Editorial Hubris

As I have noted in the past, I read the Chicago Tribune as one source of news from which I mold my opinions on a variety of subjects. I know the conservative bend of the reporting and editorials written by the Editorial Board. However, an editorial in today's paper points to the wrong-thinking of both this administration, those on the right, and conservative editorial writers.

The title of the editorial in question is "The Bolton embarrassment", and basically points out that, now that the Prez has (abusively) used his recess appointment powers to name John Bolton to the UN Ambassador post, time will have to tell whether Bolton embarrasses his bosses in the adminstration or those who opposed his nomination (both Democrat and Republican).

The editorial points to an interview that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) lableing "...Bolton 'damaged goods' whose failure to win confirmation would cost him credibility...", and further accuses Dodd of sounding "...a little self-important..." for his position.

Then, in the very next paragraph they try to soothe readers by saying, and I paraphrase, that all the other UN ambassadors will know that Bolton represents the Prez, and that Bolton will not be making policy, just representing the US position in that body. The third sentence in that paragraph reads, "They (ambassadors) say and do what their governments (my emphasis) want."

It's clear that the editorial board is mixing up the term "government" with the term "executive branch".

If I remember my grade school Civics lessons, "government" is composed of three branches - judicial, executive, and legislative. The Constitution is quite clear on this. In addition, the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution the requirement that the legislative branch consider and approve executive-branch nominees for positions such as the UN ambassadorship. The "recess appointment" is a latter-day addition for emergency situations, which I don't think this situation can be classified as such.

Further, the legislative branch blocked a vote on Bolton's nomination during the last session because enough Senators - both Republicans and Democrats - had serious enough concerns that they had requested more information from the White House (which, by the way, flatly denied access to that information).

This is where the entire editorial, and frankly the White House's entire argument, falls apart. Bolton does NOT represent the government at the UN, he represents the executive branch of government. It's an important distinction.

Nominees for positions such as this one, while looked at closely by the Senate at they should be, are typically confirmed by unanimous vote. In this case, no vote was ever taken because 60 votes could not be found to force a vote. And if a vote had been called, it would almost assuredly not have been a unanimous vote for confirmation.

So the White House abused it's recess appointment powers, named this guy to the post, and the Prez knowingly smirked his way through the installation ceremony.

So, Tribune Editorial Board, your logic is flawed. Bolton is, in fact, damaged goods. He cannot effectively represent the government of the US because at least one branch hasn't had the opportunity to weigh in and, if they did, they would have likely defeated this nominee.

Chris Dodd is self-important? Hardly.

Look in the mirror to find out who better fits that description.