Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Gay Marriage | John Bolton

John Bolton Hints At Run in 2012, Supports Gay Issues

Conservative lawyer and diplomat John Bolton (he resigned as UN Ambassador under George Bush in 2006) has dropped hints that he might put his hat in the presidential ring in 2012. In an interview with Tucker Carlson's right-leaning Website The Daily Caller, Bolton suggests that he might consider running if only to put a spotlight on national security issues.

AOL News points out that Bolton tends to be a bit trigger-happy in his beliefs about how to deal with other nations:

Bolton opposed this week's renewed Middle East peace talks, warning that failure would hurt Washington's influence in the region. He has assailed the administration's "policy chaos" in Afghanistan. And he has unabashedly called for a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities while accusing the White House of leaving the U.S. defenseless by canceling missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic (the administration later announced a scaled-back defensive shield).

A summary of Bolton form one political strategist:

"John Bolton would provide an interesting voice in a Republican presidential debate," said Democratic strategist Paul Begala in a preview of likely party talking points. "He, of course, wants to invade countries -- lots of countries -- seeing Afghanistan and Iraq as a warm-up for bombing Iran. And then, who knows? Continue through the alphabet to Iceland and Ireland?"

Bolton has been quite supportive of several gay rights issues, having this to say about DADT: “I don’t think there is any good answer to the question why shouldn’t gays and lesbians who want to serve their country be allowed to do it.”

He's also taken a very progressive approach toward marriage equality confessing that it is "going to happen."

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Any LGBT person who would vote for this man is selling a piece of his/her soul to the Devil. This is one of the most craven, bitter and nasty and wrong-headed people to ever work in government in the United States. I can barely stand to look at his face.

    Posted by: princely54 | Sep 4, 2010 12:35:48 PM



    Posted by: THE TRUTH | Sep 4, 2010 12:44:55 PM

  3. I'd vote for Bolton in a heartbeat. Absolutely.

    (Cue the frothing rage from the tolerant "liberals" on this board.)

    Posted by: Max | Sep 4, 2010 12:51:24 PM

  4. Great, then Max can go fight all the wars Bolton wants to start. I think that's fair.

    Bolton is the male Sarah Palin. The tiny number of folks who'd vote for this neocon warmonger make him unworthy of serious consideration.

    I don't care if he's pro-gay.

    But I will say's going to be interesting in '12 if any of the clusterfuck of presidential-contender Republicans are pro-marriage equality. (Then again, Obama once was, too, so they'd still have time to change their minds.)

    Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Sep 4, 2010 1:02:25 PM

  5. Better idea: try him for his part in the War Crimes of the Bush Administration, along with his co-criminals (you know their names). They can all then enjoy many long years of consensual gay sex in their prison cells and if they're lucky by then, marry each other!

    Posted by: Hue-Man | Sep 4, 2010 1:24:57 PM

  6. I would never vote for Bolton because I do not subscribe to his neo-con beliefs on foreign policy.

    That said, his neo-con beliefs on foreign policy are also NOT a gay issue, so being gay has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Being gay does not dictate a liberal position on foreign policy any more than it determines propensity to be limp-wristed. Both are stereotypes.

    So, while I would not support Bolton because of foreign policy, I would be delighted to have a choice that was not constrained by gay issues for once!

    Posted by: Skeptical Cicada | Sep 4, 2010 1:26:18 PM

  7. Max, other than the 'support' for the marriage issue, why would you vote for him? Simple political/party affiliation? Because he's been WRONG on just about everything he's supported and preached the last decade. Leaving "liberal" out of it (you may be surprised by some of my political positions, but I am not afraid to be labeled if it makes you feel better) just what makes you think he'd make a good LEADER for the nation? Is it his bomb-throwing rhetoric that won us such support from the UN while he was there? The 'moderate' position on use of nuclear weapons on civilians? Just what grabs you intellectually about this guy? How would he earn your vote?

    Posted by: princely54 | Sep 4, 2010 1:29:09 PM

  8. He only claimed support for repealing DADT. And his 'support' was lukewarm at best.

    His comments on marriage equality sound like somebody who is in the politics games and can read a poll. It will happen...30 years from now.

    Max may support Bolton's Israel-first opinions. Of course if Israel is first (for the sake of the endtimes) where does that leave the U.S. and it's interests???

    Posted by: Shawn | Sep 4, 2010 1:35:49 PM

  9. there's something...odd...about the gradually emerging repug consensus for lgbt issues.....what in the hell's going on here?

    Posted by: unokhan | Sep 4, 2010 1:43:28 PM

  10. Gays have been drinking the Democrat-kool-aid for way too long. We joined the Liberal movement because that's the only place for our most critical issue (us), and then we got on board with the rest of the agenda as it's been fed to us.

    Case in point: We attack progressive democracies that are very pro-gay (Israel) while defending nations that would have us murdered or if they are "liberal", incarcerated. Lunacy.

    I look forward to more gay conservatives.

    Posted by: Jakeyboy | Sep 4, 2010 1:54:08 PM

  11. "(Cue the frothing rage from the tolerant "liberals" on this board.)"

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. So, to be "tolerant", we have to not disagree with anything you say? Or we can disagree, as long as we ultimately concede you're right? Or, if we're really really polite in telling you we think you're wrong, then that makes it better?

    How convenient for you in debating terms.

    And I wish you people that put liberals in quotation marks --or call us libs or libtards-- would get over your puerile, juvenile glee in thinking that taking a contrary position to something the voices in your head tell us we all support because of orders from The Liberal Borg gets us mad. In most cases, we're *laughing at you*.

    As for Bolton, bring it on, moustache man. Just another loon that'll split the Republican vote.

