Bolton in, Lachlan bolts

Today, the Wall Street Journal editorializes that John Bolton is just what the doctor ordered for a corrupt, dysfunctional United Nations. The New York Times disagrees, but sees a silver lining to Bolton’s assignment. At least he won’t be “wreaking havoc elsewhere.”

Separately, the NYT deplores Gov. George Pataki’s opposition to bipartisan state legislation to make emergency contraception more available without a prescription. According to the editorial, Pataki “takes umbrage at any suggestion that his planned veto represents a politically motivated shift as he contemplates a 2008 presidential run.”

If Republicans are grappling with succession issues, so is Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. The Financial Times editorializes today that investors are right to be alarmed by the departure of Lachlan, Murdoch’s son and heir apparent, from the company.

But it’s hard to tell whether the FT is more disgusted by the lack of an orderly succession plan at the media giant or by the old plan, which treated the publicly traded company as a family heirloom: “Unlike the royal family, there is no hereditary right to succeed at the top of a business effectively owned by non-family members.”

Andres Martinez