Boxer's hold another hitch in Bolton vote. She calls White House uncooperative

SFC ^ | May 14, 2005 | Edward Epstein

[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.

[daybreakcoming]

WOW Fair - fantastic graphs and link - I am saving them. thanks

[savedbygrace]

Boxer's a one trick nag. She's pulled this before, on Gonzales, wasn't it? Just gimme a little more information, those top secret documents over there, and I'll be satisfied.

Yeah, right. She wouldn't be satisfied if . . .

(Better not finish that or I'll get banned.)

[stylin19a]

A "hold" is not in the Constitution.
and it never used to be (it may have changed) in the Senate rules.

[Tax Government]

Stop negotiating with dems... right. One doesn't negotiate with people holding the government hostage. F them all.

[scannell]

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.

[PeskyOne]

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!

[deport]

Frist would have to have a vote to overrule the hold -- but he only needs 51 votes for that.

---

Doesn't he need 60 votes as it's in effect the same as the cloture vote.

[blackdog]

Thanks to our democrat friends, the senate body has had picture windows installed for a good view from the outside, and plenty of microphones with cameras so that we get to hear them in their full articulate glory. So much so that we're getting to see and hear just about enough of them.

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?

[Bullish]

UNCOROPERATIVE!!!

If I said what I'd like to about Boxer I'd melt the cable lines.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Boxer said she wasn't going out of her way to take a more confrontational approach as Bush launched his second term.

"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!!!!.

[righttackle44]

"Boxer's hold another hitch in Bolton vote. She calls White House uncooperative"

Hey, but some people actually like her shorts.

[jackieaxe]

Boxer and the other Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said the Bush administration had failed to turn over documents in three areas: notes and drafts of a Bolton speech on Syria's military capabilities, private business records of Bolton's assistant Mathew Friedman and information from the National Security Agency and other spy services about whether Bolton tried to get the names of American officials whose communications were intercepted. "These records may show something, or nothing,'' Boxer said.

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!

[Bullish]

Presumably, there is no Senate rule for loading up her phone banks and email boxes with pointed criticisms .

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.

[griswold3]

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!

[Luke21]

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.

[FairOpinion]

According to the article:

Boxer's move, which the Republican Senate majority could overturn by getting 51 votes in favor of a motion to proceed despite her hold,

[Txsleuth]

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.

[deport]

According to the article:

---

Thanks, but I guess I was wondering if that is accurate as I've read other statements by Senators, etc that it takes the same action as a cloture vote to get past the hold. I don't know.

....The Senate can overcome a hold through a time-consuming process and a motion requiring a 60-vote majority, but Senate leaders are reluctant to go that route in a 100-member body where interpersonal relations are so important.... CLICK

....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

So who knows...... I guess we'll see as this plays out later after the Judicial Nominations that are coming up next week.

[FairOpinion]

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.

[You Dirty Rats]

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.

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.