JOHN BOLTON - VICTIM OF DEMOCRAT OBSTRUCTION

United Nations Ambassador John Bolton resigned yesterday as the possibility of his being confirmed to the post he has held by Presidential recess appointment faded to an impossibility. Senate Democrats have filibustered Bolton's appointment to the post since President Bush nominated him never allowing even the possibility of Bolton receiving an up or down vote on the Senate floor. Now with the Senate coming under Democrat control by a slight majority in January the current minority has again obstructed the confirmation vote for Bolton. Seeing , "the handwriting on the wall," Bolton tendered his resignation and the President reluctantly accepted it. Bolton has by most accounts including some of the very same Democrat Senators who have fought his confirmation performed an excellent job as UN Ambassador. Democrat Senator Joe Biden actually stated a few weeks back that he was surprised as to how well Bolton has performed as Ambassador and was pleasantly pleased with his job but still would not vote for his confirmation. If this is not a prime example of Democrat obstruction for the sake of obstruction then a better one will never exist. Bolton has been an excellent Ambassador at the UN and has worked well in extremely difficult circumstances. Where Democrats have a problem with him is that as United States Ambassador to the UN Bolton has looked out for US interests and not bowed to the whim and fancy of the UN also seeking for reforms that are desperately needed for this corrupt organization. Democrats want an Ambassador that will fall in line with UN mandates regardless of whether those mandates are in the best interest of the US or not. It has been a contention of Democrats that the US should allow the UN to dictate policy to the US and Bolton did not fit into this mold because he refused to cave to UN dictates and opposed UN policy when it was in contrast to that of the US. Now he is gone and Senate Democrats will push for an Ambassador that fits their UN accommodating criteria. Is this obstruction policy that has been the policy of Democrats as the minority the way they will govern as a majority ? Of course as majority it will not be seen as obstruction since they will control anything that reaches the floor of the Senate for a vote either allowing that vote or preventing it from coming up for a vote. Is this the, "bipartisan, " approach that they touted so much immediately after the election ? I realize that Democrats have not taken over as majority yet but the change from minority status to majority status is only a difference of six seats. The current majority is 55 GOP, 44 Dem and 1 Ind who caucuses with the minority. The new Senate will be 51 Dem, 48 GOP and 1 Ind who again will caucus with the Dems. So most of the current crop of Democrats will move into the majority so why should anyone believe that these obstructionist Senators will create a bipartisan majority when they have used every means at their disposal to prevent any policy move by the President as a minority ? The Bolton confirmation is a foreshadowing of how a soon to be Democrat majority will govern. They have proven throughout their existence as a minority that they are unwilling to seek anything other than their obstructionist agenda and as a majority this poses the distinct probability that the Senate will be a stagnate, unyielding and totally ineffective governing body whose leadership because of opposition to the President will not allow the Senate to move forward on any proposal that is contrary to the liberal ideas of soon to be Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Senate leadership who will serve under him

Ken Taylor