Bypassing democracy: Bolton's recess appointment to the U.N.

I haven't written about Bolton for some time, but thankfully the good people at The Washington Note have, and they've done their work with passion and care. Check them out. Also, Joe's done a fantastic round-up and analysis over at The Moderate Voice, all while on the road. Read what he's got, then follow the links according to your interests. Otherwise, the latest Times article is here.

I vehemently opposed Bolton's appointment, and I was unsure whether Bush would go so far as to appoint him during the Senate recess. But he has, and here we are. What more is there to say? Well, Joe's right on this:

• The bottom line: it is NOT an illegal move.
• The other bottom line: Bolton doesn't go to the United Nations as someone who enjoys widespread support in the Senate. Nor in opinion polls. Nor, if you believe the testimony, among many people who worked with him. The United States has never had a UN Ambassador who has had so little solid political backing.

And I generally subscribe to his "take" (which, as a TMV co-blogger, I'm happy to call my own, sort of):

1. You can't accurately call this an abuse of power because it is perfectly legal.
2. Bolton won't be going with much credibility, beyond the administration and GOP partisans.
3. The media is going to watch him like a hawk. If he slips they will be all over him and Bush may regret this appointment. Remember that Bolton has virtually zilch Democratic support and is not beloved even among some Republicans.
4. It won't impact John Roberts' Supreme Court hearings if nothing new surfaces about Roberts. But if some new negative material comes out the Bolton appointment may play a role in pressing it (pay back).
5. It again underscores the in-your-face nature of this administration, which many Americans find attractive. Bush wanted him so he put him in — the hell with Senate confirmation (and remember again recess appointments are perfectly legal).
6. It's a sad commentary on how this President apparently views his own party and how many GOPers view it. You can't tell yours truly that the Republican party, with its millions of members who are diplomats, jurists, lawyers, etc., could not produce someone ELSE to go to the UN who would be as or more qualified than John Bolton.

The key here might be #3. Bolton will be under a microscope. And is that really what Bush wants? Is that how he intends to reform the U.N.? Surely not -- but now he, like us, is stuck with the man he stood by so stubbornly throughout this long, drawn-out confirmation process.

No, recess appointments aren't illegal, and there is something to be said for presidential prerogative, but it's unfortunate that Bolton's appointment to an institution with which the U.S. already has a rather strained relationship required the circumvention of what, at last check, was still a co-equal branch of government. Whatever havoc Bolton wreaks at the U.N. -- and I doubt he'll now be in much of a position to do anything truly revolutionary -- the real victim here is American democracy.

But, alas, what's done is done, and as Marc Schneider put it here at The Reaction several weeks ago (see first link, below): "While I think Bolton is an egregious choice, I think Bush should have a lot of leeway in selecting his foreign policy team. True, the Senate has a role in advising and consenting, but the president is the primary player in foreign policy and I think, absent some grave moral failing -- which I don't think Bolton presents -- Bush should be given enough rope to hang himself."

Fair enough. Let's all pay close attention to how Bolton conducts himself in his new job. He's Bush's man, and it's Bush who bears the responsibility for his appointment.

(My last two posts on Bolton, with links back to all the previous ones, are here and here.)

Viagra Man strikes out: Rafael Palmeiro tests positive for steroids

Earlier this year, in his statement before Congress, Rafael Palmeiro was emphatic: "I have never used steroids. Period. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. Never." But now things have changed. The latest player to join the 3,000-hit club (and one of only four players all-time with 3,000 hits and 500 home runs) has tested positive for a banned substance (i.e., steroids) and has been handed a 10-game suspension by Major League Baseball. Palmeiro has accepted the suspension, but denies having taken steroids intentionally:

I have never intentionally taken a banned substance. Ultimately, although I never intentionally put a banned substance into my body the independent arbitrator ruled that I had to be suspended under the terms of the program... I am sure you will ask how I tested positive for a banned substance. As I look back, I don't have a specific answer to give. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to explain to the arbitrator how the banned substance entered my body. The arbitrator did not find that I used a banned substance intentionally in fact, he said he found my testimony to be compelling but he ruled that I could not meet the heavy burden imposed on players who test positive under the new drug policy. I accept this punishment...

I suppose we'll have to wait and see what comes of this. For questions abound: Did he or didn't he? He denies it, but how did he test positive? What was in his body? And how did it get there?

I've never really been a fan of any of his teams (Baltimore and Texas, mostly), but I've always liked Palmeiro. In an age of prima donna superstars like Barry Bonds, he always seemed like a real guy who just went out there and did his job. Maybe that's still true, but serious doubt has now begun to pollute his career -- a career that, in my opinion, had him on his way to Cooperstown. No, he was never one of the truly best players in baseball at any given time, but his consistently solid numbers over a lengthy career -- including those 3,000+ hits and 500+ home runs, not to mention nine consecutive seasons (11, if we extrapolate his solid strike-shortened 1994 stats over a full season) of at least 30 home runs and 100 RBI -- should have been enough to convince those notoriously tough voters that he was worthy of a spot in the Hall.

And now? Unless there's a reasonable explanation for the positive test -- and I suspect that there isn't -- it seems unlikely that the voters will give him the benefit of the doubt, at least in the first few years of voting. And that's a shame, given his admirable career, but Raffy likely has no one to blame but himself.

UPDATE: George Vecsey at the Times (see here).

Debating GERD, G-SAVE, and Iraq

It's been a lovely long weekend up here in Toronto -- today is Simcoe Day, a civic holiday -- hence the dearth of new posts over the past couple of days. I'll be back at it later today responding to such irritating and aggravating events as the Bolton recess appointment (when in doubt, circumvent democracy -- this seems to be the lesson, and Bush's pattern), the Palmeiro steroids scandal (deny, deny, deny -- and when the truth comes out?), violence in the Sudan (surprise, surprise, surprise), and the like.

For now, if I may be so self-serving, I'd like to direct your attention to some interesting discussions/debates going on in the comments sections of three recent posts here at The Reaction:

1. See here: Paul Wells of Macleans (and the great Inkless Wells) has been kind enough, even on holiday, to comment on my recent post on GERD (i.e., Canada's spending on R&D), and he and another commenter, Observer, have been going back and forth on what is a much more serious matter than would, at first glance, seem to be the case.
2. See here: G-WOT becomes G-SAVE. That is, the re-branding of the war on terror. America's not waging war, she's saving the world. Or so they want us to believe (because, apparently, they think we're stupid). Long-time reader Nate, whose comments are always appreciated even if he thinks he's just speaking to himself and banging his head against the wall, weighs in.
3. See here: The Iraqi quagmire. Or as Jon Stewart puts it: Mess-o-potamia. What to do about it? When to get out? Marc, Nate, and The Fixer go at it. Plus, a comment from an anonymous reader, part of which I must quote here: "In my 48 years, as an American, as a military brat and as a career serviceman, I've never come close to feeling the way I do today about my government. I am ashamed." Strong words -- but, obviously, from the heart and based on experience that, let's face it, most of us just don't have. I thank him for taking the time to visit The Reaction and for telling us how he feels. Needless to say, Iraq's a complicated issue, and we need to hear from all sides.

Well, that's it for now. Check back later for some new stuff. I hope you all had -- or are still having -- a nice weekend.