Redstate

By AaronVB Posted in User Blogs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

From Robert Novak on townhall.com:

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas has quietly put a hold on Bush's nomination of Julie Finley to be U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) because of her fervent support for abortion rights. Finley has been a major contributor to Bush and is a longtime Republican leader in the District of Columbia.

The White House contends that Finley's proposed diplomatic post has nothing to do with abortion. Brownback argues that the OSCE, a European multilateral organization, often gets into women's issues, including abortion, and that the U.S. representative there often pulls the organization away from radical initiatives. It is supposed to police human rights standards established by the 1975 Helsinki Accords.

Whether Ms. Finley is pro-choice or pro-life, Brownback has overstepped his boundaries by putting a hold on her nomination to be ambassador to the OSCE.In the interests of disclosure, I will say I like Senator Brownback, and that I certainly disagree with Ms. Finley's position on abortion.  That said, Brownback's hold on her nomination presents an interesting question about our principles in the wake of the battle of judicial nominations and especially John Bolton.

Are we willing to defend that all of a President nominees should be voted on, even the ones with whom we disagree?

Most of us here probably thought we would have to answer this question the next time a Democrat was elected President.  While the ambassador to the OSCE is not really an important position, even less important than ambassador to the UN, we are being forced to answer this question of principle now.  We need to swallow our pride and tell Sen. Brownback to end his hold on Ms. Finley.  Consider:

1.  During the judicial confirmation fight, we fought hard against the filibuster of President Bush's nominees.  On the issue of Bolton's nomination, we were particularly upset when Senator Boxer placed a hold on his vote (since lifted) because it represents an even more odious version of the filibuster- one that can be used by one Senator only.  Sen. Brownback should certainly not be immune to criticism for his use of this undemocratic procedure, even though the great majority of Republicans may agree with his justification.  He was behind the President on the nuclear option.  Why he now chooses to violate the spirit of that principle is incomprehensible, no matter how pro-life he is.
   
2.  This is the wrong place to pick a fight over abortion.  President Bush is avowedly pro-life.  He would not nominate a very pro-choice person to a position where his or her stance really mattered to policy.  Brownback's argument that the ambassador to the OSCE often pulls it back from radical feminist initiatives may be true, but like the Democrats on John Bolton, he is missing the point about the function of an ambassador.  The job of an ambassador is to zealously represent the goals and interests of the current administration to other countries and organizations.  Ms. Finley would be obligated to represent President Bush's position on abortion and other life issues to the OSCE, or he would be well within his rights to remove her from her position.  If President Bush seriously thought that Ms. Finley would zealously advocate abortion as an ambassador, he would not have nominated her.
   
3.  We now look like we are imposing a Democrat-style litmus test on nominations.  We often rightly accuse Democrats of putting an pro-abortion litmus test on almost all potential nominations to government that matter.  However, we should not then turn around and put an anti-abortion litmus test on nominees, because it undermines our argument that a nominee's stance on abortion is not relevant to their ability to carry out their duties.  For judges, the test should be whether they will strictly follow the text of the Constitution, and for ambassadors, it should be whether they will zealously advocate the policies of their government to other countries.  What either group thinks about abortion should not determine their fitness for office.  This is a very powerful argument of principle against Democrats.  We want to keep it that way.

Clearly, Sen. Brownback is overreaching because he feels very strongly on the issue of abortion.  There should certainly be no penalty for believing strongly in something, but there are times when everyone must realize they are fighting the wrong battle.  That is what Sen. Brownback is doing here.  We do not want to send the Republican party down the path of imposing an anti-abortion litmus test on every nominee.