RSS
Using PayPal
Bush-Cheney Won the 2004 Election: Why are They Still Offending the Sensibilities of Republican Moderates?
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Friday, Apr 29 2005, 10:15AM
The New York Times' Douglas Jehl has an excellent summary of the John Wolf and Robert Hutchings interviews here.
Dafna Linzer's informative Washington Post article on the same subject is available here. I think both sew in different items that are worth considering.
However, John Whitehead steps into the spotlight asking his President and the head of his Republican Party why he is so insistent on someone so wrong for the job.
Whitehead -- a Republican, a former Reagan administration Deputy Secretary of State, former Co-Chairman of Goldman Sachs, and Founding Chairman of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation -- is a key pillar of moderate Republicanism in the country. TWN happens to know that he has been very careful not to publicly cross President Bush, with whom he has had a constructive and useful relationship during Bush's term in office.
It will be interesting to see if the administration is planning to take John Whitehead off the White House Holiday Party list because of his expressing a negative assessment of John Bolton's "fitness" for the U.N. job.
Douglas Jehl writes:
On Thursday, John C. Whitehead, who was deputy secretary of state under President Reagan, said in an interview that he had urged Republican senators to oppose Mr. Bolton's nomination on the ground that Mr. Bolton was "a difficult person to work with" who would not command respect at the United Nations."I think good Republicans, which I like to feel I am, don't like to disagree with the president publicly, and so have been reluctant to speak out against him," Mr. Whitehead said of Mr. Bolton. "But there are other people, in addition to those who have come forth, who would like to see a change made. I don't like to see the president suffer a loss, and I've been hoping that Mr. Bolton would withdraw, having seen the opposition out there."
The President isn't going to read this blog -- but some of his people do.
You owe it to your boss to have him converse with John Whitehead, with Colin Powell, with Richard Armitage, with Warren Rudman, with John Danforth, with Christine Whitman, with Susan Eisenhower, with Brent Scowcroft. I have no idea what these individuals will really say; they may even concur that Bolton can do some good at the U.N.
But they are an important wing of Republican internationalists whom you should be connecting with, President Bush. Your team is out ahead of these important players, and Bolton-Cheneyism is alienating them.
Someone in the White House needs to take a step back and consider the stakes. The mature and balanced thing is to consult.
Vice President Cheney no doubt that the Bolton nomination was going to be a "cake walk."
We have heard those words before -- and this time it is very much in President Bush's interests to consider all options.
To do that well, he ought to make some phone calls to the people above.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - Bill Richardson's Role in the Bolton NSA Transcripts Story» Next Article - More State Department Colleagues Testify to Bolton's "Rogue Behavior"
I agree, Steve. There are many of us moderates who strongly don't approve of Bolton's nomination, and Whitehead's words are music to our ears.
Some phone calls are certainly in order.
- Charging RINO
www.chargingrino.com
Clemons,
You bring a sensible confidence to these discussions that I find missing in so much of the commentary in the blogworld. I was inclined to support Bush's decision on Bolton, but I have to admit that day after day, your commentary and reports have swayed me. If I was a member of that Committee, I would be a Republican NO vote.
I applaud what you are doing, and if you are saluted in the National Journal magazine, buck up and take it like the man you are.
I just want to say that one of the things I very much like about the way you write and maintain your blog is that you tolerate and welcome dissent, something none of us do all that well and certainly not me. Good for you for doing that. It's amusing that the dudes at ConfirmBolton.com delete stuff they don't like. Sort of like Bolton. NO POLICY DIFFERENCES TOLERATED.
Another thing, and this is one of your strongest and most interesting traits that some of your readers don't get but I think I do, is that you are writing directly to President Bush in today's entry.
You know that someone is going to print this up and get it to his folks. You write to Lincoln Chafee. You write to the staff members on the Committee.
You even write directly to John Bolton.
And you seem to know that these guys are gonna read what you are writing. I think it's genius.
I just wanted to ramble on praising you for a moment because for us Republicans, and I don't consider myself a moderate anything, your smart bullishness is inspiring to us out here who have very little impact on things. You should really become a Republican.
Bless you, Steve. Keep up the good work.
Yes Steve, become a Republican and straighten them out once and for all, for God's sake!
Steve,
Many Republicans that I know are opposed to Bolton's nomination... They are stunned that the Bush administration would put a bully-boy into a diplomatic post, and wonder how they think this will increase the prestige of the U.S. around the world... Last night, a friend (who works in the Republican National Headquarters, and who is a Bush supporter) told me that for Bush to standby Bolton who cannot work with others effectively is "a mistake" that he thinks will come back to "haunt" Bush and Cheney...
Steve, Thanks for your outstanding and highly professional web-site...
Why is President Bush willing to take so much heat on this matter? Other nominees have withdrawn, but they were not sponsored by the Vice President. This looks like one of those cases where Mr Cheney has dug in his heels, and the President has not yet reached the point where he will overrule the VP.
Oh, great ... another cakewalk with no cake!
