The Character Of Bolton Opposition
As usual, my party has taken the sucker bait. We’ve focused on Bolton, his crankiness, his cherry-picking of intel, and his unilateral ways, rather than on what we should have–” American foreign policy under Bush, its crankiness, the cherry-picking of intel, and our unilateral ways.
I would tend to agree–and underline it by mentioning that the charges leveled at Mr. Moustache are irrelevant to the real objections. (One hidden objection is the Open Source Institute’s disinclination to see Bolton confirmed, which is a related bucket o’worms.)
However, those objections were the primary focus of much of the presidential election, and it had a result, so this is an effort to limit the ability of the current president to implement his agenda.
Frankly, I’d never heard of the guy until Soros’ minions started cherry-picking ten-year-old testimony to show how icky Bolton was. Unfortunately for Soros, that testimony was music to my ears. Bolton’s sure picked the right enemies for my viewpoint…
7 Responses to “The Character Of Bolton Opposition”
Trackback URL for The Character Of Bolton Opposition: http://gmapalumni.org/chapomatic/wp-trackback.php?p=846
May 27th, 2005 at 8:42 am
I thought “moral values” was the focus of the election, and more importantly, the deciding factor in Bush edging out Kerry. Take Ohio (please!) — Ohio was one of 11 states with gay marriage on the ballot, and it ended up being the one that mattered the most. There is a ton of evidence that the iniative acted like a magnet bringing social conservatives, who might have stayed home, to the polls.
More important is this: nationally, Bush got about 8% of the black vote — up significantly from the 5% he got in 2000. In Ohio, where it matterd the most, Bush got a whopping 16% of the black vote! Why the huge leap? Black social conservatism, in this instance, expressing itself as homophobia.
I just don’t think you can point to the 2004 election results and say that was a mandate for unilateralism. I don’t think Bush and Condi saw it that way — hence their goodwill trip to Europe earlier this year and new found love for the U.N.
But Dick Cheney obviously didn’t see it that way and foisted UnilateralMan of ill-temper and bad hair upon us……..
If Bolton is so great, if the mandate for unilateralism is there, why won’t W have a “show of support” photo-op with him?
May 27th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Maybe to some, but not to the strong contingent of voters who considered national security their primary issue. Peter Beinart’s Nation article discusses this a little–I’ve got a post on it somewhere. The Dems lost big on this one, and could have won if they structurally understood national security strategy better. (I’ve done previous posts that mentioned the Dems tend to seize upon military people that have no credibility with the rest of their military peers (Clark) or place a tin-eared emphasis on things that look like they matter to military folks, causing backfires.)
I’m not sure you’d get more than about 350 pounds of evidence, unless you count the weight of printouts of Andrew Sullivan’s carping about the issue. The gay marriage thing is a different kettle of fish–my take was that the folks pushing the issue chose the wrong time and wrong frame; they struck too loudly and too soon, misjudging their ability to persuade and getting resistance from not just the usual gay-unfriendly quarters but also the folks who didn’t like the new policy for different reasons. In any case my impression was that the turnout about gay marriage was centered on the ballot initiatives, not the presidential race. In any case the Dem presidential race tried to make hay on it and didn’t get much traction outside the base.
If you wish to think about black convservatism as homophobia, I’d invite you to read guys like Baldilocks, Michael King, or M. Bowen (“Cobb”) at the Conservative Brotherhood. They may want to differ from your view and provide some counterexamples about the trend.
I’d refer you to my own archives on the “unilateralism” thing. Suffice it to say I don’t agree!
May 30th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
I don’t disagree that the Dems are “tin-eared” on national security politics — been playing catch-up ever since China and Korea — which led me to believe that a Kerry presidency might make things WORSE in Iraq just to prove how tough he was.
You wrote:
“In any case my impression was that the turnout about gay marriage was centered on the ballot initiatives, not the presidential race. In any case the Dem presidential race tried to make hay on it and didn’t get much traction outside the base.”
Hmmm. Well, W’s announcement of his support for a constitutional ban was all about the presidential race — we sure don’t hear about it now. And you’re totally missing the point on the ballot initiatives — those initiatives brought voters to the polls in big numbers. In most states, it didn’t matter — those being reliably Red ones. But in Ohio, it mattered.
Here’s an interesting snip:
“Among the 11 states with gay marriage referenda–Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah–the total number of votes cast divided by the total population of eligible voters yields an aggregate turnout rate of 61.9%, up 7.5 percentage points from their aggregate 2000 turnout of 54.4%. Among the other 40 states (including the District of Columbia), the aggregate 2004 turnout was 60.2% of eligible voters, up 5.1 points from the 55.1% turnout rate in 2000 for the combined vote in those states.[3] Thus, having gay marriage on the state’s agenda appeared to boost relative turnout by 2.4 percentage points. This is a smaller effect than for being targeted as a battleground state, bu–especially in the case of Ohio–important nonetheless.”
http://www.ou.edu/policom/1501_2005_winter/commentary.htm
I DO NOT equate black conservativism with homophobia. A lot of black conservatives are homophobic. And again, the fact that W picked up 16% of the Af-Am vote in the Buckeye state, that’s huge.
May 30th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Good point–social conservative and conservative are definitely two different beasties. (There’s been a loosening of the grip Dems had on blackfolks’ votes over the past few years, and it’s not just the socialcons.)
A good question behind the question is how do we rebuild those Dem security institutions?
May 30th, 2005 at 11:44 pm
“how do we rebuild those Dem security institutions?”
Resurrect Hack, put him in one telepod, put Edward Luttwak in the other, push “PLAY.”
May 31st, 2005 at 12:32 am
Oh, I wish. You shoulda seen the wailing and gnashing of teeth when I handed “Give War A Chance” to some Dem staffies in DC…oy…
Beinart’s got a great description of the problem.
October 10th, 2009 at 11:53 am
But to claim we are completely neutral is perhaps to be naïve about the human condition. ,