With the recent temporary appointment of John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations, we risk alienating our allies by nominating a vocal U.N. critic for the next year and a half. Bolton has been so critical of the United Nations that his nomination as U.N. Ambassador is like the President of PETA being named the new CEO of KFC!
Besides Bolton's criticism of the U.N., several of his Republican colleagues have testified that he was a poor candidate for the position for various reasons, lodging harsh criticisms that would normally be given as a reason to fire someone, not to discuss their appointment to one of the most important and prestigious offices on the entire planet!
Of course the opposition to Bolton from other Republicans has made only temporary headlines and this is no surprise given the ability of the Republican spin-machine to ward off critics in their own party by claiming disloyalty or disgruntlement. Remember that former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, former Republican Congressman Doug Bereuter from Nebraska, and former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke (who worked for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) have all been slammed for questioning the tactics of their own party leaders. Name any of the other numerous same-party critics, and conservatives everywhere will come up with some personal reason these Republican officials have become "traitors" to the party*.
Although Bolton was nominated temporarily, he was unable to get official appointment for the remainder of the Bush Presidency because the Democrats used common tactics to keep a vote from coming to the floor. In this case, the Democrats were more concerned about America's already tarnished international reputation than their own party interests.
Block This!
Now a lot of conservatives complain that Democrats want to obstruct Republican appointees and President Bush went so far as to call the Democratic policy towards his appointees as "the policy of the stop sign." One way to expose this hypocrisy is to consider judicial nominees (which cover the bulk of Presidential nominations). The Republicans were quite vigilant against Clinton appointees, rejecting over 60 of his judicial nominees, many of them not even reaching the Senate Judiciary Committee through rarely-used blue-slip** tactics (since relaxed by the Republican controlled Congress). While 81% of Clinton's court judicial nominations in his first term were confirmed, 88% of Bush's were confirmed, and any number of sources will show that the Democrats have been far more lenient than the Republicans on Presidential nominations***.
Even though a higher percentage of Bush's nominees have gotten through than Clintons' did, conservatives continue to state that the Democrats are bitterly partisan and unwilling to compromise. The reason they can make this claim is by turning Democratic criticism into examples of Democratic obstructionism. For example, the controversial nominations of John Ashcroft and Condoleeza Rice did reach the floor, and despite strong questioning at their hearings, they were both confirmed without much trouble. So even when we bend over backwards to compromise, they STILL make us look bad!
The Supreme Court - the stakes are higher
Lower court nominees are certainly important, but they experience higher turnover and have far less influence than Supreme Court justices. And while most Bush appointees are likely to be at their posts through the remainder of the Bush Presidency, prospective judge John Roberts, at age 50, could realistically be one of the 9 people passing final judgment on the laws of the United States for the next 30 years. That would mean that while John Bolton will be U.N. ambassador through January of 2007 and Condoleeza Rice will be Secretary of State through January of 2009, John Roberts will likely be a Supreme Court justice until 2035!
Now, John Roberts was certainly not the most controversial judge being considered for the Supreme Court, but he is very conservative nonetheless. And, despite protests from activist groups, he is almost certain to gain confirmation. What is important about the hearing itself is that Democrats are able to thoroughly question Roberts. Remember that many of Clinton's appointees had trouble just getting a hearing in the first place, so shutting Democrats out of a nomination of such extreme importance means shutting out the voices of nearly half of the voting electorate.
I will admit that some activist groups have admittedly gone too far, case-in point, NARAL Pro Choice America, which recently pulled an unfair advertisement that claimed Roberts defended the rights of a man who bombed an abortion clinic (even though he defended a group the bomber was in, it was 7 years before the bombing). Notably, this kind of advertisement hurts our cause, because it deflects from the trouble points of Roberts record rather than emphasizing them.
Certainly with what has come out recently about John Roberts, concerns probably should be focused on issues involving corporate protection, liability for polluters and environmental regulations. The latter two are perhaps more endangered by Roberts than gay rights and Roe v. Wade. Not that Roberts' record on those issues shouldn't be cause for concern as well.
What young Democrats everywhere NEED to emphasize, is that if Roberts is confirmed (which is likely), he may very well be making decisions after our grandchildren are born. That is not something to be taken lightly, and perhaps the Republicans could allow us some scrutiny and some respect, or else they will be really paying for it when the Democrats regain control of the White House and the Congress.
Epilogue - What does this have to do with Virginia?
Whoever is elected Governor has power over most State nominations, including a role in selecting judges to the State Court system. That's why we need someone who can nominate consensus appointees and not try to push the partisan envelope with controversial nominees. In a time when we should be focusing on transportation, education, health care, and job growth, the last thing we need is to waste the time of the state legislature bickering over State-level nominees. Believe it or not, this type of partisan dissent can be just as harmful on the State level as it is on the National level. Tim Kaine is more likely to nominate consensus candidates because he is a moderate Democrat, as opposed to Jerry Kilgore who is a conservative Republican in a generally conservative State. Bipartisanship is what we need now for Virginia, and not an exacerbation of partisan bickering and warfare.
Notes
**"A blue slip is the traditional method of allowing the home state senators of a judicial nominee to express their approval or disapproval. Blue slips are generally given substantial weight by the Judiciary Committee in its consideration of a judicial nominee. The process dates back several decades and is grounded in the tradition of "senatorial courtesy," which traces its roots back to the presidency of George Washington." Source: click here
***See here for a comparison of statistics.
*For a list of Republican critics of the Bush Administration, check out this source:
This radical version of the republican party has less in common with the legacy of Lincoln, and more in common with the falsehoods of Franco.