Congress refused to approve Bush's appointment for UN Ambassador, so what's the solution? maybe we should pick a different person, perhaps someone that isn't so controversial, maybe someone who is representative of americans and their elected officials in washington. Maybe Bush should go to his second or third choice seing as how John Bolton doesen't even have the support of a good number of Republicans, let alone Democrats. The responsable, American, --pride in our fine democratic system which we hope to spread around the globe-- thing to do, would be to appoint someone who is representative of the greatest number of Americans and their ideals. Afterall this person is the face that America choses to represent their collective interests on the world stage.
Obviously the Bush administration is not at all interested in Democracy no matter how many times they use the word to justify their actions. the goal for Bush and his Neo-conservative buddies is... ABSOLUTE POWER!!!!!
Bush "sidestepped" Congress and appointed Bolton anyway. he waited untill the senate was in recess so that they could not vote against him, infact they couldn't vote at all because they're Not There!!!! ... wait a minute let me say that one more time, Our President didn't like the result when he used the democratic means sanctioned under our constitution, so he avoided democracy entirely and forced america and the world to accept his decision whether they like it or not.
From the NY Times
here's one article from Yahoo News
I’m sure other presidents have done similar things and it was undemocratic then just like it is undemocratic now. I’m a little curious where you got the info on Clinton because you can’t trust everything you hear on Fox News but that’s beside the point. But regardless of simply the Number of ambassadors nominated during recess, it’s the fact that Bush appointed an extremist who couldn’t get through congress even though both houses are stacked with Republicans. Clinton was a moderate Democrat and I’m sure his appointments were also quite moderate and would have gone through with little fanfare anyway, Bush on the other hand is an extremist and his appointments and policies follow that line. Bolton was appointed, denied and snuck in through the back door despite what everyone else thought. The hearings on Bolton were very public and very much in the news, this was a big deal, not some random appointment to Iceland or something, this guy is supposed to be the ambassador to the UN and he could barely get out of committee. Congress spent a lot of time deliberating about this appointment, and Bush in turn said screw all you guys I’m doing things my way, after all “a dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier”
Do you think President Bush was the first person to nominate ambassadors during recess? He did what is accorded to him BY THE LAW, bottom line... interestingly enough Clinton had MORE recess appointments than Bush up to this point. Where was the outrage then? Democrats not allowing a vote = antidemocratic by definition. So is being antidemocratic okay for people left of center when it suits their interests?