WHY THE HOLD-UP ON THE BOLTON CONFIRMATION?

I've been thinking about the situation with the Bolton confirmation, which is on hold, at least until the Memorial Day recess is over. I've concluded that the Senators are dragging their feet, in the hopes that, somehow, someway, SOMEONE will come up with some damning story that will enable them to persuade the RINO weenies to come over to their side, and defeat Bolton.

All activity in filibustering and delay has to be seen as a last, desperate move to avoid the inevitable.



Now, is Bolton the perfect person for the position? Not if his grooming faux pas are part of the equation. However, that's not the issue - Bolton's the one that the President wants, and that's the deciding factor.

Is all this just politics-as-usual? Well, for that, see the history:

The U.N. ambassador's position has not traditionally been a big point of contention. Roll-call votes have been required on only one out of every four nominees to the position. The most negative votes anyone has received were cast against Richard Holbrooke, President Clinton's third ambassador. He was confirmed 81-16.

Richard Holbrooke's problems were related to financial disclosure of questionable dealings. Holbrooke's personality wasn't the issue, although

his dubious personal qualities--his bullying, his egomania, and his impatient ambition

while notable even to those who supported him, didn't seem to hamper his performance on the job, at least enough to keep the Senate from confirming him.

Hey, maybe the problem with Bolton isn't that he's a horrible person? Maybe it's that Bush wants to name someone that the Democrats and RINOs don't think will advance their agenda?

Naw, that couldn't be it. Must be his terrible personality.