Democrats playing politics with Bolton

[Schweddy]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Tuesday accused Senate Democrats of playing politics by blocking for a second time the confirmation of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush still wanted an up-or-down Senate vote for Bolton and would not say whether Bush planned to bypass Senate procedure and appoint Bolton when Congress recesses.

Senate Democrats on Monday blocked Bolton's nomination when Republican leaders fell six votes short of the 60 votes needed to end a procedural hurdle known as a filibuster and advance the nomination to a confirmation vote.

"We continue to urge the Senate to give him an up-or-down vote. John Bolton enjoys majority support, that is clear. And the Democratic leadership is simply blocking progress and blocking reform at the United Nations by their tactics. This is clearly (the) Democratic leadership playing politics with this nomination," McClellan said.

It was the second failed attempt by Senate Republican leaders to bring the contested nomination to a vote. The White House has not ruled out the possibility Bush could appoint Bolton to the post during an upcoming congressional recess.

 

[ShamMol]

They have said this from before they started being what you are calling "obstructionist." They made this request before it even got on the floor. If he truely is a great candidate, then this information can't really hurt his candidacy can it? No, it won't. He will then receive his vote and likely be voted to be the new ambassador to the UN, unless the evidence that is in those papers is damning in which case we will have reason to wonder why the Bush Administration put him up to begin with.

 

[akyron]

If he has nothing to hide, why don't they just release the information that the democrats have said that they want, and won't stop the filibuster until they get it?
I mean, how could more information hurt? It's the senate's job to make the most informed possible decision that they can, so it seems that the only responsible thing to do would be to hold out until they get it.

Thats not the point.
The administration already said no.
To give in now would be a mistake.
Dems are begging for the new GI Joe in the store but Dad already said no.
Be good boys and you can have some ice cream with dinner tonight.

 

[ShamMol]

Thats not the point.
The administration already said no.
To give in now would be a mistake.
Dems are begging for the new GI Joe in the store but Dad already said no.
Be good boys and you can have some ice cream with dinner tonight.

So, you are saying that the Repubs shouldn't compromise because they have drawn the lind in the proverbial sand. But isn't that what Democrats have done as well? One is going to have to compromise, and right now, it seems as if the Republicans are going to have to do it, with the most to lose.

 

[akyron]

So, you are saying that the Repubs shouldn't compromise because they have drawn the lind in the proverbial sand. But isn't that what Democrats have done as well? One is going to have to compromise, and right now, it seems as if the Republicans are going to have to do it, with the most to lose.

They already did.
7 Republicans abandon GOP on filibuster


The President will end up giving him a recess appointment eventually if the wasting of time...err obstructionist policies continues.

 

[ShamMol]

They already did.
7 Republicans abandon GOP on filibuster


The President will end up giving him a recess appointment eventually if the wasting of time...err obstructionist policies continues.

And you think that if the situation were reversed this wouldn't be happening? If you do, then you obviously don't follow politics. It is what the minority party does, they use all the tatics they can to stop legislation that they don't want or appointments that they don't want.

A recess appointment would not be a good thing because that would weaken his ability at the UN. We need someone that more can agree on, that isn't so abrasive or slimy. But if the docs are handed over, I have no problem with a vote on Bolton.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

On occasion, people elect politicians to "play politics."

Presumably, those who elected the Democrats in question do not want Mr. Bolton to hold the post he's been nominated to. One could also presume that these constituents would like for their decisions to be voiced by their elected representatives.

Or maybe everyone in the US is really for the Bolton and just a handful of congresscritters are holding up the business of the nation.

Until I know better, I'm willing to assume that these Democratic ciongresscritters're doing what their constituencies (our fellow Americans) would have them do. I'll also consider the complaints about these Dems doing their jobs to be whining.

Get over it. Politicians play politics. It's their job.

 

[ludahai]

And you think that if the situation were reversed this wouldn't be happening? If you do, then you obviously don't follow politics. It is what the minority party does, they use all the tatics they can to stop legislation that they don't want or appointments that they don't want.

Please cite a time in which Republicans used filibusters with the frequency that the Democrats have used them over the past five years!

 

[ShamMol]

Please cite a time in which Republicans used filibusters with the frequency that the Democrats have used them over the past five years!

I never said they did, but I can't remember a time when they did, specifically since the Dems have only been in power for about 4 years taht I can vaugely remember. This is what I said "It is what the minority party does, they use all the tatics they can to stop legislation that they don't want or appointments that they don't want."

