core ones too; I don't hear this stuff from moderates. Would you describe yourself as a partisan Republican? If so, why the solicitous regard for the quality of the opposing party's leadership?

When did you begin to be disturbed by the quality of the Dem leadership? Was it around the time when President Bush's approval ratings reached the windy side of 50%?

I don't believe for a minute in the sincerity of this line of argument. I think you guys got addicted to the lack of real opposition from 2001-2003. All through the Right blogosphere, I have seen it repeated over and over and over again, variously formulated: "Rove couldn't have picked a better leader than Dean for the Dems." It's another of your clever talking points. Those work great on the Beltway chatterocracy, but here in Steve's comments, I am calling you out.

I, for one, am pleased to see leaders in the Democratic Party who have ideas about how to move this country forward, and the courage of their convictions. But hey ... I'm a Democrat, so maybe I have less of an interest than you in seeing the Democratic Party well-led.

“I don't believe for a minute in the sincerity of this line of argument.”

I thought my sarcasm was obvious. Joseph Lieberman was my preference for president in 2004. Other than that, I am indeed a hard core Republican. What could have ever given you the opposite impression?

“When did you begin to be disturbed by the quality of the Dem leadership? Was it around the time when President Bush's approval ratings reached the windy side of 50%?”

The Republicans have the presidency, the US Senate, and the House of Representatives. It therefore seems obvious that the Democrats are doing something wrong. The main question is this: how do the swing voters perceive Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean? We convinced Democrats and Republicans don’t really matter. It is the middle of the roaders who count. What do the pollsters report? Does anyone know?

PS: And yes, I do think that Karl Rove is ecstatic over the selection of these three individuals as high profile leaders of the Democratic Party. I can imagine him praying every night: “Thank you Lord! Why are you so good to me?”

I'm reminded of Heritage Foundation and their funding/pushing of Project 21 and the Reverend Peterson.

His whole ouevre is attacking Jackson, Sharpton, and the Congressional Black Caucus. I wonder how often they say stuff like "Have you ever noticed how black people are always late?" as Peterson did in front of a mostly white Heritage Foundation crowd recently. He's not charismatic and he's not smart, but Heritage has money, and he's willing to take it.

I'm not so sure Silver City is all that cool, but maybe I am misremembering. I lived for a few years in Albuquerque, and remember hearing that, wasn't it Silver City, had 40% of the population unemployed and drunk in the streets. Not sure whether the report was trying to slur the locals or was describing their plight for pity.

Xenophobia (Tancredo, Rohrbacher, Flake) is definitely on the rise. Also in Europe. It's both a function of the increased number of immigrants as a percent of the total (over the 100 year average of 10%, nearing 12%, and rising) and terrorism. It is happening in Europe, too. Belgium, Netherlands, and France, I know, have seen increased success of "Nativist" candidates since 9/11.

Oh, the highest I know of in terms of immigrants as a percentage of the population was in the 1910-1925 period, also know for the rise of the second wave of the Klan, based in Indiana, which concentrated on immigrants.

It reached 15% at that time.

I lived in Silver City for 6 years.

It's a great place to visit.
But I'd never live there again. Never.

In fact when I left there, I damn near created a website to vent my anger at the place--

For example the locals don't have enough sense not to litter. The highways are dump zones. It's absolutely stunning. People literally throw whole bags of garbage out their car windows.

There is no zoning to speak of. You can trailerize your property to your heart's content. No government body is going to say a thing. It's the wild west overrun with trailers. Worse, few people have any pride of ownership. In fact I invented this phrase to describe my neighbors: "your backyard is your junkyard is your frontyard is your sideyard."

Dogs run free and absolutely NEVER STOP BARKING.
In fact, I regard Silver City as the Dog Bark capital of the Western World. I never could crank up the music loud enough to obliterate the endless yips. The place was a full-lunged nightmare.

Well water has way too much copper in it.

There's an angry core of ranchers living there who hate ecologists.

