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."


  1. princely54 says

    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.

  2. THE TRUTH says



  3. Max says

    I’d vote for Bolton in a heartbeat. Absolutely.

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

  4. says

    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 this…it’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.)

  5. Hue-Man says

    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!

  6. Skeptical Cicada says

    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!

  7. princely54 says

    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?

  8. says

    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???

  9. unokhan says

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

  10. Jakeyboy says

    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.

  11. Henry Holland says

    “(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.

  12. says

    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.

  13. Tone says

    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.

  14. Time to Celebrate, Not Spew Hate says

    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.

  15. rj says

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

  16. Max says

    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”).

  17. says

    “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.

  18. says

    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.

  19. arch says

    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.

  20. Joe says

    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.

  21. Brad says

    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.

  22. princely54 says

    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??)

  23. Another One's Down and OUT? says

    I think Bolton is only trying to get Ken Mehlman’s attention.

    Apparently “we” have subverted from within; now they are falling like dominoes to see who can out-gay who in the Republican camp.

    (Yes, I said “out-gay” and “camp” and “Republican” in the same sentence!

  24. Joe says

    @Brad, since Pres. Obama has already started a war with Iran and North Korea. Obama is cleaning up a war as best he can and he hasn’t been actively starting the war. Bolton thinks the peace talks are foolish. Whether they work or not, at least Obama is attempting to discuss things with a level head. I don’t need a a president who thinks international relations is a dick measuring contest. Bolton views war as too much fun and doesn’t really know how to weigh life.

    Obviously he won’t win, but the big problem with him building the narrative during the primaries is that he’ll help to shift the focus away from other republicans bigoted views to war and fear mongering. If we want our rights we need them to be front and center in this next election like never before not ignored because of bullshit war theories this guy (and other neo-cons) have.

    @Princely54, some neo-cons are liberal in that they believe that we should go to war with all countries who are different from us and remake them in our images. It’s not really the way liberal is used domestically, but more so it means liberal in the sense that our liberal way of life (believing that all people have an inherent right to life, liberty, and property) is what neo-cons want to spread. That end isn’t different from Hilary and Bill Clinton’s view of the world (or quite a few Democrats), but the difference is that the Clinton’s believe in a sort of Fukyama-esque world where our economic relations and soft power influence will cause others to embrace our liberal values and the American way of life.

  25. Joe says

    Also wanted to add:

    Whereas Bolton and his crazy neo-cons believe you should just change people by force and against their will by whatever dangerous means necessary.

  26. TANK says

    Look what the the neocon economic “foreign policy” did for south america and mexico! Innit great? And that catastrophe margaret thatcher is also a neocon. The neocon economic plan has been a proven failure.

  27. ted says

    Bolton does what he says, unlike the Liar Obama. Since he will support the constitution, and is relentlessly pro-american, I would vote for him. And as a gay republican, I can tell you that even in lowly Louisiana, where I am an elected official, many of those in power are sick of the anti-gay rhetoric promulgated by the extreme right, and especially republican women’s clubs who are voicing support for gays. First hand experience. Everyone seems to have a favorite gay person. And now they know their friends do too.

  28. says

    re: Ted

    Facts please. The ONLY anti-constitutional act you have from Obama is holding detainees that can’t be charged with a single crime but is held because of a belief that they might commit a crime in the future (May 2009.)

    Some say Obama has some problems because he refuses to prosecute war crimes (that are known) from previous administrations. GOP could probably take him down if they went that road but that probably wouldn’t look so good for the party.

    Bolton is pro-American? As compared to whom? Whoever you disagree with? He’s pro-Israel at the sake of America’s defense. He has zero credibility around the world and only gets is way by bullying people around. He pushed Iraq WMD theories (and still does.) See these are the facts…and they are fun.

    Republican women’s clubs have ZERO power to make policy change…

  29. A Real Patriot says




  30. Max says

    Princely54, the entire Middle East, except for democratic Israel, is unstable whether the U.S. intervenes or not. The Islamic countries of the world were human rights disasters long before the Iraq war. I think you’re bright enough to understand the difference between causes and excuses.

    The neo-conservative agenda (as opposed to the oil agenda of their corporate allies) was to root democracy into the geographic heart of Islam. It failed not because the U.S. failed, but because the Arabs are incapable of democracy.

  31. darkmoonman says

    Awaiting the fall of the proverbial next-shoe when warmonger Bolton reveals that he’s gay.

  32. princely54 says

    To Joe and Max,

    First of all thanks for keeping this conversation going in a respectful manner — it’s rare to find that on the internet at all these days.

    As for Joe’s (and to some extent Max’s too) comment that ‘liberal in the sense that our liberal way of life (believing that all people have an inherent right to life, liberty, and property) is what neo-cons want to spread’ is a real stretch. Wolfy, Rumsfeld and Bolton may SAY that’s their goal, but I don’t believe or agree that people with half a sense of reality or a healthy dose of cynicism believe that to be their goal at all! It’s a verbal smokescreen backed up by not ONE action to justify their stated goal. Their brand of ‘democracy’ is just garden variety ‘capitalism’ — which is much confused with democracy these days in just about all quarters. They wanted a market economy out of the effort, not real democracy. It’s as if I said, I am going to rob your house for your own good because only then will you understand the value of owning your own property. It’s laughable on it’s face and I just don’t accept their reinterpretation of common English understanding (via language, not culture.)

    Regarding Max’s statement that ‘the middle east is unstable whether the US intervenes or not’ isn’t a totally defensible reasoning for invading the region and pushing it closer to the brink. As David Cross once said (in paraphrase): “Yeah, invade Iraq, because those people have fucked with us….mmm…NEVER!” No amount of re-imagining history will allow us to say that Saddam was threatening us. That’s what was SAID by Bush, but all evidence is to the contrary. Words vs Actions: Bush (and the US) loses. Now we have a far, far worse situation in the region thanks to random and dangerous actions from the previous (and current) US President.

    The world is more dangerous than a decade ago thanks to ‘straight shooters’ like Bolton. I don’t think anyone need worry that he’ll ever get within a continent’s length of the presidency, but I feel compelled to comment nonetheless.

  33. Andalusian Dog says

    This has nothing to do with being a liberal or a Democrat or an Obama-supporter, or, for that matter, being gay. Or not. The point is that John Bolton is evil. Who in their right mind, after 10 years of seemingly ceaseless war, would want to continue to deplete American resources (fiscal, intellectual, human, etc.) on more?

    American “supremacy” is no longer within sight because of past failed policies of interminable war. It was going to slip by anyway, as history has shown time and time again. Fighting – literally fighting and killing – to hold onto it is self-destructive and dangerous. Anyone who does not see that is insane. Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a somewhat more peaceful, calm, and – gasp – multilateral world? In our futile attempt to maintain some exclusive, superlative position in the world, we have ceded our quality of life.

  34. TANK says

    It’s only futile if you believe it. It’s precisely that attitude that is behind 40% of americans believing that china has a larger economy than we do. It does not. Yet we believe it’s inevitable…that american prosperity is doomed…pathetic, really. To give up so easily, and without a whimper. To believe in some kind of fate and historicism…pathetic. The new “manifest destiny”.

  35. anon says

    The pro-gay meme of the Republican party this election cycle is interesting. I think it’s probably as cynical as most political rhetoric, but there could be internal pressure from gay staffers and business leaders. However, the religious right lost the last election and therefore lost the right to manage the agenda–a change of course due to internal competition, like pulling a pitcher out during the seventh inning.

  36. says

    The pro-gay meme of the Republican party this election cycle is interesting, it’s also a total myth. These pro-gay Republicans are almost exclusively not in office or running for office. The only place they hold any sway is in the media. The Republican party agenda is currently controlled by the religious right and the teabaggers (both decidedly not pro-gay), and neither John Bolton nor any other allegedly pro-gay conservative is going to change that any time soon.

  37. Phil says

    Please note that the Republicans who are giving lip service to gay issues are not currently in office. Those who actually have any political power are still against us.