Democratic Alienation

It looks like President Bush is going to be picking Undersecretary of State John Bolton as ambassador to the UN. Condi Rice had the following to say about the appointment:

"President Bush and I have chosen John because he knows how to get things done. He's a tough-minded diplomat, he has a strong history of success and he has a proven track record of effective multilateralism."

Sounds pretty good, right? Not to the democrats.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid called Bolton "a disappointing choice and one that sends all the wrong signals... At a time when President Bush has recognized we need to begin repairing our damaged relations with the rest of the world, he nominates someone with a long history of being opposed to working cooperatively with other nations."

So the only criteria for this position should be someone who plays well with others? Call me crazy, but I wouldn't want to see John Kerry doing this job. Speaking of the FriendOfEurope:

"If the president is serious about reaching out to the world, why would he choose someone who has expressed such disdain for working with our allies? ... Quite simply, Mr. Bolton's nomination carries with it baggage we cannot afford."

So what are the horrible things this man has done that democrats object to him so?

1) Denounced North Korea for its nuclear weapons program (he called Kim Jong Il a "tyrannical dictator" and described life in NK as "a hellish nightmare"), which resulted in his being removed from the delegation that represented the US in the now-stalled 6-party talks. A NK spokesman responded for KJI by saying, "such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks..." Sticks and stones, bub....

2) He coordinated the US position during negotiations with Libya when it gave up it's pursuit of WMDs.

And last, but not least...

3) During his tenure as assistant secretary of state for Bush 41, he was the "principal architect" in getting the "Zionism is Racism" resolution repealed by the UN.

So the guy has been good to the Jews?! Way to go dems.... keep alienating the Jewish vote.

Meanwhile, people he actually would have to work with don't seem to share the democrats' reservations about Mr. Bolton.

"For myself, I have several contacts with him, I know that we can work together. We have different views but also we have many things in common. ... I hope that once he's here he will have a deeper perception of what the U.N. is about." — China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya [ed. note: Barry Scwheid's article, which is linked below, only contains the last sentence of this quote--gotta love that AP bias]

"We have all kinds of people in the United Nations. At the end we end up always with consensual views. (Former U.N. Ambassador John) Danforth was not a diplomat and he came here and he did an excellent job. So you don't have to be a career diplomat to be successful at the United Nations."— Algeria's U.N. Ambassador Abdallah Baali.

Good lord, even Kofi Annan doesn't have a problem:

"I don't know about what previous biases he may bring here," said [Annan] spokesman Stephane Dujarric. "We have nothing against people who do hold us accountable. On the contrary, I think we do want to be held accountable."

I know I seem to say this all the time, but if the dems aren't careful, they're going to find it impossible to be relevant in American politics for decades to come.