Redstate

Asks Senators to remember that UN reform is an imperative mission of the next ambassador.  

have thought more about UN reform than Bolton.

Says the will of the Senate is expressed by the majority.  A majority have said they have the information they need to make a recommendation.  57 senators voted to end debate on the matter already.

Says 29 witnesses have been called, 1,000 pages and 14 hours of floor debate later, the dispute over a small amount of information is redundant.

For those of us trapped at work, please keep it up! I can't get anything on the radio here.

the vote today is not about John Bolton.  (Uh, come again?)

Says it's about how the President is denying a co-equal branch of government necessary information.  Says they are being secretive. (I thought classified NSA documents were supposed to be secretive).

Says he doesn't hold John Bolton accountable for the Administration's arrogance.  (Well, I hold Sen. Biden accountable for his own arrogance, but that's another matter).

showing that Bolton "stretched intelligence".

I thought he just said the vote wasn't about John Bolton and that he was well-qualified!?!  

. . .does it strike anyone else as odd that we're putting so much attention and we're seeing so much fighting over the position of ambassador to the UN?  Seriously I get fighting over judicial nominees as they - for better or worse - have a real and substantive impact on important issues such as the separation of powers and/or the everyday lives of Americans.

But the ambassador to the UN?  That's a step above Surgeon General* as in who really cares if it gets filled or not.  The UN itself is pretty much worthless anyway and provides no real benefit to the United States as we are perfectly capable of conducting trade, warfare, and diplomacy without participation in the UN.

Seems to me that if the Senate (and House) for that matter wanted a more productive use of their time, they might consider National Governors Associations recent recommendations on Medicaid reform a/k/a the program that costs more than Medicaid the third largest federal program and is bankrupting the States.

* Although the SG position ought to be abolished anyway.

... that the debate over Bolton is not about Bolton.

Huh?

Condi has indicated a recess appointment is a possibility.  Read this story. (via Drudge)

Thinks it's "highly irresponsible" to continue obstructing reform of the United Nations.

Says the taxpayers are owed a nominee to pursue reform and accountability.

Bolton opponents have brought up so many varying arguments against him.  "Doesn't matter about the facts" to them.

in treaties to reduce nuclear weapons, creating the Proliferation Security Initiative, creating the Global Initiative with the G8 to stop proliferation, opposing the Zionism=racism initiative, etc.

Says American people want a watchdog, not a lapdog.

To state the more-or-less obvious, to debate Bolton is to debate whether American foreign policy must be manacled by multilateralism. Bolton's supporters do not think U.S. affairs should always be constrained by the United Nations, European Union, and kumbaya-ism. His opponents do.

Bolton debate is to foreign policy what the judge debate is to abortion.

this should be about Bolton and only Bolton.  There isn't anything in those papers that is going to change his vote, just vote and get on with it.

are trying to embarrass the President.

They keep "moving the goalposts".  Says it can only be viewed as "obstructionism for petty partisan reasons".

This word, in Hebrew, means "Stand in the Lord", although it's often used as a term for "let's all hug and get along."

Is there another language in which it means that, and I'm just not aware of it?

reforming, I think a bull in the China shop is what the doctor ordered.

I want an ambassador to the UN who isn't afraid to step on some toes, and I like Bolton for that.

I am not a fan of the UN, personally I would like to take our billions of dollars we feed down that black hole every year, and tell the UN to go hang out in Brussels or Paris or somewhere, we aren't interested, but that is the stuff dreams are made of, so I will go with second best, which is sending a Bull to run around their China shop.

Blah blah blah blah blah...very divisive and controversial nomination...most controversial in xx years/decades...Bush said he would be a uniter not a divider...blah blah.  

Repeats talking point about this vote is about the President granting the Senate information, not about voting Bolton up or down.

for "gather around me"

I had never heard it was Hebrew.

Repeating line about the request for documents...more blah blah.

Their whole argument is such a disingenuous charade.

We should clear the Senate chambers and replace them all with Muppet characters to recite their usual talking points behind their respective podiums.

To the Muppets, sir.

"adult supervision" to make sure his speeches were in line with administration policy.

