home

Dems Block John Bolton Nomination

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 08:11:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Update: About-Face! Frist changes his mind and announces he will push for an up-or-down vote after meeting with Bush today.

What are President Bush's options now that the Dems have again blocked John Bolton's nomination for U.N. Ambassador? He can appoint Bolton as a recess appointment. He can provide the Democrats with the documents they seek. Or he can nominate someone else.

But any of those options could leave the president appearing weak as he confronts sagging poll numbers and fights to stave off a lame-duck label just six months into his final term.

< Republican Tries to Justify Air Force Academy Proselytizing | Tuesday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dems Block John Bolton Nomination | 12 comments (12 topical)
    Re: Dems Block John Bolton Nomination (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:18 PM EST
    …or he could portray the Democrats as obstructionists, which has been a winning strategy in recent, past elections. Just ask Tom Daschle.

    Re: Dems Block John Bolton Nomination (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    recess appointment and let everyone know how soft the Dems are on the UN, an unmitigated den of thieves and scoundrels(I know-it's okay as long as not Bush)?

    Re: Dems Block John Bolton Nomination (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    If Bush truly believes in Bolton he should use his powers and make a recess appointment.

    Re: Dems Block John Bolton Nomination (none / 0) (#4)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    Just pondering... Would Bush have any motive to put Frist into a series of untenable positions?

    Re: Dems Block John Bolton Nomination (none / 0) (#5)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    Quaker, Don't think so. Bush has no use for Frist either way. He's not a real threat for the presidency in 2008 and he's a decent enough Seante leader. Bush is going to make the Dem's fillibuster (why isn't it being called that?) a couple more times so that it can be used against red-state democrats in 2006 who should know better. Notice Mr. Kerry missed yet another Senate Vote that he "cares deeply" about. Then he will go ahead and appoint Bolton under the political cover of "Well the Dem's wouldn't let me do it any other way". Being short sided the Dem's will play along and wind up with nothing to show for it (see judges) except the impression that they can only say no. Which for those of us paying attention we already knew.

    Re: Dems Block John Bolton Nomination (none / 0) (#7)
    by legion on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:21 PM EST
    Wow. I wish I could've been a fly on the wall to hear what GW said to Frist to make him flip-flop like that. I wonder if this really is an attempt to publicly emasculate Frist before the 08 (or even 06) elections? Who would they be clearing the way for?

    Re: Dems Block John Bolton Nomination (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    Paul, Just one month ago, on May 18, on the floor of the Senate, Chuck Schumer accused Bill Frist of participating in a filibuster of Judge Paez when the vote for cloture was 85 to 14, with Frist being one of the 14. Two weeks previous, on May 2, People for the American Way issued this press release, supporting it’s argument that Republicans had filibustered some of Clinton judicial nominees. In advance, I’ll admit that the release is poorly written (we all know cloture votes don’t fail, cloture motions fail.) But, among the statements that the release uses to support its conclusions, is the following interesting clause. …merely voting against cloture constitutes a filibuster by that Senator… This is found in the fifth paragraph, which begins with “But it isn’t just CRS that disagrees…” Now, you and the Democrats are claiming that when a cloture motion does fail, it isn’t really a filibuster. In other words, in May the Democrats claimed one vote against cloture was a filibuster. In June, the Democrats are claiming that 41 votes against cloture is not a filibuster. Can’t you see the conflict in the Democrats own statements?

    Re: Dems Block John Bolton Nomination (none / 0) (#9)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:23 PM EST
    "June, the Democrats are claiming that 41 votes against cloture is not a filibuster."
    Who says that? Of course it's a filibuster.

    Re: Dems Block John Bolton Nomination (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    'Soldier,' your claim that democrats are a monolithic block is silly. PFAW is a generally good organization, but it doesn't speak for democrats on all issues, and I specifically oppose them on several. The Paez case was actually filibustered, as I recall. The definition of filibuster is diverse, but the common one is: "an attempt by a Senator or group of Senators to obstruct the passage of a bill, favored by the majority, by talking continuously." filibuster definitions To my mind, and many definitions, filibuster refers to the practice of nonstop talking, use of extraneous material, with the sole purpose of obstructing a vote by the majority. I consider it a fair tactic of the minority--the attack on Frist makes sense because of the HYPOCRISY of his claim that his party has never done it, and his claim that it is illegitimate. Simply blocking cloture votes is not, in that sense, filibuster, especially if the debate is on the candidate, and not reading from the phone book.

    Re: Dems Block John Bolton Nomination (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    Paul, No one made the claim that Paez was filibustered, until PFAW made the claim in April of this year. Schumer and several other Democrats repeated the claim on the floor of the Senate, citing PFAW as the source. The article I linked to, is PFAW’s defense of that claim. Sounds to me like PFAW and Senate Democrats were working pretty closely together on this issue. You’re confusing the definition of a filibuster, with the implementation of a filibuster. Your definition is basically correct. It is one or more Senators stalling a motion. But there are many way to implement a filibuster, some probably still undiscovered. Certainly, failing to pass a cloture motion is one of them, as the very first definition (from the UAW) contained in your link states. Wikipedia: filibuster / cloture I can provide you additional links, if you would like.

    Re: Dems Block John Bolton Nomination (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    I'll try again. Wikipedia: filibuster

    Re: Dems Block John Bolton Nomination (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    Believe it or not, even Senate Democrats, or only Schumer and a few others, aren't the 'party.' Secondly, the point is that the definition of filibuster aside, it is a longstanding practice in the Senate -- and Frist is a lying sack for claiming otherwise. The US Senate is an unusual body, as I'm sure you know. It is rarely a body of direct action. The direct action of BUSH in refusing to accept lost votes and lost chances at a vote in the nomination of UTTER IDEOLOGUE CO-CONSPIRATORS is the only real issue. If he nominated normal, qualified, legitimate candidates, they would fly right through, like the 97% of Bush's judicial nominatees did just fine (to the disgruntlement of Dems across the board). The little bastard is a traitor. This is not about ordinary politics -- it's a COUP. And Frist is in on it.

    Dems Block John Bolton Nomination | 12 comments (12 topical)