For those who are following the Bolton confirmation process, the Senate apparently just voted against cloture.
From the NYTimes
May 26, 2005
Bolton's Supporters Fail to Cut Off Senate Debate
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, May 26 - Senate supporters of John R. Bolton failed this evening to gain a vote on his confirmation to be United Nations ambassador, as Mr. Bolton's opponents mustered enough backing to keep the debate over his candidacy alive.
The vote was 56 to 42 to shut off debate, or invoke cloture, but 60 were needed under Senate rules to stop the debate and move to a confirmation vote.
The Senate Republican majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, said the Senate would vote again on June 7, after the lawmakers return from their Memorial Day recess.
Democrats have said they do not intend to filibuster Mr. Bolton - that is, try to block the nomination by prolonging the debate on and on - but rather just want more discussion. Even so, the prospect of a delay until at least the first week of June is likely unsettling to President Bush and other supporters of the embattled nominee.
Three Democrats broke ranks and voted to end the debate. They were Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
Republicans have 55 votes in the Senate, so if they can force a yes-or-no vote on the nomination Mr. Bolton is virtually assured of confirmation.
Democrats who oppose him have made it clear that they are not threatening a filibuster in an attempt to stymie the nomination. Rather, the Democrats say, they want the Bush administration to provide more information on Mr. Bolton's handling of intelligence.
"I don't think we're being treated as a co-equal branch of government," Senator Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat who has been a leader of the opposition to Mr. Bolton, said in debate today. Mr. Dodd and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, sent a letter to their Senate colleagues today urging them to support a longer debate.
But Mr. Bolton's supporters insisted, as they have all along, that enough is known about the nominee to justify a yes-or-no vote now, that despite his shortcomings he is well qualified for the post, and that President Bush has the right to pick members of his foreign-policy team.
"He may be rough around the edges," said Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire. But the rough edges reflect an "assertiveness" that will suit him well as ambassador to the United Nations, which could stand some changes, Mr. Gregg said.
Mr. Bolton's critics have called him a bully, a near-impossible boss and a man willing to tailor intelligence data to his own views. Senator Paul S. Sarbanes, Democrat of Maryland, said today that Mr. Bolton's "outright hostility" to the United Nations itself is just one quality that makes him unsuitable for the post.
But Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, said Mr. Bolton's critics have it all wrong. The nominee is "committed to the success of the United Nations," Mr. Kyl said. The senator said the nominee had been subjected to criticism verging on "character assassination," and that he had become a target for people who do not like President Bush's foreign policies.
The back-and-forth followed the themes that have characterized the running dispute over Mr. Bolton. Senators George Allen, Republican of Virginia, and Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, agreed that the United Nations needs to be changed - to make it "credible and relevant once again," as Mr. Allen put it.
But while Mr. Allen saw Mr. Bolton as ideal for the post because of his "broad and deep knowledge of international affairs," Mr. Feingold said the nominee's hostility to the United Nations made him "fundamentally unsuited" to be envoy.
As for the additional information sought by Democrats, the State Department was standing fast in refusing to provide it, saying that to do so would have a chilling effect on future internal discussions.
nytimes.com |