"Adult supervision"?  What a pompous condescension.

in the balcony represent?  Heh.

. . .a two-ton block of foam rubber and a barrel of gin and prepares to create the Captain Teddy puppet*

I have always sworn he reminds me of one of those two old guys in the balcony.

The irony is delicious.

to put him in the corner for not playing nice.

but "charade" is just what Novak calls Dodd's posturing as well.  Read his column here.

have more power to view certain documents than congress?

If he's withholding documents which the Senate has equal authority to view, then he is abusing his power.

So no, this is NOT just about Bolton.  If the information requested is 'small amount' as the senator suggests, then why doesn't the President provide it as he's obliged to.  

Either Bolton is ok and the president is effectively filibustering his own nominee through his obstinance.  Or there really IS something to hide from the congress, in which case this is a very important issue directly relating to Bolton's qualifications.

In either case, the issue is important from a constitutional point of view that the congress has as much authority as the President.

. . .we all know what a grownup you are.  Say--have you tag-teamed any helpless waitresses with Captain Teddy lately?

Cites history of Bolton proceedings - 23 meetings, 12 hours of debate, 157 questions, 31 interviews, 500 pages, thousands of other pages of intelligence information, etc., etc.

. . . Statler and Waldorf

Hmm two crabby old guys who do nothing but sit around and complain, how's about this guy and this guy.

does have more power to see classified documents.

Just have a clearance doesn't mean you have a right to access every piece of paper.  The right to see a document depends on your need to know.

The documents the congress wants to see are from the State department-which is a function of the executive branch.

That whole separation of powers thing at work again.

and so did Mary Landrieu (D-LA).

he should at least for cloture, then he can give his big fat whiney "no" for the nomination.

Poor Thune isn't ever going to get a chance to invoke his protest vote regarding the Air Force Base, the Dems aren't going to let him.

are highly classified and are generally only released to the chairman and ranking member of the select committee on Intel.  Said ranking member (Rockefeller, hardly a member of the VRWC) has already said that there is nothing in them.  From ConfirmBolton:

The sticking point on the Bolton nomination is said to be the Democrats' requests for more information from the administration. Democrats have requested that the administration turn over e-mails and internal communications leading up to testimony that Bolton gave before Congress on Syria's development of weapons of mass destruction, and also demanded access to classified NSA intercepts requested by Bolton that contained the names of Americans.

It's the intercepts that are apparently the issue.

And no, not every member of the Senate is cleared to see every document produced by the administration.

If the information requested is 'small amount' as the senator suggests, then why doesn't the President provide it as he's obliged to.

Uh, because he's not "obliged" to do anything.  Also, because what is being requested will simply lead, if complied with, to a request for more information - just to follow-up, of course - and so on, and so on ...

This is precisely how the Democrats filibustered the Estrada nomination to death and the WH is not about to allow that to happen again.

Either Bolton is ok and the president is effectively filibustering his own nominee through his obstinance.

This statement is simply beyond idiotic.  

. . . were already seen by the ranking Republican and Democrat on the committee - both of whom agreed that there was nothing there.

that's 55 Rs... +2 Dems, -1 Reps... we need 4 more Dems... I see that as unlikely.

apointment.  

I don't think Bush loses much in this regard, he can point to the fact that he would have had the votes, if the Dems hadn't acted like children.

like the House?  Geez.

. . .Spitting Image but the puppets used were so grotesque, there was a risk people might not know the difference.

do you really think if the WH hands over those two documents that the Dems will vote to end debates, and get on with the vote?  Also, is there anything in those documents that you think is actually going to change anyone's vote?

At this point the dems are acting like spoiled children, who aren't getting their way.

They all need a time out.

Being that the song is so often sung in Judeo-Christian circles - "Kum ba Yah, my Lord" (ad infinitum), I assumed that it was the Hebrew phrase "Stand in the Lord".

You learn something every day.

what you mean... Don't they just keep counting til everyone has voted one way or the other?

I've never watched a vote take place...

Week of July 4th ? Anybody?

That's my understanding, yes.

The cloture fails.