The town is totally full of loud pickup trucks without any smog devices on them at all. They totally befoul the air for the few bicyclists, runners, and walkers.

The Gila National Forest is overrun with cattle. You can't hike on YOUR public lands without worrying about stepping in cow shit-- it's everywhere.

It blows like hell in the Spring. In fact the town has a history of relying on the windy season to remove the litter.

Why did I move there? Property taxes are practically nothing.

What did I learn from living there?
Sometimes you get what you pay for (less than nothing).

All that being said there are some heroic people there. Forest guardians fighting to keep the cattle from turning your forest totally into cow shit. Hippies growing organic vegetables along the Gila, and bringing that wonderful produce into town on Saturday morning.

But I'd never go back. Even if the hippies were to someday outnumber the rednecks.

Because one thing I learned real well. The hippies, the cowboys, the rednecks, the hispanics--even though they are overtly and covertly at odds with one another (and you have to live there to feel the hate)--they all have one major thing in common: a love of barking dogs.

I suspect that people there must be raised from the craddle with dogs going off like fireworks.

No...Silver City is a great place to visit. It can enchant in the short term. Even lure and seduce. But once you get past the fake folksy allure of a small town (where everyone waves)-- and sense the animosity and terrible gossip that grips the place--and see the litter and hear the dogs at 2AM--you will be happy again for rules, goverment, order, civic decency, and the anonymity of the big town with big minds.

Silver City?
Been there. Done with that.

Josh,

Xenophobia? I couldn't let that one go by. How is opposing a mass influx of illegal immigrants "xenophobic?" It is called opposing criminals who break US immigration law. Do you know that 95% of LA's outstanding homocide warrants are for illegal aliens? That is not a typo, 95%, there is no paper trail on this people so they just run around busting caps in people.
2/3 of outstanding felony warrants in LA are for illegals. In Harris County, Houston, 26% of hospital distict admits are illegals who get FREE health care. Except its not free, I and every one of my neighbors pay for this crap.
Who pays to educate illegals' kids? Americans, certainly not the illegals. Anyone (not you) who says that opposing the illegal aliens is racist is in fact a race baiter of the worst kind.
And anyone who says this is "xenophobic" is just plain wrong. Most of my friends here in Texas have no problem with LEGAL immigration; in fact I live in close proximity with about 10 of them as neighbors and I like them fine.

“Xenophobia? I couldn't let that one go by. How is opposing a mass influx of illegal immigrants "xenophobic?"”

It is indeed absurd to describe those concerned by massive illegal immigration as bigots. This is a legitimate issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with race and ethnicity. The United States has every right to protect its borders. Both the Democrats and Republicans shy away from this issue. We must demand that our elected officials enforce our laws.

I also live in the Houston area. Most of my neighbors are not Caucasian. I am usually the “minority” person when I enter the surrounding stores. This fact doesn’t bother me in the least.

"xenophobia" is not restricted to concerns about illegal aliens. Its a reflection of the hyper-nationalistic posture taken by the John Bolton's of our nation. Its the contempt exhibited to other cultures by John Bolton and shown in his statement regarding getting rid of tens floors of the UN Building.

Making Bolton the UN ambassador is like putting an embezzler in charge of the Federal Reserve. Arguments over the competence of the embezzler are irrelevant -- he's obviously the wrong man for the job.

(If right-wingers were really concerned about illegal aliens, they would have screamed bloody murder about the miniscule fine imposed on Walmart for using illegal immigrant labor to clean its store. The $11 million dollar fine represents less than 0.004% of Walmart's annual sales -- and less than one-half of one percent of this year's dividend payout for Walmart. If you want to deal with the illegal immigrant problem, the best way is to send a message to employers that they will lose their business if they give illegals jobs. A 11 billion dollar fine --- and some time in Federal prison for Walmart executives --- would have done more to end illegal immigration than all the border patrols we can muster.)

David Broder, on the MTP Bush sycophancy program yesterday, praised both Bolton and Wolfowitz as "quality" nominees, with Bush fortunate to have them on board.

