I have asked myself repeatedly why President Bush nominated Mr. Bolton to the post of UN Ambassador, especially knowing he is the type of personality that would most definitely draw fire from the opposition. Part of politics is strategy and it seems like the administration should/would have known that it wouldn't fly. The game of politics can be compared to a football game, whereby the plays being contemplated are well thought out and are very often being planned several plays ahead. Many times, plays are called based on how you think the opposition will react.
Now before we go any further, let me say that I think Bolton was a decent choice, given the current state of affairs in the UN. The place is crawling with snakes. Self-interest under the guise of seeking peace and stability in the world, has become commonplace. The days of the UN being a place to settle disputes and resolve sensitive issues are gone. It has become the habitation of thieves.
But Bush knowing the decibal levels the left is capable of, should have known that they would have done just exactly what they have done. They have nitpicked this man's management style and have made it an issue, equal to or greater than having some kind of criminal record. The reasons confirmation should not make it out of committee, do not include being a jerk to work for.
So I am thinking, why did he do it? Why did he do it knowing that he would never get this guy in? Why did he waste this precious time? Why didn't he just nominate someone more moderate, more temperate, and better able to pass through the confirmation process?
And then I really began to think. What if he was thinking a couple of moves ahead?
He could have known that whoever he nominated would have had something significant enough, for the opposition to scream about. Maybe he thought to himself, it didn't matter who he sent up there first. The left was going to campaign to have whoever rejected, as a offensive strategy. (There are those in the Boxer Brigade that have no principles and will align themselves against the President, at every opportunity for political purposes only.)
Think about it. The President could have someone else a little less openly brash in mind, as a plan B. Rather than sacrifice him to the "always against Bush" crowd, maybe he threw the pass long to the end zone, to spread out the defense. Now that he has done that he has the option of a running play, short or medium range pass, or (if he chooses) another long one.
The Dems can't continue to oppose every choice without it beginning to look more like what they already are, obstructionists. But if they want to play that game, they will find it will backfire on them. The next play will consist of a person with a gentler exterior, but a tough interior. Which may be what we need.
Maybe this is true, maybe it is not. But the thing to remember is that there are always parts of this (and other stories) that go on behind the scenes. Parts that we may never know.