I don't know John Bolton from Michael Bolton, so I can't comment on whether he is an appropriate choice for the UN. Nevertheless, there are a couple of things I do know:
- Absolutely no one in the Senate gives a crap if Bolton has a temper or sometimes was tough on subordinates. I am willing to wager about any figure you can name that many of the Senators commenting on Mr. Bolton are themselves strutting prima donnas who have blasted subordinates. I remember that former CA Governor Gray (Grey?) Davis supposedly had some incredible temper tantrums with subordinates, but at the time that was not thought to be a disqualifier for office. Why is it that stupid issues like this (or the immigration status of nannies) seem to dominate confirmation hearings rather than the person's qualifications and philosophy?
- I have worked for not one but two men who have been featured on that famous "Toughest Bosses in America" list. Compared to some of my encounters with these two, the stuff being talked about with Bolton is a joke.
- When you hear "the UN" when any senator is talking, substitute the word "Enron". This is not quite appropriate, because in many ways, as referenced here, the UN scandals are much worse than Enron. However, if this comparison is at all apt, why is it so inappropriate to send an ambassador who is openly skeptical of the UN in its current state? When the feds sought out a prosecutor to oversee the Enron investigations, did they go looking for a person who had a high degree of respect and friendship for Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling?