U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton has tendered his resignation.

First Sen. George "crybaby" Voinovich and then Sen. Lincoln "backstabber" Chafee and their perfidy is to blame for Bolton's exit after the Democrats won control of the Senate last month. Voinovich blocked Bolton's nomination when it first came up because he thought Bolton would be a meanie and make the thugs and dictators at the U.N. cry. Chafee refused to go along with confirmation after he lost his re-election mainly because he's just a sore loser.

What's really troubling about this whole matter is that the Senate -- mainly Democrats with the assistance of a few Republicans -- has set a new standard: A president cannot staff his administration with qualified, honorable people of his choice if a few Senators simply don't like them.

In the past, the Senate gave great deference to the president in making selections, with nominees only facing rejection if they were unqualified or had a serious character flaw. Senators opposed John Bolton merely because he appeared that he would be zealous in carrying out the foreign policy of his boss.

I hesitate to suggest that the GOP remember this and hold a future Democrat president's nominees to the same "standard" because what the Democrats (and a few Republicans) have done is counter to the constitution. Maybe the Democrats need a taste of their own medicine occasionally to keep them in line.

There's quite a bit of talk about who should suceed Bolton. The New York Times has even gone as far as suggest soon-to-be ex-Senator Lincoln Chafee as a possible replacement (Someone get a doctor over to the Times building, because someone has a severe case of cranial rectal impaction).

I've got a suggestion for the president: Don't nominate a replacement. Let the mostly-useless post go unfilled. If the Senate doesn't want President Bush's foreign policy vigorously pushed over at Turtle Bay, then you can prove a point about the Senate's fecklessness and the U.N.'s uselessness all in one broad stroke.