Democrats Block New Attempt to Confirm Bolton

From the Associate Press:

Senate Democrats blocked John Bolton's confirmation as U.N. ambassador for the second time Monday and President Bush left open the possibility of bypassing lawmakers and appointing the tough-talking former State Department official on his own.

The vote was 54-38, six shy of the total needed to force a final vote on Bolton, and a represented an erosion in support from last month's failed Republican effort.

This is a political trial balloon. Bush is facing some pretty stark choices here, and he's scrambling to figure out what to do. He withdraw Bolton's name and select another nominee for whom the Senate Democrats may be more accommodating. But in withdrawing Bolton's name, Bush concedes defeat in this battle--and George Bush is never going to concede defeat or compromise in this issue. Bush may accede to the Democrats demands for classified information regarding Bolton. This information is specifically a list of 36 U.S. officials names to be cross-checked against names that were initially blacked out of which Bolton requested and received from national security intercepts that he reviewed. The Democrats are especially interested in checking if Bolton may have intimidated those blacked-out names to follow the White House party line regarding the intercepts. Democrats are also interested in checking if Bolton may have misled Congress regarding Syria's weapons capabilities. If Bush relinquishes the documents as the Democrats requested, then the Democrats are certainly going to find enough smelly garbage in Bolton's State Department work that could probably be traced back to the White House--why else is Bush blacking out those names? Bush certainly can't seem to push harder for Bolton's nomination, considering that the Senate Democrats have put up a wall of opposition to Bolton's confirmation. Only three Democrats sided with the White House to end the debate on the nomination. The final option Bush has is that he can simply appoint Bolton to the U.N., after Congress recesses. However, this appointment would only last for the next one-year session of Congress. If Bush appoints Bolton to the U.N., then Bolton will serve until January 2007.

None of these options are politically appealing for the Bush White House. Bush has certainly spent a lot of political capitol on Bolton's confirmation, however he has little to show for it. If Bush backs down, this only emboldens the Senate Democrats to oppose Bush on a number of other controversial issues--the war in Iraq, Social Security, energy policy (especially the oil drilling in Alaska National Wildlife Refuge), or even the controversial Supreme Court nomination if Chief Justice William Rehnquist resigns. And the Senate Democrats have become emboldened against the White House after Bush has become vulnerable with sagging poll numbers, and an American public questioning his policies on Iraq and Social Security. The only palatable option that President Bush has is simply appointing John Bolton to the U.N., then hope that the Republicans can gain enough Senate seats in the 2006 midterm elections to break the filibuster. But even that is a risky strategy, considering that the American public may blame the Republicans for failing to solve the country's problems when they have control of both the presidency and Congress.

Bush needed to confirm Bolton to the U.N. before the end of June--if Chief Justice Rehnquist were to announce his retirement. If Rehnquist does retire at the end of this Supreme Court session in June, then the Senate will be pretty much shut down due to partisan bickering over whomever George Bush selects to the court. Bolton's nomination will go down by the wayside. If there is a Supreme Court fight in the next couple of months, then Bush may simply appoint Bolton, and any criticism over the Bolton appointment will be drowned out by the Supreme Court fight.

Either way, Bush is starting to sink into some quicksand of his own creation.