I, personally, would have preferred a "stealth" ambassador appointed to the UN -- somebody who had similar attitudes as Bolton about the quality of the UN leadership, but who was much less confrontational and obnoxious about it. Jean Kirkpatrick was such an ambassador some time back, and I'm sure there are others of her calibre and intellect still floating around and willing to serve.
Folks who are constantly spoiling for a fight seldom get anything but fights -- as came out in Bolton's appointment debates. And it wasn't just Democrats who were unsure of Bolton -- a significant number of Republicans were concerned, too. While only a few spoke out, there's little question that many more were uneasy. That's clearly why the White House never forced a vote.
As a part-time student of political science, I've come to realize that one of the most important powers of the president is his "reputation for power." Ronald Reagan had a reputation for power that exceeded reality, but because it existed, his power to get things done often matched his reputation.
Bush viewed his reelection as a mandate, and immediately set out to use some of that "political capital." It may have been a mandate, or it may have been a refutation of his opponent. There is a difference.
Nowadays, however, it looks like Bush's political capital has been overdrawn. His "reputation for power," has been dwindling of late -- with even the Senate Majority leader going his own way with regard to Stem-Cell Research funding. His popularity in the polls continues to degrade, and more and more members of Congress feel free to free-lance.
I'd argue that putting Bolton forward in the first place was a blunder; Bush's people should have done a better job of testing the water so that Bush wasn't faced with a "failure" at time when his general level of success has been so low.
Bush and his team seem to understand how to read and lead the general public, but have been seemingly maladroit at dealing with Congress.
(Most of our past presidents have made it a practice to consult with the opposition, to test the waters, and to ask for feedback; even if it was simply a ploy, the "game" seemed to mollify the opposition and made them more pliable. Bush has more often taken an "in your face" approach. That seems to backfire as often as it succeeds; he apparently seldom consults with the opposition -- even though that was one of his stated goals for his first term. Reagan, on the other hand, seemed to develop real friendships with some of his opponents -- and that can pay off, big time when the going gets tough.)
Some here feel Bush "won" the battle with a recess appointment, but I think it was a very shallow win, and it just points to his weaknesses. With a strong majority in the Senate, he should NEVER have needed to make a recess appointment; it just made his lack of control obvious. In fact, the Bolton appointment may have HELPED the Democrats rather than hurt them.
You are all, of course, free to disagree, but things are seldom as they seem in American politics.