Recess appointment it is.

Vote fails.

but the House usually allows a 15-min. period for congressmen to record their votes by electronic device.

"Come by here"

It is from South Carolina-Gullah (a creole culture in the Islands-if you have a 12ish year old that watched Nikelodean years ago, they probably watch Gullah Gullah Island-it was my daughters favorite show).

http://www.scouting.org.za/songs/southafrican.html

(just go to the bottom of the page)

Recess appointment--and hammering that little truant weasel Voinovich with nasty calls and emails to his office until he cries again.

Burns (R-MT)

Coleman (R-MN)

Feingold (D-WI)

Johnson (D-SD)

Kerry (D-MA)

Kohl (D-WI)

Levin (D-MI)

Thune (R-SD)

And it is noteworthy that Frist voted "yea" which I believe means he can't recall the question.  Thus, I assume we are moving to a recess appointment.

It seems odd that after having made a name for himself by going after the UN Oil for Food Scandal that he wouldn't vote on the President's ambassadorial nominee.  Which makes me wonder what he knows that we don't know.

Keep in mind that Coleman's my Senator (formerly my mayor) but I could care less about the UN and wish Congress would devote more effort on reforming Medicare and Medicaid.

And maybe he just didn't expect it to make a difference.  Although you would think he would have been there, but I think it is a little bit beyond speculation to decide he was avoiding for some nefarious reason regarding Bolton (do you know what his previous vote was, the last time the did the cloture vote?).

Given who was on the list, the GOP wasn't going to get the required votes to end debate.

Your Rockefeller point has some serious shortcomings.  Its not as though Rockefeller saw the details of those intercepts - including key information such as whether the PEOPLE involved in the intercepts were legitimate targets for the spying operation.   After watergate, how can you 'assume' blindly that the government is doing everything on the up-and-up?  Answer:  You can't, you have to check into it.

From Freerepublic

Rockefeller did not see the names of the 19 individuals and businesses mentioned in the NSA intercepts,

(Rockefeller) has questioned whether Bolton, once he had the names, might have shared them improperly within the State Department or with the White House.

There certainly is a 'need to know' of information pertaining to Bolton when he's being considered for one of the most sensitive positions for US diplomacy.

IMO, who CARES whether Bolton is confirmed?  I'm sure he'll be very unsucessful in whatever it is he intends to do at the UN.  I'm confident he'll succeed at embarrassing the country with his style of 'management'.  Such embarrassment pales next to the other black eyes our current administration has given us.  So what if Bolton continues to do more of the same?  It really doesn't matter.

The MAIN important thing to the Bolton nomination as I see it, is its a means to see whether Bolton (and therefore the administration) abused its power and spied for partisan political reasons and not for genuine security needs.  If so, it would bring watergate-style corruption and abuse of power charges to the forefront.  So its no wonder that bush isn't providing the names of people on the intercepts.

do you really think if the WH hands over those two documents that the Dems will vote to end debates, and get on with the vote?

Yes.  Provided of course that there truly is nothing blatantly controversial in terms of who was being spied upon and it was all legitimate activity for Bolton's position.  This may produce more debate (to discuss the new evidence), but it won't be a quasi-filibuster.  When the debate of the new information is done, the vote to confirm/deny will proceed.

Also, is there anything in those documents that you think is actually going to change anyone's vote?

Yes.  If there is nothing in them, I imagine a couple more dems will vote for Bolton.  If there IS something in them, I see several republicans voting against Bolton, which would effectively block his nomination.

It strikes me though that since Senator Coleman first rose to national prominence (insofar a freshman Senator can do so) during the hearings on the Oil for Food scandal, I would have thought he'd play a more active role in the nomination of a UN ambassador whose supporters site "reforming" the UN as the chief rationale.

Norm Coleman is also one of the smoothest political operators in our State.  I'm not impugning his integrity or his sincerity but the guy does know how to make a deal (and he sticks by them as far as I can tell) and get things done.  If he wasn't even there for a vote on Bolton or chose not to vote for some reason, it suggests to me that he may have known something in advance.

Take it for what it's worth.