Posted on 05/13/2005 7:00:06 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Democrats in the US Senate have made a fresh bid to derail the appointment of John Bolton, the embattled White House pick for UN ambassador, after a Senate panel declined to back him ahead of a floor vote.
Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer "put a hold on the nomination" of Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations, her spokeswoman Natalie Ravitz said without indicating how the process could be delayed.
The move is intended to either force further negotiations or ultimately to prevent his nomination from reaching the Senate floor.
A Senate panel took the rare step Thursday of refusing to endorse President George W. Bush's choice for UN ambassador, although it did send the nomination to the full Senate for confirmation.
The White House had hoped that Bolton would receive the seal of approval of the committee's 10 Republicans, whose backing would have improved his odds for success in the Senate vote.
Instead, Bolton barely squeaked out of the polarized Senate committee.
His nomination was apparently saved after several Republicans agreed to forward his nomination for the UN post, without giving him explicit support.
Despite the lack of a congressional endorsement, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she was "pleased" by the outcome, and expressed hope for Bolton's quick confirmation.
Rice argued that Bolton, currently undersecretary for arms control and international security at the US State Department, would bring the "skill and dedication necessary to advance the president's reform agenda" at the UN.
A date has not been set for the vote in the Senate where Republicans hold a 55 to 45 majority. But Democrats promised they would continue to fight tooth and nail against the nomination as it moves to the chamber.
"If this comes to the floor, we're going to have a fight," Senator Barbara Boxer said during the committee meeting.
Democrats have been united in opposition to Bolton, while four of the committee's 10 Republicans expressed serious reservations.
Chief among Bolton's Republican critics was Senator George Voinovich, who expressed grave reservations about allegations Bolton mistreated staff during his long Washington carreer and shaped intelligence to fit his views.
He also issued a scathing denunciation of the nominee, saying the president could have chosen any one of a number of equally qualified, less controversial, candidates.
Nevertheless, the Ohio senator said he would approve sending Bolton's nomination to a vote before the full Senate, in deference to the White House.
The debate in the divided committee was the latest showdown between Senate Democrats and Republicans, after weeks of bitter wrangling over Bush's nominee.
Bolton's Republican supporters acknowledge that he has at times been "blunt," but they say his direct manner is just what is needed to help whip the scandal-plagued UN into shape.
"I think the American people want someone at the United Nations who pushes strongly for reform," said Senator George Allen. "We are not electing 'Mr. Congeniality.' We do not need 'Mr. Milquetoast' in the United Nations," he said.
The panel has spent weeks examining allegations that Bolton misused or hyped flawed intelligence on issues including China, Iran, North Korea and Syria.
Even his ex-boss, former secretary of state Colin Powell, reportedly told lawmakers that Bolton had been a problematic official. Powell's former chief of staff was quoted by the US press as saying that Bolton would make an "abysmal ambassador."
If confirmed by the Senate, Bolton would have to fight the US case on vital foreign policy issues, ranging from nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea to the future of the world body itself.
Just ignore her and schedule a vote anyway.
They are wimps, with just a few exceptions, George Allen being one.
Yes, and he should be, if Babs persists.
I found this example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/13/politics/13cnd-enviro.html?ex=1116129600&en=015b383fd141911d&ei=5070
Mr. Carper's spokesman, Bill Ghent, told The Associated Press that the senator was "keeping his options open as far as blocking the nomination." Under Senate rules, any senator has the power to block the confirmation of a nominee indefinitely simply by imposing a "hold," a tactic that can even be invoked anonymously. (Under the rules, however, a hold can be voided by 60 votes.)
"Now that Sonovitch has carried the water for the demoncrats, what demoncrat will cross the aisle to vote with Republicans on Bolton?"
Lieberman, Larieux. There are a couple of more. This is not going to be a partyline vote.
The party of no is getting really silly now.
I don't know, and it's getting to the point where I don't care.
As a citizen and an increasingly wobbly Republican voter, my patience has just about run out.
Bolton, "nuclear option", "ethics rules"...
I'm tired of hearing about it from the people who were DEFEATED in the last election.
It's long past time for the Republicans to get off their dead a**es and get it done!
If the Dems want to filibuster, LET THEM FILIBUSTER!
But for crying out loud, let's GET ON WITH IT, and stop YAMMERING about it!
These spineless Republicans were elected to get something done!
Bolton's name does not appear on the Executive Calendar. Therefore, he was not reported out of committee, a majority of the committee voting to send his nomination to the floor notwithstanding.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf <- Changes daily
ROFLMAO!!! That is soooo funny!
If Bolton was so problematic, why didn't Powell fire him? I suspect that there is some sort of personnel evaluation form out there signed by Armitage or Powell givng Bolton high marks for his performance.
Actually George Allen did a good job yesterday. We need to hear from him more! I wish he could replace Frist!
I love that, Very well put.
From your lips to God's ears, but I'm not holding my breath on your prediction.
You misspelled forever.
Hope that helps.
This group began in CA and has proudly contributed to the demise of the demonrat party.
I love the way they waste their money, achieve nothing, and have made the demonrat party look like the bunch of obstructors they are.
A hold is something that is normally used before a nomination goes to committee. It is very arrogant for her to interfere in the process at this stage, especially since her whole argument is BOGUS.
Apr. 29, 2005 12:00 AM...
That is the practice of individual senators putting what is called a "hold" on the consideration of presidential nominees.
The rules don't provide for this. It is not a recorded event, even though it often leaks out. And it is a gross abuse of political power.
Usually the hold is put on to compel some action by the executive branch. And it seldom relates to anything the actual nominee has done.
A couple of years ago, Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., put a hold on Mike Leavitt's appointment to head up the EPA because she was upset about false assurances the agency had made about air quality after 9/11. But Leavitt had been governor of Utah at the time.
Abuse is bipartisan. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, once was holding up about 400 Air Force promotions, demanding that four transport planes be delivered to his state's National Guard.
More recently, holds have been placed on Bush nominees to head up the EPA, which is again vacant, FDA and the Office of U.S. Trade Representative.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0429robb29.html
Colin Powell has been stabbing a lot of people in the back for a very LONG time. Powell is and always was useless, vapid, vacuous, wishy washy and committed to nothing. He makes bland look exciting.
The Senate is an arrogant institution, made up of arrogant people. It's surpising to me, if true, that even the pre-committee hold is not covered by any rule. Since there is no rule against it, it must be permitted (using DEM logic).
As far as the argument goes, the tactic is to shift from the issue to the process. How dare we disturb years of Senate tradition and procedure?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.