Bolton Out Of The U.N.

To my mind, the one thing better than having John Bolton representing the United States at the U.N. would be to have nobody representing the United States at the U.N. Strangely enough, Democrats might be preparing to make that happen.

Yesterday, the illusorily hairlined Sen. Joe Biden indicated to CNN that with Bolton's nomination now heading to the floor of the Senate, the Democrats might again invoke the ubiquitous filibuster. If I were the Bush administration, I would quietly and without protest let them do it.

After all, it's Democrats who worship the United Nations. Most true conservatives would simply like to see the whole project abandoned. Sending someone like Bolton is a way of putting the U.N. on notice that our government couldn't really care less what they have to say. I like that, but I would never have dreamed we could accomplish the even loftier goal of vacating the place altogether.

How beautiful would it be to see the position of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. open indefinitely? And by the fault of Democrats no less? They've filibustered Priscilla Owen's judicial nomination for four years now--think of what could be (not) accomplished in four years of U.S. absence in the U.N.?

And the president would have the perfect alibi for anyone who complained about the vacancy: "Hey, the Senate won't vote on our nominee. Talk to them about it. I did my job."

If the Bush Administration has the guts (which I'm not too sure they do), this could be a perfect win-win situation.