Skip to comments.Boxer's hold another hitch in Bolton vote. She calls White House uncooperative
Posted on 05/14/2005 9:08:29 AM PDT by FairOpinion
Sen. Barbara Boxer of California has erected a roadblock against John Bolton, President Bush's embattled nominee for U.N. ambassador, in a fight with the administration over access to documents.
Boxer said Friday she would lift her hold on the nomination if the administration provided the additional information she was seeking. Boxer took her action to slow Bolton's nomination after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday sent Bolton's name to the full Senate without a recommendation.
Boxer's move, which the Republican Senate majority could overturn by getting 51 votes in favor of a motion to proceed despite her hold, could further raise the partisan temperature in a body already fighting over Republican efforts to curb the Democratic minority's power to filibuster Bush's judicial nominees.
If Republicans try to bring the nomination to the floor without reaching a settlement with Boxer and the committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, Boxer could tie up the Senate by demanding endless procedural votes.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Frist should stop negotiating with the Dems, call a vote Monday morning -- surely he could muster 51 votes to overturn Boxer's hold, then if the Dems attempt to continue to obstruct, make sure it gets in the nightly news every day, and let's see how they fare in the 2006 elections.
Even after obstructionist Daschle's defeat they haven't learned -- they need a few more object lessons.
When I was lobbying for an energy bill, Boxer's aids told me she would not vote for any bill authored by a Republican. There is no one more partisan than Boxer.
Help me out ... by what authority or rule can a single Senator act arbitrarily in this manner?
The hold means, that by Senate Rules you can't bring up the nominee to vote.
Frist would have to have a vote to overrule the hold -- but he only needs 51 votes for that.
Thanks for posting this. I've been wondering about the hold -- glad to see that it can be lifted with 51 votes.
(Get ready, Mr. VP)
It looks like the Senate is full of rules to promote obstructionism by individual Senators -- there is somethign wrong here -- they promote tyranny of the minority to an amazing extent.
And when the Republicans were in the minority, they didn't use all these avenues, they were bending over backwards to cooperate with the Dems.
Boxer needs to get connected to the Oil for Food scandal...
Presumably, there is no Senate rule for loading up her phone banks and email boxes with pointed criticisms ... hint, hint.
There are 55 Republican Senators -- even if some defect, there should be 51 left, even without Cheney's vote.
It's time that Republicans reign in their rogue members -- cooperate or take the consequences.
Well, to ignore the hold would be to knowingly violate Senate rules. Not to mention the obvious ethical problem, the PR bonanza that would generate would shift attention away from Democratic obstructionism and toward Republican "arrogance," as the Dems are saying. I don't think we want to go down that path. Changing the rules is another matter, though. These rules have been abused since the dawn of the Republic to thwart the will of the majority. One Senator really can hold up everything. We should change that.
"And when the Republicans were in the minority, they didn't use all these avenues, they were bending over backwards to cooperate with the Dems."
True, though the Democratic majority was darn big. They had more power than the Republicans now do. Lesson: increase our majority. It's obviously not enough.
And, just where are we seeing attention to rat obstructionism? Certainly, not in the MSM. Ergo, there's NO attention being paid to it.
She's losing her hair too.
Lots of graphs and good info.
This shoes the composition of the Senate for Congress numbers from the 40th (1867-1869) to the 106th (1999-2001).
This shows the fraction of Democrats in the House and Senate for Congress numbers from the 40th (1867-1869) to the 106th (1999-2001).
Seems like everything gets tied up in the senate unless it has anything to do with raising taxes, domestic spending, corporate welfare, entitlements, or measures that are in any way blatantly unconstitutional.
"there's NO attention being paid to [Democratic obstructionism]"
I agree that it's minor, though there is often the usual he-said-she-said: "Republicans say the Democrats are obstructing the confirmation of qualified judges, while Democrats counter that they're only fighting a handful of extremists."
Still, to reject agreed-upon ground rules without some sort of vote would lose us even that small measure of coverage of obstructionism. All attention would shift to the oh-so evil Republicans.
Again, I think the rules should change. But that's different.
WOW Fair - fantastic graphs and link - I am saving them. thanks
Yeah, right. She wouldn't be satisfied if . . .
(Better not finish that or I'll get banned.)
Stop negotiating with dems... right. One doesn't negotiate with people holding the government hostage. F them all.
Yeah, but what about the part that says that if the Republicans try to bring the issue to the floor for a vote that Boxer could tie it up in endless procedural votes. Seems like the article has a contradiction in it.
I think it's time we 'stopped bending over backwards to cooperate with Democrats', and met force with force. I hope Frist brings this to a vote on Monday. I think we will win with our slight majority, and I would rather lose fighting than 'rolling over again for these obstructionist socialists. If the rogue Republicans vote with the Democrats on this, let them feel pain where it hurts. When their constituents lose some perks, they might realize they need to replace these jerks.
Thanks for posting the graphs....they are interesting!
Frist would have to have a vote to overrule the hold -- but he only needs 51 votes for that.
Good CEO's know very well they need to limit their exposure and comment to the public, employees, and stockholders. If you speak on the record more than once a quarter, people realize you're a moron, no better or worse than their cousin Eddie. Or should I say James Trafficant?
If I said what I'd like to about Boxer I'd melt the cable lines.
"I haven't changed at all," she said. "These issues just cry out for attention. It's my job. It's what I get paid to do.''
