Steve,
even if Bolton were to lose (and this is unlikely), aren't you already fighting a losing battle?

In February, the WaPost cited Democratic strategists who "worry that the influence of grass-roots activists could push the party even further to the left, particularly on national security, reinforcing a weakness that Bush exploited in his reelection campaign."

and "the belief by some of those activists [like those in MoveOn] that Democrats can solve their problems by playing more directly to their core constituents ignores several realities, particularly the question of whether voters see Democrats as strong enough to win the war on terrorism."

One might argue that some fights are worth waging regardless of outcome. Is unified Democrat committee opposition a surprise? As I see it, the fight you are waging (independent from the outcome) has only negative consequences for Democrats. Whether Bolton wins or loses, Democrats once again will be viewed outside the beltway as the party that will not "stand up for America."

Sean...quite the reverse actually. No Bush diplomatic nominee has ever been uniformly opposed by Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The fact is moderate Republicans despise Bolton as well -- they do. Party tectonics are complicating them voting their conscience -- but Bolton is not only a despicable choice for this job, but he is more beatable than various other bad choices that progressives and centrists might want to contest.

Voting for Bolton is a vote against American interests. I am generally a subscriber to ethical realism if you want to give it a name. And Bolton is the antithesis of most of what I believe is in the hard-core, unsentimental interests of the United States.

You are right that what is happening is that we are developing monarchial habits that votes against our President's wishes are somehow tainted as un-American or not "standing up for America." When in fact, the debate about these issues is a most precious American value.

I am fighting Bolton -- win or lose -- because it was the right battle to wage. He will be constrained by my (and our collective) efforts if he gets the job -- but I am working hard to see that he is assigned elsewhere.

He and I will no doubt meet one day -- and we have met before. I will be principled and civil. I won't run from the fact that I worked vigorously to oppose him and that he is the wrong man for this important job.

I hope he will be civil too -- and if he does get the UN position, he can defy the gravity of his life, and turn magically into the kind of diplomat we deserve -- but that responsibility lies with him. I have no faith in that kind of "hope" in the improvement in someone's character, accountability, and performance.

Best to you -- and good to hear from you,

Steve

Steve,
the distinction of diplomatic nominee from other Bush nominees is clear to you and I . . . but frankly this is an inside the beltway distinction. Even though I live in a Blue state, any nuance of such a distinction will be lost on most of us. Certainly, it will be lost in West Virginia (in 2006) and Nevada. That moderate Republicans despise Bolton will not change the politics of opposition to him. The Democrats still lose.

As for voting their conscience, this may sometimes happen. But as you know, votes by both Republicans and Democrats are pragmatic in the end.

Time will tell. And I know you will always remain civil in this debate. And when you meet Bolton again one day, he will probably not hold it against you. Nor will Rove!

Take care my friend.

Here are a list of people who may ultimately decide this issue:

1.)Ann Althouse
2.) Roger L. Simon
3.) Glenn Reynolds
4.) Meryl Yourish
5.) Stephen Green
6.) Megan McArdle
7.) Jeff Jarvis
8.) Michael Totten

What do they all have in common? These bloggers are all social liberals who felt that they had no choice but to vote for President Bush. Will they support John Bolton? If they do---then Steve and his buddies will go down in flames. Am I crazy? Am I exaggerating the power of bloggers most Americans have never heard of? Nope, not in the least.

Steve, on a different subject, what do you think about the mounting Chinese effort to keep Japan off of the Security Council? (see today's NYT) Clearly, Chinese opposition to Japan gaining a permanent seat makes sense. But it seems to me that Japan has, in various ways, been using the UN to multiply its power internationally for decades, and has been angling for a permanent seat for a long while. How do you think this will play out?

I like Russ Feingold. I like him so much he's my first choice Dem for Prez in 2008.

However, I'm gonna put on my cynicism hat and ask, would Feingold be more likely to vote to confirm Bolton if he wasn't considering a presidential run?

Well, I just checked how he voted on Rice and Gonzales. Feingold voted to confirm Rice and not Gonzales.