I am sure that if the REpublicans were not in power and there was what they deemed liberal bills or too-liberal judicial appointees (just like the Dems are claiming that the ones before them are too conservative), etc, etc, then I am almost sure they would be using the same tatics as the Dems because when you are in the minority, you use all you can.

 

[Stinger]

So, you are saying that the Repubs shouldn't compromise because they have drawn the lind in the proverbial sand. But isn't that what Democrats have done as well? One is going to have to compromise, and right now, it seems as if the Republicans are going to have to do it, with the most to lose.

They did compormise, they gave the names to the DHS and let them compare and found that none of the names were the people the Dems claimed to be concerned about. So what did the Dems do, they came back and demanded MORE names.

This is pure partisian BS, they didn't need the info in the first place and when they get what they demand they simply demand more. Thier political antics are endangering us, that includes you, and the public will see through it.

 

[Stinger]

And you think that if the situation were reversed this wouldn't be happening? If you do, then you obviously don't follow politics. It is what the minority party does, they use all the tatics they can to stop legislation that they don't want or appointments that they don't want.

So using all tactics is OK then.

A recess appointment would not be a good thing because that would weaken his ability at the UN.

ROFL it wouldn't weaken him a bit, that is just pure Democrat spin. In fact it would strengthen him because it would demonstrate how strong the President supports him.

We need someone that more can agree on, that isn't so abrasive or slimy. But if the docs are handed over, I have no problem with a vote on Bolton.

What a bogus statement. On the one hand you say we shouldn't appoint Bolton saying we can't agree on him and then labling him abrasive and slimy. But then you say if you just get a list of meaningless names he is now OK. You just proved the slimy folly your side is engaged in.

 

[Stinger]

This is what I said "It is what the minority party does, they use all the tatics they can to stop legislation that they don't want or appointments that they don't want."

Then it is just a fair for Republicans to use all tactics also and than includes voting to stop filibustering of Presidential nominees for appointments they want.

I am sure that if the REpublicans were not in power and there was what they deemed liberal bills or too-liberal judicial appointees (just like the Dems are claiming that the ones before them are too conservative), etc, etc, then I am almost sure they would be using the same tatics as the Dems because when you are in the minority, you use all you can.

For legislation sure but not for judicial appointees. The Dems have every right to try and persuade a majority to thier side, baring that give the nominees an up or down vote and let the Seante do it's job of advise and consent.

 

[ShamMol]

Then it is just a fair for Republicans to use all tactics also and than includes voting to stop filibustering of Presidential nominees for appointments they want.

No. The British government has a policy of basically debating forever which is where the idea of the fillibuster came from. We took that into the principles of Congress and it should never go away because it is such an effective tool for both sides.

For legislation sure but not for judicial appointees. The Dems have every right to try and persuade a majority to thier side, baring that give the nominees an up or down vote and let the Seante do it's job of advise and consent.

Just because they didn't use them for Clinton's nominees doesn't mean that they didn't use similar tatics to stop judicial appointments cold. If you want some examples, please let me know. Sometimes the minority can only advise by stopping them cold because otherwise their advice wouldn't be heard. If the REpublicans were to do this if they were in the minority, it would be their right to do so, just as it is the Democrats right now.

 

[ShamMol]

So using all tactics is OK then.

All except getting rid of the fillibuster which has been a principle since the beginning of teh republic.

ROFL it wouldn't weaken him a bit, that is just pure Democrat spin. In fact it would strengthen him because it would demonstrate how strong the President supports him.

He would be there for a year, and a year only. How is that now weakened-he can't start long term strategies cause he won't be there to implement them.

What a bogus statement. On the one hand you say we shouldn't appoint Bolton saying we can't agree on him and then labling him abrasive and slimy. But then you say if you just get a list of meaningless names he is now OK. You just proved the slimy folly your side is engaged in.

I never said it would be ok for him to be ambassador, but I mean to say taht I would have no problem with his nomination coming to a vote. We asked for those docs and if we get them, there is no reason to stop the nomination anymore. I PERSONALLY think he is slimy and the nation realizes he is abrasive (and conservatives for some reason like that). There is a difference between my views and that of the Democrats.

 

[ShamMol]

They did compormise, they gave the names to the DHS and let them compare and found that none of the names were the people the Dems claimed to be concerned about. So what did the Dems do, they came back and demanded MORE names.

This is pure partisian BS, they didn't need the info in the first place and when they get what they demand they simply demand more. Thier political antics are endangering us, that includes you, and the public will see through it.

It is their right as a senator to information-pure politics aside, it is their right to ask for that information.

 

[NoobieDoobieDo]

Mr. Bolton is not the best man the US has for the job, he seems to lack respect for the UN and what not.

Bolton, in his own words.

This does not look like a man we should send as 'our best' to the UN. I'm sure 'they' can come up with someone else.

To send someone who openly says such things to the UN shows that we don't even care to pretend to respect the UN.

 

[NoobieDoobieDo]

link

^^ has four links to the same video

Sorry for the double post, my 10 mins had pasted and I couldn't edit my last message.

 

[akyron]

No. The British government has a policy of basically debating forever which is where the idea of the fillibuster came from. .

Filibuster originates in the 16th century with the Dutch vrijbuiter as Freebooter.
It means Freelance pirate.

It was introduced in the 1850s where it was used widely to block the passage of legislation.

 

[akyron]

Mr. Bolton is not the best man the US has for the job, he seems to lack respect for the UN and what not.

Bolton, in his own words.

This does not look like a man we should send as 'our best' to the UN. I'm sure 'they' can come up with someone else.

To send someone who openly says such things to the UN shows that we don't even care to pretend to respect the UN.

Analysts said appointing him UN envoy may be the best way to ensure that UN reform takes place and is credible to US conservatives.


I think that is the perfect attitude to have for reform. What exactly are we respecting? Missappropriation of funds, Oil for food scandals, The resolutions against Jews? Decision making is already nearly paralyzed as Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States retain their veto power in the Security Council. Under the UN Charter any one of these five permanent members has the power to veto any decision or action that it disagrees with.



The U.N. should vote every year on the country with the most problems(Sudan) and go live and work there for a year. Ill bet the toilets will be working inside a week.

 

[akyron]

A recess appointment would not be a good thing because that would weaken his ability at the UN.

Nah, It makes him even stronger when the president supports him over the naysayers.

 

[jallman]

Do conservatives ever stop to think that the dems are part of congress too and were voted into that congress by the people congress is meant to serve? So what if the conservatives have a problem with the UN, it doesnt give them the right to send their choice just to lend credibility to the UN. Why does it have to be credible just to them? And the point of a nomination and voting process is to give all parties the ability to make an informed decision and take the majority's choice. If the republicans are not willing to honor that process with the willing dissemination of information requested, then why would the dems not pull out all stops in an effort to honor their constituents by going to bat full force for them. Normally, if something is a good choice it is promoted zealously by its supporters. Instead, it looks like the Republicans are hiding something about him and that makes me want to know even more, and I am sure the Dems feel the same way...and why not. This time I think the conservatives are just living up to their reputations as bratty little jerks and they need to be put in a time out.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

...The resolutions against Jews?

Resolutions against Jews? WTF? Are you sure about that?

 

[C.J.]

Do conservatives ever stop to think that the dems are part of congress too and were voted into that congress by the people congress is meant to serve? So what if the conservatives have a problem with the UN, it doesnt give them the right to send their choice just to lend credibility to the UN. Why does it have to be credible just to them? And the point of a nomination and voting process is to give all parties the ability to make an informed decision and take the majority's choice. If the republicans are not willing to honor that process with the willing dissemination of information requested, then why would the dems not pull out all stops in an effort to honor their constituents by going to bat full force for them. Normally, if something is a good choice it is promoted zealously by its supporters. Instead, it looks like the Republicans are hiding something about him and that makes me want to know even more, and I am sure the Dems feel the same way...and why not. This time I think the conservatives are just living up to their reputations as bratty little jerks and they need to be put in a time out.

Recess apointments are not unique to Republican presidents, so you don't need to sing that song. Both Democrats and Republican presidents have misused the part of Article II Section 2 which states, The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

It seems to be ok to ignore the Constitution's focus on when a vacancy occurs, and either side could put a stop to the BS if they so desired, but if they did, the next person elected from their party could not pull the same BS.

 

[rudy0908]

Resolutions against Jews? WTF? Are you sure about that?

I was wondering that too. What is this referring to?

 

[jallman]

Recess apointments are not unique to Republican presidents, so you don't need to sing that song. Both Democrats and Republican presidents have misused the part of Article II Section 2 which states, The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

It seems to be ok to ignore the Constitution's focus on when a vacancy occurs, and either side could put a stop to the BS if they so desired, but if they did, the next person elected from their party could not pull the same BS.

Thanks for restating my point. Either side could put a stop to all this and its pointless anyway. If congress goes into recess without making a decision, Bush is gonna get his way anyway. So the dems could stop filibustering and the Republicans could freely offer the information that is the dems' right to see anyway. As much as I hate to say it, if they cant come to a compromise, then Bush should have all authority to appoint his candidate. I just feel the Republicans are being smug and about who has control of the sandbox on this one.