Back to Bolton

Readers of this blog have doubtless become familiar, over the last several days, with the name John Bolton. Mr. Bolton is President Bush's nominee to the post of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and he appears to be a rather bad man. He also personifies the go-it-alone, we've-got-all-the-toys-so-shut-up modus operandi of the Bush administration, only with attitude. (For a little context here, consider how Rodney Dangerfield once characterized his nabe: "I come from a neighborhood so tough that Bella Abzug was the Avon lady.")

For a vigorous discussion of how the Democrats should handle the thorny topic of Bolton's confirmation hearings, go to Steve Clemons' The Washington Note. Here's Clemons:

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.

Here your cybertrix shares a little tip: She came upon the Clemons piece via LiberalOasis, which is quite the must-read for aficionados of the blogosphere.