John Kerry campaigned last year on the notion that America needs more, not less, U.N. influence in its foreign-policy making — and he paid a heavy price for it.
Now he's busily running again for the White House; last week he asked: "Who is [Bolton] speaking for?"
That's similar to the question critics hurled at Daniel Patrick Moynihan during his term as U.N. ambassador, now widely regarded as among the most significant in the world body's history.
State Department bureaucrats despised Moynihan and continually worked to undercut him. Most U.N. diplomats — including U.S. allies — agreed with the British envoy, who publicly compared him to Wyatt Earp and complained that "he's not making my job any easier."
That's because Moynihan himself had declared, in what could serve as an eloquent rebuke to Bolton's foes, that "the main point of public diplomacy, which the U.N. is, is not to paper over differences, but to make their existence known and to make them clear." '
A question about Senate rules and "holds."
Can a senator similarly put a "hold" on a judicial nominee?
If this is the case, then what good will it do to eliminate the judicial filibuster rule? They'll just put a "hold" on any conservative judicial nominee...
What is the situation with respect to judicial "holds?"