By Paul Jacob

Politics is pretty strange no matter who your bedfellows are. Take the case of Senator George Voinovich from Ohio. He made a big splash in the news for NOT supporting John Bolton's nomination to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

The New York Times reported that Voinovich broke with the GOP, calling Bolton "the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be."

Wow. He doesn't think Bolton is qualified, and he sure didn't mince words.

But . . . watch closely. Voinovich voted to send the nomination to the Senate floor -a nomination for a guy who is everything Voinovich doesn't want. If Bolton is as bad as Voinovich says, how could he?

Well, here's another example of how Washington works. Voinovich voted to send Bolton to the floor, but without a recommendation. What practical difference does it make if the nomination has the committee's recommendation or "no recommendation"? No difference at all. Bolton is expected to be approved.

Whether he should be is a whole different debate. My point is simply this: what is the point of Voinovich's big grandstand play?

It is a classic case of wanting to have it both ways. Voinovich wants to look bold and independent of his party, at the very same time that he votes to put his party's interest ahead of what he has expressed dramatically are the country's interests. His words are bold. For those words, he is even lionized on newspaper front pages.

But his action is to do -- or at least facilitate -- precisely what he says should not be done.

This is what passes for political courage in Washington?

This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.

Common Sense is published by Americans for Limited Government. Their website can be visited at www.limitedgov.org.