Wednesday, August 3, 2005

Contrast Editorials on Bolton

My two favorite newspapers, the Washington Post, and the Chicago Tribune, both of which I have trouble reading through and through on Sunday mornings, simply for the massive amount of news coverage, had different takes in their editorials on John Bolton’s recess appointment –

From the Post:

Under the Constitution, the president has the power to appoint officers during congressional recesses without seeking Senate confirmation and to have those officers serve through the end of the Congress--which in this case means until January 2007. Using that power to circumvent the normal advice-and-consent process is politically provocative and should be quite rare. But having thwarted the usual process under which the Senate gets to vote on a president's nominee, it takes a bit of chutzpah for Democrats now to cry foul at Mr. Bush's decision to exercise his other option.
From the Trib:

The end-run appointment of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is sure to create a nasty embarrassment. The question is who will be embarrassed--those who support Bolton or those who loathe him. . . .

If Bolton behaves like the bullying hothead his critics say he is, he will alienate the diplomats of other nations and signal to the world that the Bush administration doesn't care a whit if the UN headquarters campus flops into New York's East River. . . . If Bolton emerges as a force for a more accountable and ambitious UN, it is his critics who'll have to eat the crow.
The Washington Post actually nails it -- Under the Constitution – an opening phrase that reminds the reader about a basic civics lesson.

Perhaps if the public schools rededicated themselves to a curriculum of civics, J-school students would have a better foundation to build their craft.

The Chicago Tribune seems to be riding the fence. Their opening phrase of Bolton was termed an end-run.

So, by abiding by the U.S. Constitution, the President has skirted the U.S. Constitution? C’mon.

In those terms, Roe v. Wade was a QB roll-out option, fake pitch wide to the tailback, reverse hand-off to the split-end in motion to the weak-side.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home