IMO Rice proved herself incompetent as NSA voting to confirm her seems consistent with Feingold's past votes of giving a high degree of deferrence to the Prez. If Bush wants an incompetent SoS he should be allowed to have one.

Gonzales garnered almost three times as many "no" votes as Rice. I assume Feingold thought Gonzales crossed the line from passive incompetence to actively promoting policy that was dubiously legal. And the AG position has law enforcement responsibilities that sometimes conflict with the Prez's interests. So having someone with a history of putting loyalty ahead of the law is a bigger prob than having a dingbat as SoS.

What's this suggest about how Feingold will vote on Bolton? Feingold will almost certainly not vote against Bolton on ideological grounds. If Bush wants to have a lousy negotiator that has enemies among the people he's gonna negotiate with, that's Bush's right.

Do Bolton's transgressions in other areas justify voting against confirmation?

Methinks the things that will tip Feingold against Bolton are the history of deceiving Congress and generally resisting legitimate Congressional oversight. If the Senate had legitimate questions about US mission to the UN would they be able to get quality info from Bolton?

In February, the WaPost cited Democratic strategists who "worry that the influence of grass-roots activists could push the party even further to the left, particularly on national security, reinforcing a weakness that Bush exploited in his reelection campaign."--Sean

Would those be the same Dem strategists that engineered Kerry's victory in 2004? Or the ones that have written the playbook for Dem Congressional campaigns in the last six cycles?

Sean, do you want the Democrats to do well? Why should Democrats take advice from Republicans?

Wolfowitz. I saw him on CSPAN giving a press conference yesterday. Unfortunately, he totally buys into this World Bank concept: blowing U.S tax dollars on madcap schemes supposedly to end 3rd world poverty. All the liberals should be whooping it up because I couldn't tell anything different from what he was saying and what all these socialist activist groups yap about all the time.
My man Jim Rogers has been on the ground in the 3rd world, unlike many diplomats running around in limos and attending high rent hand- wringing conferences in places like Davos and Aspen, and he says the World Bank, IMF and the NGOs are just a big scam that lines the pockets of the ones giving and receiving the loot ...i.e. Taxpayer's Money ... uh, aid.

My plan for stopping AIDS in Africa: quit raping virgins, it won't cure you. Abstinence, 100% foolproof. Use a condom, works "most" of the time.
I think it is wrong to use U.S. taxpayer money to stop AIDS in Africa or even here. If people don't want AIDS then they need to take Personal Responsibility for their lives. And the more Big Government is involved, the less personally responsible people will be, and the more failures you will have.
What are they trying to do: cause over-population in Africa so they can enact another "one-child policy" and have another girl-less demographic nightmare.
I think Maureen Dowd needs to try her luck in China. The "boys" might appreciate her a little more over there, because thanks to the UN and Western NGOs with a God Complex, the pickings are mighty slim.
I hope its true the Bush Administation is not funding that AIDS boondoggle.

Morrow is being ironic, right? His posts are parodies?

wren, I think Morrow is an example of how Bolton's supporters really feel about stuff.

Sad isn't it?

Steve, your points on opposing Bolton are rigt on. Worrying about whether or not Democrats will look like obstructionists is a chump's game that plays right into the hands of the republican leadership. Franken had a guest last week that stated it perfectly. (I'm paraphrasing) "The Democrats still act like they're the ruling party in exile. They are starting to get used to the fact that they are now the opposition party." The sooner we realize that the better. Do you know what the opposition party does? It opposes the party in power. The pendulum will swing back, if it's not swinging already. Will the Democrats be there to catch it? We won't if we keep worrying about opposing Bush because it's "UnAmerican". Nothing could be more American than opposing this administration!

“Will the Democrats be there to catch it?”

I preferred voting for Senator Joseph Lieberman in the last election. Other than that, I usually vote Republican. My advice is unsolicited, but what the heck. I never hesitate to shoot my mouth off. Your above sentence needs to be slightly revised to read:

“Will the liberal Democrats be there to catch it?”