Steve,
On Diane Rehm (sp?) this morning it was conjectured that even with a negative recommendation from the committee the republicans would probably still take it to congress for an up or down vote. That vote would be very close.
Between a potential recess appointment and committee-be-damned conjecture, my sense of confidence on this issue is only brightened by your expectation of grown-ups acting accordingly. Hope you're right.
TWN:
The President isn't going to read this blog -- but some of his people do .. You owe it to your boss to have him converse with ... Republican internationalists ... The mature and balanced thing is to consult.
This sentiment is more than fine.
In fact it is outright democratic in spirit.
Or, if you will: the way a country of ideas ought to be run.
But unfortunately that sentiment is counterbalanced by this sentiment from the very top of the Crawford slag heap:
Don't need no consult'n.
That's your president in a nutshell.
From the get-go Bush has held his own counsel.
That's why we have:
Preposterous war,
Preposterous debt,
Preposterous international enmity,
Preposterous national divisiveness,
And this preposterous attempt to undermine social security.
Because Bush listens only to himself.
Worse -- he has purposely isolated himself with cabinet members who parrot his positions. Ironically creating a council that is intellectually dishonest because he distrusts intellectuals. His mind can't handle dissent.
Ergo, he has made it very clear to those around him that he doesn't WANT information from Republican internationalists. Ergo, he won't HEAR any such information.
That's how dumb America's marketplace of ideas has become. Our country is preposterously and purposefully stupid right now. Bush has designed that flaw into the system. He wallows in it.
Think of it this way: A monopoly controlled by a mono-brain that is not particularly astute.
Monocultures are brain dead places.
And so America is shackled right now.
And it's all she can do to just keep dog-paddling with these heavy ignorant handcuffs on.
Three and a half more years of dog-paddling in irons...
The thought is preposterous. Some of us wonder if the grand old gal will stay afloat...
fyi to everyone: John C. Whitehead, WWII vet, former Co-Chairman of Goldman Sachs and former US Deputy Secretary of State under George Schultz, is a HUGE UN lover. In fact, he has been honored by them:
http://www.wfuna.org/who/friendsofwfuna/index.cfm
So it is obvious he wouldn't like Bolton.
Paul Volcker, who the media always refer as the former head of the Federal Reserve as if that were some sort of magic talisman, was DIRECTOR of UN-USA for years. The media NEVER tells you that and what a massive conflict of interest that is.
It's always "Paul Volcker-former Fed chairman Paul Volcker-former Fed chairman Paul Volcker-former Fed chairman"
But never is it "Paul Volcker, former UN-USA chair Paul Volcker, former UN-USA chair Paul Volcker, former UN-USA chair Paul Volcker, former UN-USA chair Paul Volcker, former UN-USA chair." It seems to me that's a lot more informational. By the way Volcker left this little bitty fact OFF his resume in the Oil for Food scandal commission.
Here is UN-USA board:
http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=316235
carsick, if Bolton loses in committee, it's hard to see a scenario that's close.
Chafee won't break from the GOP alone. He's too much of a wimp and he can't alienate Cheney and the GOP unquestionning loyalists.
If Voinovich or Hagel votes against confirmation, Chafee has to go with them. And Hagel and Voinovich probably come as a package deal.
Then it's kinda uncomfortable for Murkowski and Alexander too. And Lugar certainly doesn't want to get drubbed in a high profile hearing.
Either Lugar gets the Bushies to pull Bolton or the Republicans on the committee get beaten into party discipline. Dems will be apopletic and accuse the GOP of not holding good faith hearings, but being Republican means never having to say you're sorry.
But this kind of goofy party-line vote doesn't mean Bolton is a slam-dunk in the full Senate, especially if Hagel switches.
If Bolton gets drubbed in committee it's hard to imagine him getting confirmed by the whole Senate. Domenici strongly disapproves. If anti-Bolton forces include Dems & Jeffords minus Lieberman and Domenici, Hagel, Chafee and possibly Voinovich, it's not like the anti-Bolton block has to get that many more votes. Snowe? Collins? Gordon Smith? Lindsey Graham? It only takes a couple Republicans to vote "present" or to be "out of town" to tip the vote against Bolton.
Then Frist looks like an ass times two. He short-circuits the committee and he loses on the floor of the Senate.
Robert Morrow, would you prefer add a directly elected body to the United Nations to complement the UN Security Council and General Assembly?
How does the UN qualify as big government? It's non-peacekeeping budget is about the same as a small state like Wyoming or Vermont. This hardly seems expensive for a bureaucracy with worldwide responsibilities.
The Bolton nomination is not about reforming the United Nations. It's about destroying the United Nations.
Carl, friend,
I believe in USA national sovereignty. I do not believe in the UN. I do wish the world were all democracies. It is not. The last thing the member states at the UN want is a people's assembly, freely elected, because the first thing they would do is throw them out of power.
I do not wish for this people's assembly either; I do wish other countries will get their act together but I am not counting on it.
I do not wish to be in the same democracy with Pakistanis, Saudi's, Chinese, Mexicans. Maybe Singapore, seems promising, but not the rest.
