Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Saturday, July 30, 2005

Bolton: What do you propose to do?

Nothing but Bush's calculus will stop a recess appointment.

The big mystery is whether the Bolton nomination will become the "Bolton recess appointment."

Does anyone know for certain? Sure, the President knows what he's going to do.

Thus, the agenda has been set.

The uncertainty is whether others are going to accept that it is the President who is going to decide what to do next. The President is either going to:

  • Listen to the Senators and not appoint Bolton;

  • Ignore the Senate and nominate Bolton.

  • Ignore the Senate and appoint Bolton;

    Keep in mind, Bush's goal isn't to please the Senate. So what is most likely for Bush?

  • Listen to the Senators and not appoint Bolton.

    This option implies that the President must listen to the minority. This is absurd. Bush still appointed Gonzalez despite a "less than overwhelming vote of support that was known" prior to the appointment.

  • Ignore the Senate and nominate Bolton.

    This option implies that despite the problems with Bolton that he'll still show how much he's "still in charge" and can get an appointment despite the opposition. Besides, it's a distraction from Rove. However, the risk that "Bolton might talk," is irrelevant as Bolton has already talked and there are "only" 36 Senators speaking out.

    Clearly, this option has already been taken. The issue is will Bush wait for a vote, or make an appointment.

  • Ignore the Senate and appoint Bolton.

    This option implies that the Bush Administration cannot get the debate to end; and that it will be unable to get Bolton. If you are the President, and you are confident you "have the vote," [despite the opposition] would you not make the Senate vote, especially when you control the Senate?

    The risk with this, is that there is not enough votes to end a Filibuster. But if there's a filibuster by "people you can smear for doing so," why is that a problem, if it distracts from your war crimes?

    Most probable

    I think Bush would most likely wait, not because he doesn't want to fill the spot. But because he wants to test the Senate leadership. Moreover, if he can get the DNC to "use filibusters now," then when it is more important to have a filibuster, the public will start getting tired of filibusters.

    Thee easy way is to make a recess appointment. The longer term pay off lies with exhausting the Senate and distracting attention.

    I will not be surprised either way. There are more benefits to not making a recess appointment. But we will have to see what "other issues" Bush doesn't want on the table.

    I think there's more benefit to getting the nomination voted on as that is a distraction fro Bush. I don't see much interest in actually responding to the request to have the NSA tapes as a condition of a vote.

    What DNC might do to prevent a recess appointment

    At this point I'm not clear what the Democrats could possibly do, other than Filibuster.

    Small problem: For there to be a filibuster, Congress has to be in session.

    Thus, I see nothing, but Bush's calculus, as stopping a recess appointment.

    Bush could very well do the opposite, not simply to piss off the Democrats, but to remind them that he's in charge, and even a threat of a filibuster is meaningless.

    Bush and Rove are known for surprises. It is most unexpected if there is no recess appointment; because then everyone will spend the entire recess saying, "The Bolton appointment is coming," and when it doesn't occur. . . that's more time away from Rove and Bush once Congress reconvenes.

    Or is the Senate saying that they're going to get distracted by Bolton and Roberts, and not pass the DoD appropriations bill?

    "Support the troops" then be the rallying cry to shut up the Democrats.

    Rest assured, the fascists in the DNC will go along with that one. For if they do otherwise, it will be more ammunition for the RNC in 2006.

    DNC is on the defensive on this and powerless; and the White House is pretending that it is desperate.

    Where's Osama?

    How about Fitzgerald?

    And what's up with Rove?

    Who cares: The public and Senate are already tired of reality. As is the DNC: Bush in the President.

    What's stopping the Senate from going after Fitzgerald for "taking too long" to look into a matter that the "DNC isn't cooperating on"? That charge is coming.

    yes, that accusation is absurd; all the more reason the RNC is going to make it. To make the DNC react, piss them off. This is how the RNC manipulates the DNC: By exhausting them, distracting them, and reminding the DNC that they can't do anything but react.

    This is how leaders manipulate the opposition to yield. And they will yield, for the DNC will be given bait that they "must react to," otherwise they will be shown to be inconsistent.

    This is how the RNC shifts the issue from "the lawlessness and abuses," onto those who dare spot reality. The DNC tries to do the same, but they are not convinced even when they are given what they ask for. Thus, we know that the DNC requests for action and responses are just as fleeting as that of the RNC.

    The choice is not between the RNC or DNC but between the Constitution and tyranny.

    The powerless in the DNC use tyrannical methods to create the illusion of discipline; but this in only tyranny.

    If you want to fight for the Constitution, you simply need to let the RNC and DNC battle it out. Then assert yourself against the winner: The RNC.