Al Franken represents the far left wing of the Democratic Party. If he is indeed part of the “mainstream”---then the Democrats will remain on the outside looking in for many years into the distant future. I am not trying to be rude, but many of the commenters on this blog must be hidden away on election day! The Democratic Party does not want the swing voters to even know that these people even exist. And I’m sure that Stanley Greenberg, Paul Begala, James Carville, and other party advisors agree with me completely. Hillary Clinton will likely run for president in 2008. She will not let Al Franken and his crew anywhere near her.

Kudos to Steve for waging the most cool-headed campaign against Bolton I've seen so far. As for Sean's concern about the Dems looking like they can't win the so-called War on Terror, hell, they've already allowed themselves to be tarred with that brush to the point where they're pretty useless on the topic. Meanwhile, there are all manner of juicy investigations they could launch about, say, why there's no money for uniforms for the guys who work in the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or how the new personnel systems proposed for the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security virtually shut down whistleblower protections, putting troops and the American public at peril.

I mean, with some decent messaging and a vigorous investigation or two, Bush could start to look pretty soft on terror himself.

Regarding Feingold, well, I'm still praying for the will to forgive him for confirming Ashcroft.

"And I’m sure that Stanley Greenberg, Paul Begala, James Carville, and other party advisors agree with me completely."

I, for one, really hope that the above-listed clowns aren't still running things come 2008 (or 2006, for that matter). That is not to say that Dems should run left; it's just that the old plans of the old advisors don't work all that well.

Back on topic, I would hope that Steve et al.'s work is instrumental in stopping the Bolton appointment. If it is not, then I feel positive that John will do his best to bring on Armageddon.

Therefore, keep up the great work!

I read a great deal of supposedly informed speculation about Wolfowitz and his World Bank nomination. Many analysts predicted a bit of choppy waters for him, with France and Germany possibly voting outright to reject him. Other EU members openly spoke of wanting to speak with other candidates. So, what happens? He's unanimously approved of course, not a hint of dissent, smiles all around. I'll believe Bolton gets a legitimate, determined and vociferous hard time on the way to the U.N. around the same time I see Bushco$ tell the truth about ANYTHING.

Hi

I wouldn't vote for John Bolton as UN Ambassoner.

This Man is on this same Page as Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Alberto Gonzeles, I think they Need Him, Because Bush has Offended Kofi Annan confusing him with his son in "The Oil for Food Scandal" whichs makes no sense anyway.

I get it Bush hired Bolton, so can continue to Beat Up Saddam Hussien, We did Enough Damage to Iraq Already, We do we need anymore.

Steve:

take a look at this- http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/216/meet-john-bolton-the-anti-diplomat

“The nomination of Undersecretary of State John Bolton brings a seasoned member to the Diplomatic team that will represent us through some very difficult times ahead. . . .Undersecretary Bolton has been an outspoken critic of the United Nations (UN). However, I have been assured that he will bring a more balanced approach to his new role . . .”

---Senator Lincoln Chafee

Senator Chafee will almost certainly vote in favor of John Bolton’s nomination. The latter gentleman will have to act like a fool during the hearing to mess this up. What about Chuck Hagel? I’m sure that he feels the same way. Furthermore, Hagel is more than hinting that he will run for president in 2008. Voting against Bolton will doom his chances.

What will Bolton's appointment mean for international cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan? Bad things, of course.

Before everyone jumps up and says the UN isn't helping anyway, they should review the UN's role in both elections and decide if pre-empting any future role for the UN is in our best interests. The UN is much better at nation-building than we are alone.

And I'm sure our troops would appreciate some of the burden being taken off them.

Dave Thompson: "Hagel is more than hinting that he will run for president in 2008. Voting against Bolton will doom his chances."

You're assuming that if Bolton is appointed, Bush's dealings with the UN will be viewed as successful. This is a leap of faith even if you only consider Republicans voting in primaries.

The "get us out of the UN" Republicans are loud today, but the "reform the UN" Republicans have a better argument, and so do the "get the UN into Iran, Syria, Sudan, North Korea and Iraq" Republicans.

Republican candidates may be trying to distance themselves from Bush/Cheney by 2008, or at least setting a new course.

