Being a jerk is NOT the state's pasttime

Even Colin Powell, John Bolton's former boss, has expressed doubts about his fitness to serve as UN ambassador. Apparently Bolton is quite rude and has nasty temper.

Now, this isn't a big deal to people like the petulant Angry New Yorker blogger, who complained about the Democratic 'babies' saying mean things about poor Mr. Bolton.

Angry New Yorker sniffed: We're really at a loss at to what the issue is here regarding the accusation that John Bolton, nominee for U.S.'s U.N. Ambassador, was "verbally abusive" and chased a woman staffer around a hotel throwing things at her. First of all, at the risk of being undiplomatic, we don't care. In New York verbal abuse is almost the state pastime.

Perhaps lack of class is something to be proud of in New York City, but up here in the boonies, it's not. Like some NYC residents, he thinks that NYC is the be all and end all of New York state.

And where I work, chasing a woman staffer around a hotel throwing things at her is probably grounds for dismissal. In the Bush administration, it's apparently grounds for a promotion.

In his graceful way, Angry New Yorker continues: So if some wallflower ten years ago was traumatized and couldn't take a dressing down -- deserved or not -- without quivering in her Legg's we're most definitely not getting teary-eyed about it. Granted, no one enjoys working for a jerk -- and there's no shortage of those in either New York City or in the broader work world. But we've also worked with plenty of idiots, incompetents and deadwood, and there are times when lighting a bonfire under someone's lazy ass is just what the doctor ordered.

Being a jerk, as he put it, may not be a fatal flaw in other offices but perhaps is not the best quality to have in the nation's #2 diplomat. Especially considering the beating America's reputation has taken precisely as the result of the administration's contempt for diplomacy.

Laughably, President Bush yesterday accused Democrats of blocking Bolton's nomination for political reasons.

As we know, Bush's nomination of a vehemently anti-UN man to represent America at the UN was not the least bit political.

'Partisan politics' or doing something 'for political reasons' is one of the most common, and lamest, complaints heard in Washington. A politician is one who practices politics. Politics is, by definition: The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.

So yes, the Democrats are playing politics by blocking Bolton. Just as the administration is playing politics by defending him. So what? Besides, the minority Dems can't block Bolton without the help of Republican senators... some of whom are uneasy about him as well.

I admit that this doesn't really matter that much. I'm sure if Bolton gets voted down, the administration will nominate someone even more hardline, even more obnoxious, even more undiplomatic. Maybe Jesse Helms is available.

But if the best defense of Bolton supporters is whining about 'obstructionism,' then it's obvious he should be voted down.