You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Senate Democrats move to block Bolton UN nomination
2005-05-13
Yep, Babs Boxer is at it again.
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.
It'll be a short fight, Babs, and you'll lose.
Posted by:mojo

#11  not spelled out in the Senate rules, allows any senator, for no given reason, to anonymously put on hold a nomination by simply asking his or her party leader for the delay. It was originally a sort of courtesy accorded to senators who wanted a vote delayed briefly due to scheduling problems or who needed time to gather more information

think that'll work? The only weapon the Dems have is to not show up to try and avoid a quorum. That'll look good. Good catch SW -thx!
Posted by: Frank G   2005-05-13 19:06  

#10  Frank G: on the subject of holds:

Besides voting down a nomination, how else can the Senate block it?

Through filibusters or the more common "hold." Filibusters are rarely used, but in 1995 Clinton's nomination of Dr. Henry Foster for surgeon general died due to a Republican filibuster. More common are the mysterious Senate holds. This process, not spelled out in the Senate rules, allows any senator, for no given reason, to anonymously put on hold a nomination by simply asking his or her party leader for the delay. It was originally a sort of courtesy accorded to senators who wanted a vote delayed briefly due to scheduling problems or who needed time to gather more information. In recent years it has turned into a method for permanent obstruction. Holds can be put on for purposes that have nothing to do with a nominee as a way of forcing the administration to accommodate a senator's wishes on another matter. In recent years there have been 30 or more holds at a given time on nominees for judicial, ambassadorial, and other posts. A recent reform is requiring identification of the senator requesting the hold, but that has not always been forthcoming.
Posted by: Steve White   2005-05-13 18:02  

#9  I think the pointlessness must be the point. The Dems desperately want to win at *something*. So they picked a battle that doesn't matter at all. The Repubs didn't see it coming. Viola. The Dems came close to derailing a nominee before we even knew what was going on. If they had won they could have gone one endlessly (like this post) in Moveon.org emails about how they are beating the "extremists" and needs lots more money for Bush=Hitler ads.
Posted by: Iblis   2005-05-13 16:25  

#8  I live in the state this dumb retard is representing. She doesn't represent me or my political opinion ever.

I wish we could just turn the Bay area and LA into city states and quit being dominated by their socialist majorities.

The f-bomb isn''t even profane enough to express my feelings about my Senators. She doesn't listen to our opinions in this part of the state thats for damn sure.

Get out of the way and shut the hell up, you plastic faced bitch.
Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom   2005-05-13 16:00  

#7  Boxer's running for the Dem president/VP nomination. This is intended both to stir up the Left and to cause as much damage as she can along the way.
Posted by: too true   2005-05-13 15:52  

#6  IIUC a single senator can't hold a cabinet or other pick. Holds are courtesies given to a senator over the nomination of a judicial pick from their state. Since the judicial appointments are for life, the courtesy allowed a homestate senator leeway ... Boxer's dumb as the proverbial box of rocks, and no doubt believes she can stop Bolton, but I don't think so...
Posted by: Frank G   2005-05-13 15:40  

#5  The rhetoric will not improve until the Pubs grow a spine and beat the Democraps like a drum a few times.
Posted by: SR-71   2005-05-13 12:48  

#4  What is the process for overcoming a single senator's hold on a nominee?
Posted by: remoteman   2005-05-13 12:32  

#3  Again I want to apoligize for having such a loser of a Senator that represents my state.

I'll trade you for Ted Kennedy...
Posted by: Raj   2005-05-13 12:10  

#2  I am not surprised they would take this route, but couldn't the Republicans stop this? Jeebus, all they had to do was take Bab's talking paper away and she would have babbled on about anything. I just can't wait for the sound bites come 2006 when the Democrats are SLAMMED for their "civility" during this legislature. Again I want to apoligize for having such a loser of a Senator that represents my state. If need be I will run against her next time and trounce her but good.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-05-13 11:41  

#1  Why do the dems care?
If Bolton fails at the UN they can hold it against the Republicans. If not nothing so its win win to avoid the topic.
Posted by: 3dc   2005-05-13 11:41  

00:00