The Bolton renomination is a critical fight.  With Israel and Hezbollah in a brutal clash, the rest of the world is watching US domestic political debates to see if we are willing to change course.  Upon break-out of hostilities, I wrote this analysis, which still holds.

One key thing to recognize is that foreigners are following our domestic political debates.  The right-wing, to their credit, understand this, and make the reactionary argument that a free press is therefore bad since it reveals our strategy.  From a progressive perspective, a freewheeling domestic political debate that our enemies are paying attention to is an underexploited asset.  If our allies knew that there was domestic American political debate about applying pressure towards Israel to reign in its absurdly disproportionate attacks, just that debate would empower moderates among our allies and enemies.

At the very least, a Democratic Congress that no longer gives a blank check to our President will help improve our situation.  Checks on Bush's authority, far from constraining American power abroad, will provide an incentive to moderates all over the world to work with America rather than to cede ground to extremists.  Reigning in Bush's power domestically will expand America's options.  

We must recognize that Bush's war on terror is a failure and a fraud, and build credibility from there.  We can no longer let everyone, including Iran, Israel, Russia and even Lebanese terrorists, push us around.  That means the American people must vote against this disastrous path, and elect a check on Bush's power.  That's what voters are moving towards in Connecticut, and hopefully that's what voters will do in November, 2006.  

As important, a robust debate about Bolton will show that the Democratic Party and progressive Republicans are serious about changing our path in the world.  That is meaningful and will measurably improve the situation.

And now onward to the domestic politics!  With Voinovich flipping his vote on Bolton, the swing vote on the committee moves to Lincoln Chafee.  He's facing a tough primary against conservative Steven Laffey, and a tough general against Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse.

Chafee is in an extremely tough spot.  If he votes against Bolton, he faces increased pressure from Laffey in the primary.  If he votes for Bolton, he faces a backlash during the general.  If you're just measuring the politics, on balance Chafee should probably vote against Bolton.  Democrats and Independents may then have a strong incentive to vote in the primary, but interestingly, many Republicans agree that we need a new path in foreign policy.  Chafee may be able to convince conservative primary voters that his anti-Bolton vote is the conservative choice, that he believes in checks on Bush, and that he is working in the long-term interest of the Republican Party.

I would add that the Bolton renomination, coming now, is a fairly good sign that Bush thinks the Republicans are going to lose the Senate.  Otherwise, he wouldn't be moving to push Bolton through the Senate at this point with the same Senate constitution that rejected Bolton the first time.  Bush is also jeopardizing a moderate Republican Senate seat, and making it more likely that the Republicans lose the Senate.

Or maybe he just doesn't care about anything or anyone anymore.