So who will Bush pick to replace Wolfie at the World Bank?

John Bolton?
Rick Santorum?
George Allen?
Negroponte?
Doug Feith?
I am sure there are many other highly qualified (by admin standards) people.

"You gonna drink the rest of that bottle?"

Living at a tropical resort must be boring after a while . . .

would hang tough and refuse to vote for whoever Bush appoints. The U.S. can block another candidate, but the US cannot force others to vote for the US choice. Let some in-house, high level WB exec serve as Acting President, or whatever. If Bush can drag out the Iraq War until he leaves office, let the World Bank drag out voting in a new president for the same amount of time.

www.Zmag.org/content/Showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6362

(last paragraph in article)

"In fact an organization that operates on non-democratic structures itself is an unlikely champion of participatory decision-making. Voting power at World Bank is determined by a country’s financial contribution. The US has between 15.5-18% of vote in every board and the combined vote of the G7 countries is close to 45%. The headquarters of both IMF and World Bank are at Washington due to the stipulation that headquarters will be located in countries with the highest contribution. Significant changes in policy direction require a majority vote of 85%. So far the US has maintained its veto power by ensuring that its voting power never slips below 15%. This organization certainly understands the language of ‘effective demand’ i.e. responding to the demands of those who can pay, but to expect it to actively promote democratic participation may be naivety of the highest order."