RM, So your complaints about UN officials being "unelected" are spurious.
You'd object to the UN even if the officials were perfect. Even if there was no waste, no corruption, every objective was met, you would still want the institution eliminated. Is this correct?
Carl, RM's already said he wants to see the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. And, yes, he sees Bolton's confirmation as means to that end.
To me it's noteworthy that the only people speaking-up for Bolton are not only way outside the mainstream on foreign policy, they are also making arguments that are fundamentally dishonest.
They are going to object to any problem at the United Nations and don't want to fix anything. They see UN problems as useful to promoting their anti-UN agenda.
Also, as long as UN supporters oppose Bolton, Robert Morrow and his ilk will excuse any misbehavior by Bolton. Did he illegally use NSA intercepts to spy on U.S. citizens? "No problem, the UN supporters hate him." Did he pass the text of these intercepts to the Israeli government? "No problem, the UN supporters hate him."
There is literally nothing Bolton could do to lose the support of people like Robert Morrow.
So, we in the reality-based community should be clear. The pro-Bolton camp is not discussing anything about Bolton in good faith. They are playing to win. And because they are ideologically correct any method is fair game because the ends--the Neo Con, anti-UN agenda--justifies the means.
On understanding the Robert Morrow's of the world:(and the Bushies, too!)
It is Fundamentalism. Fundamentalists lack the maturity of personality and character to hold within themselves opposing realities. They cannot tolerate opposing energies, nor have they the faith and bigger truth that we get to in the world when opposites can be maintained in tension, and a bigger, more inclusive, creative reality is allowed to emerge. They must divide the world into black/white, good/evil, etc. This is to maintain a psychological balance and equilibrium.
It explains so much, and is confounding for those of us who can and do easily embrace opposing realities. The truth is that their emotional/psychological world is not big enough to allow others to exist that differ from their views. And without being haughty, the more mature personality does allow others, different from themselves, to exist without being felt as a threat. " I do not wish to be in the same democracy as Pakistani's, Saudi's, Chinese, Mexican's..." You have to be able to hold within you the validity of the "other" and in doing so you can "grow up" and help mature the emerging democracies, but Fundamentalists can't get there because the immature forms of these countries governments represent survival threats which must only be annihilated, or you can't work with them until they are in some other more acceptable form, and thus the Bush foriegn policy history!
See this cartoon at the Daily Scribble:
tommywonk -- Yes, I'm with you. Yesterday I made the comment that if Bolton comes back to testify before the committee, I fully expect him to bring along a handful of ball bearings.
Robert,
I guess that I'll pile on with everyone else. Refering to Paul Volker as former Federal Reserve chairman is only a point of the most significant recognition. I see lots of times that President Bush is referred to as former Governor of Texas, not as a former drunken driver. So is this a conflict of interest?
In reflecting on our current race to the bottom it has occured to me that much of the greatness that has been achieved by the United States is not because we were great, but because we aspired to greatness. The UN is a reflection of those aspirations.
I notice that you spend a lot of time at a blog that is opposed to your beliefs, are you sure that deep down you know that something is wrong with the leadership of your party. Maybe now is the time to make the change. The is no future with the wrecking ball Republicans.
>>Bush-Cheney Won the 2004 Election: Why are They Still Offending the Sensibilities of Republican Moderates?
Perhaps because many Republican Moderates offended the sensibilities of Bush-Cheney with their lukewarm support in the election (if not their outright support for Kerry)? Maybe they're just demonstrating the same kind of vindicitveness that their boy Bolton has. Wasn't it Senator Chafee who publicly announced that he was writing in Bush, Sr.?
Alan,
Actually VINDICTIVENESS is the quality that comes from taking personally those who are of a different position than you. Vindictiveness comes from interpreting that difference as a betrayal, as a personal attack, ie. "you're either with us or you're against us", and no other reality is possible. See post re: Fundamentalism above. Moderates such as Chafee, Hagel and Lugar have the largeness of character to contain within themselves the validity of the "other side", to hold and consider it as well. These folks, along with the good author of this blog, are large in spirit, not small. Let us be clear Alan, vindictiveness flows from the small and weak of character, not the large.
Fundamentalism defines the Bush/Cheney junta, and VINDICTIVENESS is the spirit of the way they operate. Hopefully we are reaching the limits of this authoritarian/totalitarian style of political rule in a democracy, as so much of how they operate is a direct affront to democracy. What Bush has built must eventually blow apart because it is built on intimidation and control, and ultimately people will not stay with you for long, when that is the reason for being with you in the first place. Bush doesn't have within him any other reality, himself the vulnerable mentoree of "strong father" Cheney.
Outlawred - Great comment! And I agree with you completely. They, like other tyrant-types, are doomed to failure. It's just a question now of how much they manage to destroy in the meantime, and take down with them when they fall.
I just saw on a PBS show (granetd it was the Journal Report) a commentor who said, " It's really all about the democrats who refuse to accept that the president won the last election."
Wow
And Bush's Social Security plan is about the Republicans refusing to accept FDR won in 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944.
Reader Comments (27) - post a comment