[Cboldt]

I'd rather see a recess appointment (and some Dutch uncle talk) for Bolton.

I'd rather see the heat on the Senate, than on the President. It is the Senate who is having a problem, and if he takes the issue away from them, they won't have the pressure to fix the institutionalized mishandling of nominations.

[maryz]

I appreciate your point, but I'm not sure how effective any pressure from our side will be on the Senate -- when they have the Dems and media applying pressure from the other side. And as I understand it support for Bolton was pretty wafer-thin anyway, and I really, really want to see him in there. (Too bad FR doesn't have the final vote! LOL!)

While you're around, though, I'd like to take advantage of your expertise (and your patience). A number of people have suggested that Frist use the carrot-and-stick on recalcitrant senators. To what extent does he have the power to do this? Aren't the rules determined by party, so Dems and Reps have different rules? I know Republicans have term limits for committee chairman -- there was some discussion re Specter on Judiciary. Are chairmanships strictly by seniority (would be odd in the Reps -- makes the senate operate by union rules)?

Well, in short, what powers does Frist have that he can apply against Senators?

[Coop]

I'd rather see the heat on the Senate, than on the President. It is the Senate who is having a problem, and if he takes the issue away from them, they won't have the pressure to fix the institutionalized mishandling of nominations.

Amen to that!