Voinovich's lack

I haven't blogged much on John Bolton. I'm not a big fan from what I've heard, but I haven't had the time to follow the debate all that closely.

But for some reason, this bothers me:

Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, who had earlier stunned Republican peers by saying he wanted to review allegations against Bolton, portrayed Bolton as "arrogant" and "bullying." The senator said that while he would vote against the nomination in committee, he supported sending it to the full Senate for a vote.

"John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be," Voinovich said, adding that Bolton would be fired if he was in private business.

"That being said, Mr. Chairman, I am not so arrogant to think that I should impose my judgment and perspective of the U.S. position in the world community on the rest of my colleagues," he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "We owe it to the president to give Mr. Bolton an up or down vote on the floor."

Mr. Voinovich, you owe the President nothing on this one. You don't represent him. You represent the people of Ohio. And if you think that John Bolton would be a bad choice for the country and the people you are actually paid to stand up for, then you should vote him down. Don't extract your own political spine trying to have it both ways.

If John Bolton would be a poor diplomatic representative as you suggest, you should stand against him. It's part of your role on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to judge nominations and decide if they will be good for America, not just the lame duck President who is afraid to lose what he sees as a political battle. If your afraid to make those decisions, then perhaps you should step down from your current role.

So Bolton will now move onto the floor of the Senate, where he should meet with fairly easy approval. And Voinovich deserves all the blame if something goes wrong.

At least the hallways of the U.N. should become more lively, eh?

*UPDATE* Steve Clemons, on the other hand, declares the vote without recommendation a great victory for Democrats, leading to more debate and possibly more damaging revelations. Forcing Bush and the White House to continue to play defense should be a good time for all involved (well, except Republicans) and should serve as an annoying distraction to those that want to push the GOP agenda forward.

Maybe things won't be so easy after all.