Hmmm, difficult. I must confess that I have really no idea. Ratification by the Senate is the only option that Bush comes out on top with, unless he achieves it by releasing the information that the Senate Dems want.
So, don't know. I don't think that he'd decline a recess appointment in public, though, I think that the most that would happen is that he'd tell Bush 'no' and so Bush wouldn't try it in public.
He has until the midterms, so he's time yet. However, he has been able to achieve less in the last 6 months than I (and, I imagine, you) expected. That doesn't mean that he's a busted flush yet, by any means, but he's got ground to make back up.
The big thing for him will be filling Supreme Court vacancies, as he could get to fill two or more. A Gonzalez elevation might face opposition from within his own side, I was reading from Novak (on account of Gonzalez's belief that Roe v Wade is inviolable, even though he is personally against abortion).
They are pretty much bound to lose on the Supreme Court nominations, from their position in terms of Senate seats, surely? Anything at all that they get is some sort of victory (if they get anything at all, of course), because they're in a position of weakness. The big benefit Bush has is that his party is in control of everything; of course, should the Congress or Whitehouse fail to deliver, it's him and his party that will get most of the blame, because they are in control. So Bush doesn't just have to win, he has to win handily. Too many close squeaks and he looked embattled and weakened.
I don't have any feeling that the Dems have really hurt themselves in the last few months, though. There have been some missteps, of course, but I don't think that the overall effect is negative for the Dems. It just isn't positive enough for them to, say, take back the House or Senate (indeed, I'd expect them to lose Senate seats, given the ones that are coming up in 2006).
There might be some concern in republican ranks. I was listening to former MO Senator John Danforth (and episcopalian minister) earlier, on NPR, talking about his two recent op-eds where he said that the GOP had become somewhat dominated by the religious right and also said that there were plenty of GOp Congressmen who felt the same. Either he's wrong, or he's lying, or he's right and there are fractures inside the Congressional GOP. Couple that with the allegedly poor 'Congressional Outreach' of Bush (it isn't just Novak that I've heard say it now, but I've heard it from a few sources) and also public disquiet over Iraq and his leadership in that regard, and it isn't implausible that Bush isn't in the driving seat. He's still got cards to try and bring things back into his favour, at least until the mid-terms, but it's not a done deal, I don't think. And don't forget that at least two senior GOP senators are at least as interested in fucking each other up while improving their own presidential chances as they are in mKing life easy for Bush.
I think George W. gives Bolton recess appointment, he accepts. Honestly, if I had to pick a single person in this forum that thinks the most like Bush, it would be TT, and that's what he would do, because anything less than that would feel too close to weakness for them, and seeming infalliable and commanding is more important in that worldview than anything else. As evidence of that, see: everything.
quote:Frustrated by Senate Democrats, the White House hinted Monday that President Bush may act soon to sidestep Congress and install embattled nominee John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations on a temporary basis. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush has used his power for temporary appointments when "he has to get people in place that have waited far too long to get about doing their business." He said that "sometimes there's come a point" when Bush has decided he needs to act.
Bolton's nomination has been stalled for months. . . . Republicans have twice attempted -- and failed -- to break a Democratic filibuster against Bolton's nomination. The White House has ruled out withdrawing Bolton's name, and has called repeatedly for a vote on his nomination.
His ability to "shake things up" at the UN will be significantly hampered when he goes in without the backing of the Senate or American people and foreign governments know they won't have to deal with this guy long.
But if the administration keeps stonewalling, the Dems will keep filibustering, so it must be damn important to Bush for some reason to not meet their information requests.
AP is reporting that Bush will indeed install Bolton during recess, probably Monday. Here.
quote:President Bush intends to announce next week that he is going around Congress to install embattled nominee John Bolton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, senior administration officials said Friday.
Two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the president had not made the announcement and Congress wasn't in recess yet, said Bush planned to exercise that authority before he leaves Washington on Tuesday for his ranch. The House recessed on Thursday and the Senate's break was scheduled to begin later Friday.
It'll be a recess appointment, accepted. Bolton will raise hell for the rest of Bush's tenure with Bush's unqualified approval. We will be waging a War on Terror and a War on the Fucking UN. We shall smite them all.
Because of the timing, and who are we kidding, the absolute lack of anything resembling power, the Dems will squawk about it for two news cycles and on to the SCOTUS, where they will lose again.
They will likely vote for Roberts to camoflage how completely powerless they are.
The US, under Bush, signally failed to get what they wanted out of the UN over Iraq (and have rued it since, oh yes). I think that the US is just the most important component of the UN, but the fact is that getting the required troops to help out in Iraq was dependent on UN approval of the invasion of Iraq, and thus they weren't forthcoming. The US, consequently, is basically shouldering the burden and cost of Iraq to the detriment of its own military recruitment (even with the tricks they pull to massage the statistics, they have missed a lot of targets, even when they lowered the targets) and national indebtedness. I think that what Iraq has shown is how essential the UN is to the US, if the US wishes to pursue the sorts of policies favoured by the current president.
The US, under Bush, signally failed to get what they wanted out of the UN over Iraq.
...which would be an issue if that prevented us from actually doing what we wanted to do...
I think that the US is just the most important component of the UN, but the fact is that getting the required troops to help out in Iraq was dependent on UN approval of the invasion of Iraq, and thus they weren't forthcoming.
I think your use of the word "required" is a bit of an overstatement. It would have been nice; it would have been "better"....but obviously, not required.
After making valid points about the financial and recruitment costs, you said...I think that what Iraq has shown is how essential the UN is to the US, if the US wishes to pursue the sorts of policies favoured by the current president.
...to which I would say the very opposite is true. We did what we wanted. We were capable of doing it alone. Name other countries who could have done the same. And, with our opposition....? No, this experiment proved we have no need of them whatsoever. And, now Bolton goes in to straighten them out. I brought popcorn. This will be quite a show...down.