Showing he can have his cake and eat it too, Ohio Senator George Voinovich positioned himself perfectly in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on the Bush Administration nomination of John Bolton for U.N. ambassador. Voinovich surprised everyone April 19th during the hearings, saying, “I’ve heard enough today that I don’t feel comfortable about voting for Mr. Bolton…. Maybe it would be in the best interest of this committee to take a little bit more time.” His actions delayed the Bolton nomination for a few weeks, and threw GOP leaders and the White House into a tizzy as Democrats used the time to gather more dirt on Bolton (and more dirt came).
With his surprising actions, Voinovich showed the public an independent, thoughtful streak (all the more impressive, since he hadn’t been showing thought during the hearings because he was absent (it would be interesting to know if his subcommittee schedule really did conflict as he claimed)). By criticizing the nominee today, saying, “the United States can do better than John Bolton,” and saying he would not vote for Bolton, Voinovich maintained his independent poise (and supported what are likely his sincere beliefs). But he also was smart enough to suggest (and get credit for suggesting) that the nomination be sent to the Senate floor for a vote without recommendation. This was good enough for Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, who also has presidential aspirations, and is one of the Republican senators concerned about Bolton. It was good enough for Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee who, despite sincere misgivings, was unlikely to oppose the nomination because of worries about his upcoming election. And ultimately it was also good enough for the rest of the GOP senators on the committee.
With Voinovich leading the effort to bring the Bolton nomination to the floor - the nomination he had single-handedly put in doubt - the Ohio senator showed loyalty to his party and president, allaying any national concerns (likely his own) about appearances of rebellion. He furthered this with extreme generosity toward his Republican colleagues, despite his misgivings about Bolton, saying, “I have every faith in my colleagues. No one really is excited about [Bolton]. We’ll see what happens.” No matter what now happens with the Bolton nomination, George Voinovich will get credit both ways - as the man who sank it and yet saved it - because he permitted it to go to the floor in an up or down vote, the new gold standard of GOP fairness (see judicial nominations).
All in all Senator George Voinovich showed brilliant feigned excess in the service of feigned moderation. Keep an eye on George - he’s good!
Oh, and if John Bolton should be confirmed by the senate, will Senator Voinovich be disappointed? Yes. But then again, that wasn’t the object of this exercise.
Comments 2
Senator Voinovich is on the Civil Service committee which wants to push for the elimination of the pay scale (the General Schedule), now in place, for the pay-for-performance system in which the General Service pay scale for the employees would be abolished. In it’s place will be no increases for federal employees at all. Not even cost of living adjustments. What ever happened to President Clinton’s order put into law, in his secord term, that all salaries of federal employees in 3-4 years would be on par with the private sector. All psoitions! Subsequent to that, that law has been postponed by the president because it is a “budget buster”. And he says he wants to keep federal employees from leaving public service. And now this pay-for performance-law being proposed by Mr Bush’s “President’s Managent Agenda” of 2001 aims to eliminate the GS pay scale by 2010. I am already being paid less than that compared to my professional counterparts in the private sector…I am in law enforcement (support) in which I only get 1% when I retire, when Congress, the Senate and law enfocementr agents get 1.7% (or 2% if they are under the old retirement system) After 15 years with the FBI, why should I stay? My wife, a state employee of Calif, gets 90% of her salary when she retires and 100% paid healthcare. We are the backbone of finding terrorists, protecting thuis Country and now the Republicans, including Bush, thinks we are lazy and therefore have to “beg” for our raises: the within-grade increases, the Qulaity Step increases and the colas. I am so mad I want to vote out every lousy republican and go back to the democrate party….that is unless you guys go along with the radical changes they are proposing ..like Ohio’s Voinovich!! You guys (senators and congress) don’t have to worry about salaries. You get over $120,000 a year. I make a lousy $80,000 and my counterparts make over $115,000 per year (per the Associaiton of Certified Fraud Examiners). My job is I find the methods of obtaining $$ in which the terrorists try to get for financing—before they do!! This is how my elected representatives thank me…by paying me below the going salarly and taking away any “raises” I may be entitled. My Senators are in Calif, but they both seem to be unconcerned. I would like to get this known to the public that the president rewards the law enforcement community AND ALL OTHER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES (we do vote you know) by stripping away our small comforts. We don’t have to beg for raises, we work hard to get our steps in pay grades and now the Republicans and others want to “punish” us because they think we are lazy and do not perform. Tell that to the widows and families of the Administrations’s policies in Iraq of the current administration. Mr Bush is the lousiest president I can remember! Forward this angry note to Mr. Bush and to Boxer & Feinstein and to the Republican/Democrat parties. I am not alone..this thing affects ALL federal employees.
Posted 17 Aug 2006 at 3:56 pm ¶Georgie, you might run as a conservative and as a Republician but you sir are a RINO and you know it. We will do all we can to make sure you do not get re-elected. We need a REAL Conservative not a charliton.
Posted 26 May 2008 at 7:38 pm ¶Post a Comment