“The "get us out of the UN" Republicans are loud today”

No, they are not. These individuals have been marginalized out of the party. The odds are overwhelming that a staunch “get us out of the UN” individual is hostile towards President Bush. John Bolton claims that he wants to reform the UN and not destroy the institution. This is why I repeatedly say that some of you are inadvertently helping him to become our next UN ambassador. You describe Bolton as some screaming nut case who eats children for breakfast. The reality is that he is normally soft spoken and speaks in measured tones.

I only said Bolton ate part of one child for breakfast once. I've always maintained that it was an isolated incident.

But my point was that he is a soft spoken nut case who, in addition to experimenting cannibalism, may end up being deservedly unpopular with voters by 2008.

A unanimous (unless anyone missed the irony in that word, UNanimous) vote against Bolton by the Democrats is great, but my goal is to have the Democrats link their vote "no" to a broader and long term goal. We need to begin setting out long term goals defined by our party alone, and not simply as a responce to the radical right.

"We need to begin setting out long term goals defined by our party alone, and not simply as a responce to the radical right."

How are you defining "radical right?" My hunch is that you are unwittingly including a number of people who normally vote Democratic. Are you aware that liberal Martin Peretz is now praising President Bush? He is the editor-in-chief of The New Republic:

“Bush, it now seems safe to say, is one of the great surprises in modern U.S. history. Nothing about his past suggested that he harbored these ideals nor the qualities of character required for their realization. Right up to the moment Bush became president, I was convinced that his mind, at least on matters Levantine, belonged to his father and to James Baker III, whose worldview seemed to be defined by the pecuniary prejudice of oil and Texas: Keep the ruling Arabs happy. But I was wrong, and, in light of what has already been achieved in the Middle East, I am glad to say so. Most American liberals, alas, enjoy no similar gladness. They are not exactly pleased by the positive results of Bush's campaign in the Middle East. They deny and resent and begrudge and snipe. They are trapped in the politics of churlishness.”

http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050411&s=peretz041105

David,
I really have to wonder about your statement that Al Franken represents the far left-wing of the Democratic party. After reading one of his books and listening to his show I don't find anything that indicates that he is to far from the mainstream. I will have to admit that coming from the same generation as Franken I'm not put off by his sense of humor.
As far as radical right I looked at wikkipedia.com and the definition of radical linked to reactionary which I think defines a lot of the current Republican party.
Classical 19th century reactionaries and their heirs idealized either feudalism or the pre-modern era that preceded the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution when economies were largely agrarian, the landed aristocracy dominated society, a king was on the throne and the church was the moral centre of society. Thus, reactionaries once favoured the aristocracy over the middle class and the working class, even though they later favoured the conservative bourgeoisie. In that context, reactionaries are against democracy and parliamentarism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary
Now for my simple view of Bolton as UN ambassador. If a man does not care enough about an institution to bring his best efforts to the job then he does not belong there.

Beat me to it, Mark!

But of course, Republicans must ALWAYS pretend that even Weepin' Joe Lieberman -- who just can't wait to run onto FOX News and trash Democrats -- is Fidel Castro. So of course Mr. Thomson's going to claim that Al Franken is a Commie.

You know what? Better a "Commie" like Franken -- or a REAL Commie like Fidel -- than a member of the modern-day White Citizens Council: http://www.militia-watchdog.org/ccc.asp

Phoenix,
I really don't want to go down the path of name calling. One of the things that I like about Steve is that he seems to be very reasoned and fair in his commentary.
I just have this big question in my mind. How in the world do you define far left-wing radical? As far as I knew those types of radicals faded with the end of the 60's civil rights and anti-war movements.
I would like to add my average Joe comment about the United Nations. The planet has grown to 6 billion people with no end in sight. The United States does not have the resources to pursue an isolationist policy and with competion for resources, pollution, and just the general fact that we are literally starting to trip over each other it's in the best interest of everyone that we learn to cooperate. As far as scandals like oil for food, let's fix the problems, not trash the institution.

