Republicans ready to "Bolt" on President's UN nominee?

Yesterday, the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) voted 10-8 along party lines to send the nomination to the floor for a vote. However, in a surprising move aimed at getting Bolton to a vote, the committee did not endorse the President's nominee. This move sets up an interesting scenario since numerous Republicans, who were not thrilled with the choice of Bolton, now have some political cover should they wish to vote down the nominee. The Financial Times has a good summary here and here. This compromise was necessary because Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio threatened to (forgive the pun) bolt, thereby leaving the nomination in committee. Mr. Bolton has not been warmly embraced by all members of his party, and this sets up the interesting floor battle ahead. By receiving a nomination without the endorsement of the SFRC many of those Republicans unhappy with Bolton might just defect.

My take on Bolton is that he is a hardnosed hawk, plain and simple--and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Now, this disposition may serve one well when they are the under-secretary of state for arms control and international security, but as far as a diplomatic post goes (especially US ambassador to the UN) I am more skeptical. Does the UN need reform? Yes. Has the UN been in need of said reform for years? You bet. But I fail to see why someone with less reputational baggage could not fill the post just as effectively and protect US interests. The main problem is not getting someone to represent the US at the UN who would take a much tougher stance on many issues that the President regards as vital to the US national interest. Many individuals could fulfill that task. Rather, the question is whether Mr. Bolton will essentially provide cover for those at the UN who do not wish to work with the US on numerous issues. They can easily point to Bolton as a "bully" and a hardliner who seeks to run roughshod over the UN and the international community. Now, would he necessarily be doing this--probably not. But it gives a wonderful excuse and political cover to those who do not wish to work with the US (and its a pretty long list unfortunately). Diplomacy is all about the subtle mixure of threats and compromise. By presenting a nominee to the world that tilts too far in either direction the US is asking for trouble. Getting tough at the UN and protecting US interests is possible without nominating someone as polarizing (before they even take up the position) as Mr. Bolton. Now it's in the Senate's hands. Developing...

Update: The Washington Post has a good article detailing who is likely to break with their respective parties on the floor vote--Democrat and Republican.

Filed as: Politics, John Bolton, United States, United Nations, International Relations