“Xenophobia? I couldn't let that one go by. How is opposing a mass influx of illegal immigrants "xenophobic? ”For those of you unfamiliar with Texanese -- Mr. Thompson’s vituperative spew has a long and somewhat undistinguished lineage in Texas.

Texans seldom if ever acknowledge that the core reason for creating the “republic of texas” was so that it could become a slave state – so much for “freedom and liberty.” The Mexican government would not give them permission to reintroduce slavery to Texas; hence the war against those slave-loving southern cowards. The second ghastly part of that legacy has been an unremitting hatred of Hispanics – IMHO mostly from a sense of guilt since Texans stole the land from Mexico in order to establish a slave state. As a result, Anglo-Texans when they are around “folks like themselves” start the Texan Meskin rant, i.e., that “they” are criminals, stealing goods and services, etc. BTW, please notice the pervasive use of theft and criminality throughout Mr. Thompson's Meskin rant.

Just a few other notes, Texas declared that its borders were the Rio Bravo [Rio Grande to you] - and New Mexicans disagreed. Note that the coward's border does not extend to the Rio Bravo in the current state of New Mexico - since they got their butts whipped and outfoxed by the Hispanos in Nuevo Mejico. Their only holdout was to steal a thin sliver off of New Mexico due to a "surveying accident." And yes, the dispute still continues today with Texans defending this theft with a "get over it" defense.

IMHO, Texans are a craven bunch who’ve organized their lives around cheap illegal labor since day one. Mostly IMHO because they are too lazy to do any hard work and too greedy to pay a decent living wage - maybe this is the Texan way to keep the dream and hope of slavery alive. So they prance around in their “Whiteness” while pissing and moaning about their “Meskin problem.”

BTW Texans for a number of years tried to withhold citizenship from Hispanos born in Texas. It took many years of litigation before Hispanos could become citizens -- and golly gee -- I guess the reason that you had to be a citizen to own land could not have been the rationale behind their legal reasoning.

BTW, Billy the Kid hated Texans and IMHO would have detested the xenophobic John Bolton - he fought with the Mexicanos which is why he became a "villian."

David,

How should the United Nations be modified?

Do you believe Bolton is a skilled negoatiator?

Sadly, however, the picture implies that this sign is IN the Gila. It is not! AlthoughI think it a silly sign, it must be noted that it resides on the fence of a private dwelling on the road to the Gila, but some four miles out of the forest, on the road to Pinos Altos, a small town, with a very good bar called The Buckhorn Tavern, which one must pass through, and then travel another couple of miles before entering the Gila.
Mr Blumenthal does himself no good by suggesting that this sign in WITHIN a wilderness area, thereby implying that the government has something to do with its placement.
There is quite enough wrong withthe Forest Service, the BLM and Interior generally....we needn't accuse them of that which they aren't guilty of!

> The Republicans have the presidency, the US Senate, and the > House of Representatives. It therefore seems obvious that the > Democrats are doing something wrong.

Yes indeed ... they've been taking too much advice from those who would rather see them fail!

"How should the United Nations be modified?"

Roger L. Simon says it best: “Above all, we should be looking for one thing - economic transparency. Without that, reform will be a charade.”

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/03/kofis_correctio.php

"Do you believe Bolton is a skilled negoatiator?"

Theis is what they teach you in Salesmanship 101: Start the negotiations with a high price---and you can always go down. John Bolton’s foes are the type of people who start low and foolishly hope to increase the price. Police departments throughout the world are famous for employing the bad cop/good cop routine. We need to have John Bolton “beat up” some of the silly people at the United Nations so that Condi Rice can come behind him and get them to cooperate.

Ah, the "UN Free Zone" signs. Every time the Ron Paul Republicans get together, they tack up those signs all over the convention center. Indeed, they're probably the lone reason the New World Order armies haven't invaded Dallas yet.

David, so the more unreasonable the initial position the better the negotiator?

When Bolton criticized the UN in the past, was transparency the top issue he raised?