    Posted by: Henry Holland | Sep 4, 2010 2:00:13 PM

  12. Bolton would be sort of an Al Haig candidate but even worse. He has zero chance of winning because he has no charisma and no media presence, both of which are required for successful national political office. He has a temperament like a pissy civil servant administrator.

    Posted by: Will | Sep 4, 2010 2:09:49 PM

  13. In Canada many of us hate this man too. I echo an earlier poster who said they can barely stand the sight of him. Give Herr Bolton the Presidency and I will emigrate to another continent.

    Posted by: Tone | Sep 4, 2010 2:28:54 PM

  14. The anti-gay impetus that has driven so much (but surely not all) of the right is clearly, and rapidly, crumbling. That's a cause for massive celebration, not for spewing hatred of people with whom you have unrelated political disagreements. It's startling to me how many people can't figure that out, and illustrative of the fact that there plenty and plenty of narrow-minded, hate-warped gay people and people on the left as well as some on the right.

    Posted by: Time to Celebrate, Not Spew Hate | Sep 4, 2010 2:47:30 PM

  15. Who gives a shit about his stance on lgbt issues? This war monger would get us all killed

    Posted by: Tranquilo | Sep 4, 2010 2:59:28 PM

  16. amazing how bolton, o'reilly can talk about marriage equality coming; ironically, not under an obama administration

    Posted by: rj | Sep 4, 2010 3:01:46 PM

  17. What princely54 and Tranquilo said.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Sep 4, 2010 3:24:34 PM

  18. Princely54, Bolton gets my vote mostly because of his no-nonsense foreign policy and fervent disdain of that useless, tax-leech facilitator of global genocide known as the UN.

    Most "neo-conservatives" are in fact liberals who favor installing democracy around the world in place of Communism (traditionally) and Islamo-fascism (currently). Thus, they are likely to hold moderate or liberal positions on social issues.

    Jakeyboy, right you are ("Gays have been drinking the Democrat-kool-aid for way too long").

    Posted by: Max | Sep 4, 2010 4:42:45 PM

  19. Just what we need, another war monger. Haven't we had enough pointless wars?

    Posted by: ravewulf | Sep 4, 2010 5:31:11 PM

  20. "there's something...odd...about the gradually emerging repug consensus for lgbt issues.....what in the hell's going on here?"

    The odd thing is that people are believing it. The Repub consensus--for people who are actually in or actually running for office--is anti-gay. Talk to the contrary is a myth based on a handful of conservatives who aren't in power. If Bolton were to be a serious candidate--highly unlikely; he has the personality of an deceased walrus--any marginally pro-gay stances he might have would go out the window. But, on the zero chance he was elected, his gay supporters can hope that DADT will be gone by then, so they can volunteer to be good gay soldiers in the wars he'd initiate.

    Posted by: Ernie | Sep 4, 2010 5:46:49 PM

  21. Bolton is an anti-democratic war criminal with a big fucking ugly mustache. He once told Jon Stewart that Bush was not the President of people who didn't vote for him and therefore not accountable to them. He is a seriously dangerous man who should be in prison. Nothing he says should be believed. He may be the only person that the Republicans could run that might make me vote for Obama.

    Posted by: gaylib | Sep 4, 2010 5:51:35 PM

  22. this man is so extreme in his views about anyone who does not agree with him that whatever the merits of his theoretical liberalism he is in practical terms dangerous and a hindrance to global cooperation, his election as US president would put great strain on the western alliance since european govts would find him distasteful to deal with.

    Posted by: arch | Sep 4, 2010 7:13:18 PM

  23. Sorry, but confessing that "it's going to happen" isn't enough for me. That's not support - that's just stating a fact and could be even him admitting defeat. I need more context before I label him as good on social issues.

    However, neocons bother the hell out of me. He'll get in the race to fear monger and say that with democrats we all die. Neo-cons are so frustrating because they think the answer to every international relations problem/question is to to take out their weapons and measure it against the next guys. Although they try to intellectualize the situation, they're no better than stupid fratboys (not to stereo too much though). I find them and people like him DANGEROUS.

    The fact that he WANTS to start wars should trouble everyone, and I think that pre-empts his social views.

    Posted by: Joe | Sep 4, 2010 7:22:43 PM

  24. Jakeyboy is right.
    Gays are drinking the Democratic Kool-Aid.

    Isn't Obama with his drone attacks and targeted killings a war-mongering neo-con, too? He's packaged as "hope and change" so we all buy the rest of his goods without examining them. And Obama hasn't ruled out an attack on Iran, either.

    The only difference in a Bolton administration would be possibly more gay civil rights, quite an irony with a Republican since we're not getting it with the furthest left president this nation has had.

    Posted by: Brad | Sep 4, 2010 7:23:09 PM

  25. Brad, honestly, that's NOT the only difference.

    But, to Max, I really would like to hear more about his 'no-nonsense' foreign policy, which seems to do nothing but destabilize powder kegs like the middle east. Not to mention Georgia, Russia, some African nations, the Koreas and the like. Running about swinging the biggest dick has gotten us nowhere but to over 4,000 dead Americans. His negotiation skills are for shit.

    And as for calling neo-cons liberals, that's one of the more bold re-definitions/historically revisionist statements I have ever read. Congrats on that, but it's hogwash. That dog won't hunt in any acceptable definition of who Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld are and who they serve.

    Obama, unfortunately, has continued Bush's horrendous foreign policy, so you must love him for that too...does that make YOU a liberal? (Of course not, because Obama isn't a liberal using commonly accepted nomenclature. Using yours, maybe he is??)

    Posted by: princely54 | Sep 4, 2010 8:23:21 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Terry Richardson Is Jared Leto And Vice Versa« «