I previously wrote about the policy reasons behind my decision not to vote for either Chafee or Whitehouse in this week’s U.S. Senate race.
Then there was the word that Chafee might not stay a Republican after all.
Now comes the re-affirmation that Chafee will indeed continue to block the nomination of John Bolton:

Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., who was defeated by Democrat Sheldon
Whitehouse on Tuesday, told reporters in Rhode Island that he would
continue opposing Bolton. That would likely deny Republicans the votes
needed to move Bolton’s nomination from the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee to the full Senate.
“The American people have spoken out against the president’s agenda on a
number of fronts, and presumably one of those is on foreign policy,” Chafee
said. “And at this late stage in my term, I’m not going to endorse
something the American people have spoke out against.”…

And how much did the Republican establishment spend on this Senator? For what end?
John Podhoretz, writing over at The Corner, writes about a New York Times article on the U.N. ambassador position:

Who has made it impossible for John Bolton to be confirmed by the Senate?
Lincoln Chafee. Who has recently said he may not remain a Republican
notwithstanding the millions upon millions of dollars spent by the
Republican party to retain his seat? Lincoln Chafee. Who, therefore, in the
delusional estimation of a New York Times reporter, might be John Bolton’s
replacement at the U.N.? Lincoln Chafee! “Names that have been floated both
inside and outside the administration,” writes reporter Helene Cooper in a
risible piece today, “include Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to
Iraq; Philip D. Zelikow, the State Department counselor; Paula Dobriansky,
under secretary of state for democracy and global affairs; and even Mr.
Chafee.”

Left-wing editorializing masquerading as a news article – yet another example of the high standards at the NY Times.
Isn’t it interesting how the definition of compromise post-election has been defined by the Left as capitulation on matters of principle?
One of the reason some of us are pleased that the Democrats now control the Congress is that they are now heavily accountable for American public policies in the next two years going into the 2008 elections. We will now get to see what they are really made up of. Simplistic knee-jerk negative reactions to President Bush will no longer cut it.