Fighting Back

According to Yahoo News, Bush has finally appointed John Bolton as America's ambassador to the U.N.

"This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about UN reform," Bush said. He said Bolton had his complete confidence.

Bush put Bolton on the job in a recess appointment — an avenue available to the president when the Congress is in recess. Under the Constitution, a recess appointment during the lawmakers' August break would last until a newly elected Congress takes office in January 2007.

Bush said that Bolton's nomination had been supported by a majority of the Senate but that "because of partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators, John was unfairly denied the up-or-down vote that he deserves."

Now all that's left to do is listen for the Liberals' screeching. Oh wait, they've already started... Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid claims that Bush "chose to stonewall the Senate" by using a recess appointment.

But did he really? Or did Senate Democrats choose to stonewall the Senate by using the filibuster? After all, Bush is simply trying to get things done; the Dems are the ones using the obstuctionist tactics.

Come on, now: Democrats said they would not use the filibuster except in extreme circumstances. A week later, they began another filibuster. Bush got tired of seeing a vacant government position, but he would rather fill that position with a nominee that the majority supports, so he appointed the nominee during a recess of congress.

Obviously, we'd all prefer that our U.N. Ambassador have been confirmed (or rejected) by a majority vote, but with a minority that will do whatever it takes to avoid having a vote that they lose (even if that means preventing a democratic vote altogether), Bush had to take matters into his own hands. And I applaud him. If the Left will not allow our democracy to function as it was intended, then what place do they have in the government of that democracy?

The Senate was created to pass laws through the votes of representatives of the people. When those representatives refuse to allow a vote simply because they can't win it, they are abusing our democracy and obstructing our lawmaking process. Now, if some of the representatives display such a contempt for our democracy that they will abuse it, what the heck are they still doing in office?

Isn't that what impeachment and recall elections are for?