Are We Entitled To An Up Or Down Vote in the Senate? NO

It always just kills me to see these Republicans like Bill Frist acting all humble and saying that every appointee deserves an up or down vote in the Senate, trying to spin it to make themselves not look like the bad guys. This being the same Bill Frist who last month was saying that the filibuster of a judicial nominee was unprecedented, until he was confronted with his own participation in the filibuster of one of Clinton's nominees, Judge Richard Paez, in 2000. But even then, he wouldn't simply say "ok you got me," but instead tried to weasel his way around it with some half-ass explanation about trying to get more information and not to kill a nomination. Even though that judge had been nominated 4 years earlier. Whatever.

But with John Bolton, as with last month's judges, they are solemnly saying the same thing about how appointees deserve a simple up or down vote, which they do not and here is why. In an honestly-run government, an up or down vote would make sense. However, in most cases today, this Congress is not honest or trustworthy. They have no intention of actually debating the merits of a paricular candidate, they simply want to rubber-stamp whatever President Bush hands them to do. And given his past history, there is nothing logical about Bush nominations-- he almost seems to pick the worst possible candidate (who he likely owes a favor to, or at least to a supporter) for nearly every position, or he'll pick the most evangelical or the one most likely to serve his agenda. With an unreasonable man in the gorilla position throwing nominees against the wall to see what sticks, you simply cannot approve without debate. And that's just what this Republican-controlled Congress intends to do at every turn. It's not good for the 49.999% who voted against him, and it's not good for the country as a whole.