Anyone dumb enough to fall for this "Bush's progress in the middle east" thing qualifies for public assistance for those with IQ of less than 80. Things are not better resultant his actions, they are worse and getting worser every day. What stroke of genius to spend $300billion plus, kill tens and tens of thousands, create a mess in Iraq that will take at least 10 years, if ever, to clean up? Dumb enough to believe such is one thing, but to post it with your name????

Republicans are fond of repeating "United We Stand" on bumper stickers and the like.

But the Neo Con led GOP scorns consensus and standing united. The Neo Con led GOP prefers to be as divisive as possible as long as it helps them get power and control.

re: the United Nations. It is not "isolationist" to oppose the UN. I was for the Iraq war, hardly isolationist. Being anti-UN does not equal unilateral either. I was for a multilateral invasion of Iraq involving the USA, France, Germany and Russia etc. It was those players who were not multilateral but the reality is they were in a multi-billion dollar bed with a tyrant who 1) was destabilizing the region 2) twice had nuclear ambitions 3)had attempted to assassinate a former US president AFTER the 1st gulf war. Saddam had to go.
The unelected UN (25% dictators)thinks its ok to ask the world for .7% of its GDP and if you don't want to give money to this unaccountable group, then you are "stingy."
If the UN will fund, support and promote an evil "one child" policy with Chinese dicatators, think what else they will do. How many of you are not firstborn children? If you are #2, #3 or beyond YOU are illegal in China. Ted (5 kids) Turner, the UN and the Chinese government thinks this is a wonderful idea. There was no referendum on that; no parliament voted on that. It was forcibly imposed on the Chinese people from above.
That is what I mean when I talk about the God Complex mentality of the UN.
I think a good reform for China would be democracy and elections. When was the last time you heard the UN talk about that? They won't even seat Taiwan. Or in Saudi Arabia? Or the other 25% of the General Assembly that are full bore authoritarian governments. Does the UN ever, ever, ever talk about internal democratic reforms in these places? Not on the agenda.
That is because the agenda of the UN is to suck money, power and national sovereignty from the USA. Period. US policy makers of both political parties make a big mistake by supporting the UN because they want to use it to leverage US power to do things. Such as peacekeepers; the US doesn't want to send its own soldiers all over world babysitting hot spots so it pays the UN to send poorly trained soldiers from 3rd world countries like France, Uruguay, Morocco, Pakistan and Nepal to do this on the cheap.
But the price we pay by supporting the UN is loss of national sovereignty and erosion of democracy. The UN was not founded on democracy so you should not expect it to promote it. It is a winner's circle relic of WWII. The UN is constantly sticking its tentacles and trying to affect the way the average American lives his life. They think they own Yellowstone National Park. Look at that international court's decision to give Mexican nationals convicted of murder in the USA more rights than US citizens. I could give a hundred examples.
So the real question is multinational on what terms. We could not function without trade with the world including dictators like China, but they should have ZERO say so in our internal affairs.
We should be multinational when it suits our national interest, not multinational for the sake of being multinational. If it involves other countries getting control of our military or demanding we give them a bunch of money - .7% of GDP is the opening bid from the UN quacks, then I think being a "unilateralist" is a great place to be. First they tell you when you can use military force, then they get total control of your military; it's a 2 step program. The UN is not competent to fly a black helicopter, yet they presume to tell the US when it can use force to defend itself?
Opposing the UN is not the same as being an isolationist or an unilateralist. It means realizing that this is a sham organization, unworthy of support, that undermines democracy, human rights and sovereignty. -- Robert Morrow

“I just have this big question in my mind. How in the world do you define far left-wing radical? “

Who called anyone a radical? My words were far more cautious than that:

“Al Franken represents the far left wing of the Democratic Party.”

The term “radical” often implies that someone may be willing to break the law to advance their political agenda. I am not even beginning to hint that Al Franken is a radical in the sense of Abbie Hoffman. Does he represent the far left wing of the Democratic Party? Absolutely! One merely needs to refer to the available polling data. The heck with what I’ve got to say. I can categorically state that if any Democratic Party presidential nominee boldly advanced Al Franken’s policy suggestions---that they would lose by at least 15 points in the general election.

“Anyone dumb enough to fall for this "Bush's progress in the middle east" thing qualifies for public assistance for those with IQ of less than 80.”

