Article

2005-05-13 Home Front: Politix

Senate Democrats move to block Bolton UN nomination

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mojo 2005-05-13 11:22|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2005-05-13 11:41|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-05-13 11:41|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-05-13 12:10|| Front Page Top

#4 What is the process for overcoming a single senator's hold on a nominee?

Posted by remoteman 2005-05-13 12:32|| 2005-05-13 12:32|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-05-13 12:48|| Front Page Top

#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">Frank G 2005-05-13 15:40|| 2005-05-13 15:40|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-05-13 15:52|| Front Page Top

#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 0â Doom 2005-05-13 16:00|| 2005-05-13 16:00|| Front Page Top

#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">Iblis 2005-05-13 16:25|| 2005-05-13 16:25|| Front Page Top

#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">Steve White 2005-05-13 18:02|| 2005-05-13 18:02|| Front Page Top

#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">Frank G 2005-05-13 19:06|| 2005-05-13 19:06|| Front Page Top

00:04 trailing wife
00:01 docob
23:57 twobyfour
23:53 trailing wife
23:43 Sleth Glatle9076
23:40 Atomic Conspiracy
23:36 trailing wife
23:29 trailing wife
23:29 Phil Fraering
23:22 trailing wife
23:15 jackal
23:12 The Anonymous Crawling Horror From Beyond
23:12 Frank G
23:09 Fred
23:08 Silentbrick
22:54 trailing wife
22:54 RWV
22:46 3dc
22:39 Capt. Infidel
22:33 Phil Fraering
22:31 3dc
22:26 Frank G
22:21 True German Ally
22:12 Frank G