Now that could be twisted into a nice little message about the Queen of obstruction....Like who is paying her....George Soros???
Feinstein had some caustic comments in a press conference on the Brac yesterday about the use of Blue slips and other procedures in the senate to put Holds on nominees......apparently she has never used them, says she will never use them, and they should be done away with....
I think she was commenting on Boxer and her usage!!!!.
"Boxer's hold another hitch in Bolton vote. She calls White House uncooperative"
Hey, but some people actually like her shorts.
In her own words, it's a FISHING EXPIDITION! Drafts of Speeches? Financial records of his ASSISTANT? When you peel away the onion, what you see is just despicable!
Boxer never reads any critical E-mails or hears about any negative phone calls, her screeners are instructed to round file all of that.
Boxer is being used to take the heat for the dems. Reid and Kennedy et al. are behind this pulling the strings of the concerted obstruction effort.
Hold the entire democrat party responsible.
An "astute blogger" said this:
BUSH UN APPOINTMENTS: Danforth versus Bolton, and why Bolton is the RIGHT MAN for the job
I think we should all look at the recent historical context of the Bolton nomination: After Negroponte, Bush appointed John Danforth to the UN Ambassadorship. Bolton was nominated to replace Danforth. The men could NOT be more different in their styles.
WHY WOULD BUSH DO THIS? Here's what I surmise...
Danforth is an extremely TEMPORATE man with a lot of GRAVITAS. Danforth's first Ambassadorship was to the Sudan - as a Special Presidential Envoy to the Sudan, an appointment made BEFORE 9/11 and before the Sudan was on the radar-screen of the world.
Danforth didn't last long as UN Ambassador, and he left in large measure because he felt the body was hopelessly bogged down in corruption and bureaucratic BS and utterly failing to meet its own mission. He said so in a speech. Here's an excerpt -from PBS/NEWSHOUR:
According to The Washington Post, Danforth had recently expressed frustration over the effectiveness of the United Nations, particularly the U.N. Security Council, in dealing with world problems. "While the U.N. is an important part of multilateralism, which is essential to U.S. foreign policy, it's very difficult to get strong resolutions passed," Danforth told the Post in a recent interview. "It's built for compromise, and it's built for wordsmithing. It's difficult to create real policies because of the ornate structure of multilateralism, at least the U.N.'s version of it."
The New York Times reported that Danforth had publicly expressed impatience with the U.N. General Assembly in late November after a resolution to denounce human rights violations in Sudan was blocked.
"One wonders about the utility of the General Assembly on days like this," Danforth said. "One wonders if there can't be a clear and direct statement on matters of basic principle, why have this building? What is it all about?"
Danforth OBVIOUSLY did not have the stomach to lead the effort reform the UN; he resigned. So what did Bush do? He took his time - many months - and then nominated a person who WOULD HAVE THE STOMACH FOR THE JOB: JOHN BOLTON.
The Senate MUST confirm Bush's nominee and then Bush and Rice and Bolton must bear the onus - or fruits of their efforts. We'll all be watching.
UPDATE: Maybe I shoulda titled this post "BOLTON'S STOMACH"??? In lieu of the shabby treatment he's gotten at the hands of many disgruntled State bureaucrats and by the obstructionist Dems, and also because AFTER HE IS CONFIRMED, he'll need an iron-plated stomach to work at the UN!
It's amazing that we only learn these different methods of obstruction when the Commies are in the minority. When the Pubbies had the minority they acted like butt kissing lapdogs, especially Dole and Lott.
Boxer's move, which the Republican Senate majority could overturn by getting 51 votes in favor of a motion to proceed despite her hold,
I read an article last night that said that Frist is having a dinner party tomorrow and Reid is invited---there will also be some other senators, but the only other one named, was Pete Domenici (who is cooking a duck!)....
Betcha Babs is NOT on the guest list---jeez, it is bad enough that Frist invited Reid.
Seems he thinks there are 2-3 other options other than the "nuclear option" that he wants to discuss with Reid....uh, oh.
....SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: Holds are placed on legislation by senators. Holds are placed on nominees by senators. One way to break that hold is to file for cloture, which guarantees an up-or-down vote. ....CLICK
It sounds like the journalists who write about Congress should get themselves educated and/or maybe the Senate doesn't really know what it takes to override a hold either. Or maybe the hold isn't really legal, but nobody knows or wants to challenge it.
Thanks for pointing it out. I was all ready to believe the current article, silly me.
The Senate gives a lot of power to individual Senators as well as the minority. In the Senate, compared to the House, it just isn't easy to ram legislation or confirmations through in a rush -- there is always the chance for a Senator to slow down the process and ask for more deliberation and reflection. Actually, I generally agree with this line of thinking.
The problem now is that the 'Rats are using the power to slow down as a power to block everything they don't like permanently. That's going too far. People like Boxer are totally unreasonable and will end up as squashed bugs on the windshield of Bill Frist's train when it starts down the tracks next week.
"The Senate gives a lot of power to individual Senators as well as the minority"
And why weren't the Republicans using those rules, when they were in the minority for many years?!
They always want to be the "nice guys", forgetting the saying that "nice guys finish last". The Dems know this and take full advantage of the Republican wuss factor.
The holds don't even have to be public... a Senator can annonymously hold up a bill or nomination. Both parties do it. There was a resolution to stop that practice sponsored by Senators Lott and Byrd but I dont know what happened to it.