Excuse me, do you have any idea who Martin Peretz is? Does The New Republic mean anything to you? Peretz is a well known supporter of the Democratic Party. He is a close friend of Al Gore. Peretz is not a member of the Radical Right!

Good debate.

Carl Nyberg,
with respect to your question "Sean, do you want the Democrats to do well? Why should Democrats take advice from Republicans?"

Republicans are varied, as are Democrats to their inclination to offer complete allegiance to a political party. Some want their party to win at all costs. Many instead opt for a certain set of values, beliefs, etc. to be promoted. Zell Miller is a good example, as are many Republicans who have left the administration and who have written kiss-and-tell books. Many Republicans for example have what are considered "traditional" liberal beliefs. Some might support Kennedy (that's JFK not Teddy) if he were alive today. Traditional liberal values are not owned by the Democratic party. Likewise, libertarian values are clearly not owned by the current Republican party.

Partisans like many of us are who believe in certain principles should be open to whichever party best serves promotion of policies that fit one's core beliefs. And even if one chooses a party, this does not mean that one supports all of its elements. A Republican who values traditional liberal values may realize that a Republican party with monopoly power may not be good in the long run. A vibrant Democratic party will help balance the fringe elements in the Republican party. You might argue likewise if tables were turned and Democrats held all branches of government (including the courts.)

But wouldn’t I still prefer the Democratic party to return to traditional core values? Of course! Who would you rather sit next to Democratic ex-presidents at the 2008 convention? I would rather see Lieberman or a moderate Democrat sitting in the next chair? I imagine that many Democratic activists (along with Rove) would prefer Michael Moore, Gavin Newsom, Robert Byrd etc. gaining that prominent role.

Dave,
Considering all the baloney that you've attempted to sell this blog, you may as well categorically state whatever you wish. We'll consider the source and move on. You do provide some incredulous theories that provide moments of levity but your frequency can be somewhat irritating. That is one negative aspect of free speech.
Martin Peretz? I decided to google him and what did I find? Go ahead you do it-but you already know. He is another dual loyalist just like you. I believe that that condition if you refuse to own up to borders on treason. Why don't you and people who feel like you-and it is mostly feeling-cop to the charge: You see Israel's interests being at least as important as US interests and you "feel" Israel's even stronger? Be honest.

"Are you aware that liberal Martin Peretz is now praising President Bush? He is the editor-in-chief of The New Republic..."

Oh, Please! The magazine's politics are sometimes liberal, but NEVER when it comes to Israel. Peretz has nothing but praise for Bush when it comes to his so called achievements in the Middle East. In fact he said, "Bush's empathy for the government in Israel is particularly remarkable."

The New Republic under Peretz has devolved into the New Republican.

Forget Hilary, she has been compromised.Just like Tom Daschle, Joe Leiberman and so many others who have learned to kow-tow. Senator Paul Wellstone was an honourable man whom could not be compromised. Any questions?

“dual loyalist”

“Oh, Please! The magazine's politics are sometimes liberal, but NEVER when it comes to Israel. Peretz has nothing but praise for Bush when it comes to his so called achievements in the Middle East. In fact he said, "Bush's empathy for the government in Israel is particularly remarkable."”

So we are returning once again to the subject of Israel. How very interesting. The evidence is abundantly clear that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is contemptuous towards the most democratic and noble country in the Middle East. Yup, I can just imagine the next Democratic presidential nominee running on that platform. And some of you claim that John Bolton is the extremist? I’m sure that Steve Clemons finds it ironic. A few years back, Michael Lind was giving hell to the Republican Party over a dumb book written by Pat Robertson. Lind was irate that the Republicans seemed to cater to Pat Buchanan and others suspected of anti-Semitism. It is 2005 and now the shoe is on the other foot. The Democratic Party has a crisis it better not run away from if it hopes to survive.

"most democratic and noble country in the Middle.."

Democratic yes, but noble? Under Sharon? Sorry, no. He is brutal, deceitful and now, thanks to Bush, unrestrained.

Dave,
Didn't want to answer my question, I see. Duplicitous at best and treasonous at worst. Don't attempt to paint me with that colourless brush of yours. I have no use for Democrats or Republicans. I grant they are the two most popular political parties in America, but they are both highly corrupt. And I am not contemptuous of any foreign nation. I am contemptuous of those in my country who want to undermine its existence by cheat and deceit in the interests of ANY foreign nation and you appear to be one of those.

Speaking of foreign nations ... the NY Times sure is giving a lot of attention to Zimbabwe, another lovely UN member state. Not only is Zimbabwe on of Parade Magazine's 2005 Top 10 Worst Dictator list, but it sits on the UN's so-called "Human Rights Commission." Not only that, Zimbabwe sits on a key subcommittee that decides which cases are even heard. Wonder why they picked THAT committee?
It looks like Mugabe has rigged another election and is perfectly content to starve his political opponents in the rural areas.
Zimbabwe actually has a vote in the General Assembly and is an UN member nation in good standing.
Apparently Kojo Annan was in on a deal with Mugabe's nephew to build the Harare, Zimbabwe airport:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover020805.htm

I admit that Americans do a lot of crooked things, but at least there is some accountability here with the district attorneys, attorney generals or Congress. I doubt seriously that Kofi Annan has been condemning Mugabe in the past 5 years.

Well I beg to differ:

"Annan was the only leader at the launch of the African Union to criticize Robert Mugabe" - the president of Zimbabwe, who is accused of undermining his country's democracy.

That can be found at http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/072202NoTimeToMinceWords.htm

And as to why he just cannot go around condemning every Dick and Harry publicly, in his words:

"If I ever gave all the details of what I discussed with each head of state, next time I meet them, they will only talk to me about their grandchildren and the weather,"

Unfortunately there is a lot more behind the curtains that Mr. Annan cannot take credit for.

from Kevin's link:

"Without ever singling out Mugabe, Annan warned that the misuse of democracy has consequences. Though the messages are delivered loud and clear, Annan is careful not to brandish his sword too broadly." 7/22/02 Tufts e-news

You made my point perfectly. Annan is so in bed with 3rd world thugs that he will not/ can not publicly tell the truth and call them to task. Not on the agenda. Meanwhile his son Kojo is getting sweetheart deals on the Harare airport.
I want to stress that the UN's problem is not a personnel problem - it is the fact that place even exists; those are the results you get when 25% of a group are anti-democrats. Kofi Annan is irrelevant and so will be his successor.
I admit, unfortunately, that the US has supported 3rd world thugs before and is hypocritical at times on these issues. I don't condone that, but at the same time I don't think we should be involved in a world government (UN) run by them.

I was once lucky enough to be present for a c-span special with the Undersecretary General of Communications for the UN. The quote he stated will stick with me forever:

"The United Nations was not created to bring humanity to heaven, but to prevent it from falling into hell."

If you think about that, the UN is not built to comabat every little human rights issue. This has been a broad misconception even by some of the United Nations staff.

The UN is built for the preservation of the general international peace. It is not built solely for this purpose, and certainly it has expanded over the decades, but this is its central purpose.

Mugabe may be bad, he may be horrible, but he does not as of yet risk plunging the world into another World War (one of the initial reasosn for the UN), and hence the UN has not been focusing much on him. The precedent of Mugabe falsifying the latest elections in Zimbabwe may be an odious precedent and could contribute to any future threat to major international peace, but neither the UN nor even the United States government tend to think that far into the future.

Does that mean I think that the UN should not act on Mugabe? Of course not. I am sad that they are not, but one has to ask themselves if it is the responsibilty of the UN to push for this, or its members? After all, what is the UN supposed to do without clear support for its actions from countries such as the United States? I'm sure that democratic countries such as Japan, Great Britain, and Germany would push for the UN to deal with Mugabe, but where is the US?

Well one may point to our Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's latest press report:

"United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Friday that the Zimbabwe's legislative elections, won by the party of President Robert Mugabe, were neither free nor fair.

"Although the campaign and election day itself were generally peaceful, the election process was not free and fair. The electoral playing field was heavily tilted in the government's favour," said Rice in a statement.

"The United States calls on the Government of Zimbabwe to recognise the legitimacy of the opposition and abandon policies designed to repress, crush and otherwise stifle expressions of differences in Zimbabwe." "

As we all know though, it's one thing to issue a press release, and another to push for real action.

I have a feeling Mr.Morrow that, even though you may dislike the UN, you dislike the UN because you expect more. I expect more too. I expect the UN for one small change to be reformed so that backwards countries LIKE Mugabe's Zimbabwe NEVER get to sit in such chairs as the human rights chair. But we will not have more without greater support from key UN nations such as the United States.

The Mugabe example in particular, notice the correlation between The White House not as of yet making a big deal of the fraudulent elections in Zimbabwe, and how consequently the UN has stayed rather mute besides its usual hand wringing and wrist tapping.

Al Franken represents the far left wing of the Democratic Party. If he is indeed part of the “mainstream”---then the Democrats will remain on the outside looking in for many years into the distant future. I am not trying to be rude, but many of the commenters on this blog must be hidden away on election day! The Democratic Party does not want the swing voters to even know that these people even exist.
This is getting so far down on the list of Steve's post I'm not sure that anyone is even reading it anymore but I wanted to make on last point about the above comment.
Anyone who listens to Air America Radio is probably aware that this week marks the 1 year anniversary of Air America. I think that the spots from John Kerry and several other big name Democrats congratulating them on the birthday put to rest the above comments.

"I think that the spots from John Kerry and several other big name Democrats congratulating them on the birthday put to rest the above comments."

John Kerry? Didn't he lose the last election? Kerry also has the most liberal voting record in the US Senate. Yup, that sure is a winning coalition!

I never expected to be hashng up post-election rhetoric again like Mr. Thomson, but for 49% of America of America to vote for "The most liberal senator" (which he is not, that label was created by a conservative magazine, not any indpendent institute. Kerry and his running mate Edwards are indeed progressives, but here are the most liberal senators:

1. Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
2. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md.
3. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
4. Jon Corzine, D-N.J.
5. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
6. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
7. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
8. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
9. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
10. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt

Mr. Thompson, I hope you will continue to visit this site because it will help you recognize that the republican "talking points" you parrot are propaganda and lies. Stay with us, and, one day, the scales will fall from your eyes and your mind will be enlightened.

Welcome!

Thomson got BURNED!

Props to Susan.

“1) A comprehensive overview of the Senate voting records of John Kerry and John Edwards shows moderate voting records for both men. Here is a breakdown of the liberalism of their voting records in the Senate from 1999 through 2003:

Average: Kerry - 12th (85.9)”

http://mostliberalsenator.blogspot.com/

I will for the sake of the argument concede that John Kerry is not the most liberal US. However, even someone quite friendly towards the Massachusetts senator still ranks him 12th. That is still too liberal! We can take for granted one thing in 2008. John Kerry will not be a likely candidate---and the Democratic Party will at least pretend to be more conservative.

"Props to Susan.

Posted by Kevin Ballie"

Burning trolls is team effort. High fives all around!

I have to wonder if that champion of democracy and human rights George Bush could locate Zimbabwe on a map or identify the name of its leader.

What little Mr. Annan has done eclipses everything that Bush has done. Regions outside of the Middle East cannot wait patiently for the US (Democratic or Republican) to get around to discovering them.

Which brings us back to Bolton. The UN needs to be fixed, not buried. And Bolton won't concern himself with Zimbabwe any more than Bush does.

"John R Bolton cannot be an effective promoter of the US national interest at the UN."

Princeton Lyman, a former ambassador to South Africa and Nigeria

David,
Just for the sake of argument, by using the same methods that you have applied to John Kerry then this is fair game. George Bush is the worst president ever http://worstpresidentever.blogs.com/wpe/ see look there is even a web site devoted to this.
But all this back and forth banter aside, after having John Danforth as UN ambassador couldn't Bush have found a nominee that was of the same caliber.
And my own personal disclaimer: Danforth is from my home state but I have always had a fair amount of admiration for him even though I may not always agree with all his political views.