Should Senate Democrats Fillibuster Bolton?

I certainly think that it would be a good idea, it would take away the republican advantage of being able to cherry-pick a moderate judge to use in the 'nukular option' and instead they would be forced to defend John Bolton, whose name has taken enough hits the last few weeks to hurt his image in the public arena.

It is also good because there seems to be a Bolton sexual scandal in the works, this would be another hit on his image, and would force republicans to stand beside a sexual abuser

sounds perfect to me, what do you think?

•  NO WAY!!

  If he makes it throught the Senate vote on the floor, he'll have such baggage on him, his every move will produce a black eye for the administration. Plus there's the Larry Flynt angle which will entertain for the rest of this year.

  Besides he serves at the pleasure of the President, as opposed to lifetime judicial appointments. Those are the ones worth fillibustering as they are almost impossible to undo.

  I still tend to doubt he'll work one day at Dag Hammerskjold Plaza, but if he does he'll be radioactive for Bush, and that's the way I like it.

  by mrblifil on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:36:55 PM PDT

  •  i agree.

    let this be a party line vote..

    republicans for, democrats against and then let rip with the negative stories.  i can see this making hay for a long LONG time..

    by bill in wa on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:41:41 PM PDT

    •  I agree

      I've said before. No one is going to respect us at the UN anyways until the chimp is gone. He'd just nominate some other lamentable candidate anyways. Let them have their man and let us sit back and watch the hilarious consequences to the yea voters when he fucks up. I am reminded of something Colin Powell said to the effect of: you break it you own it!

      by flounder on Thu May 12, 2005 at 04:17:33 PM PDT

    •  Let them force him in and then ...

      do to him what the rethugs did to Andy Young, viz. a steady bombardment of criticism until it came to the point that he had to resign.  I'd love to see some payback for that racist debacle.

      by SamCDC on Thu May 12, 2005 at 04:39:55 PM PDT

  •  it seems to me that fillibustering this guy

    would be more revelant than waiting for republicans to act, he's unqualified and it would show the general public the true purpose of fillibuster.  

    by chinkoPelinke on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:42:05 PM PDT

  •  The goal is...

    to destroy the UN. Just look at some of the comments senate republicans made today. The UN is the problem, not Bolton. They will work to destroy it if he gets in.

    by scorpiorising on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:50:15 PM PDT

    •  If we are going to have someone who is

      trying to destroy the UN, we may as well have someone who does it brazenly and is too idiotic to round up any dipolmatic support, as opposed to someone who also wants to destroy the UN but does it in an effective and passive-aggressive manner.

      by ohwilleke on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:51:58 PM PDT

      •  ugh

        That's like the most depressing argument I've heard today.  Not that you're wrong, but it doesn't make me feel any better.

        by starkness on Thu May 12, 2005 at 04:11:38 PM PDT

    •  No filibuster

      I think that the folks at the U.N. are all grown-up enough to give Bolton the cold shoulder and keep his childish antics in check.

      If confirmed, Bolton will have as much sway with U.N. members as Pat Robertson at a Gay Pride festival.
      

      by becca00 on Thu May 12, 2005 at 04:01:13 PM PDT

    •  Can someone tell me...

      ...how he could destroy the UN. It doesn't make sense to me. He's too obvious. It goes against their MO.

      I think Bush sees his nomination is just a big public slap in the face to the UN.

      by Jim Riggs on Thu May 12, 2005 at 04:44:59 PM PDT

•  I haven't been following it closely enough

  Is it certain that he would be confirmed?  It seems Voinovich is going to vote against him, are there enough others?

  My point it that if he is going to go down, then we should go to the up or down vote.  But if we try to filibuster, then that gives cover to any GOoPer who would vote against him, but for cloture.

  Also, this post is not as critical as a lifetime appointment.  We will have to see what chessmaster Reid has up his sleeve.

  by marchmoon on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:38:26 PM PDT

  •  well..

    if Voinovich is actually true to his word, then we'd need 6 others to defect -

    although forcing cheney to cast the tie breaker would be more than i could hope for.

    by bill in wa on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:43:17 PM PDT

    •  Probably more math to it

      Anybody know how Lieberman is drifting on this?  Or other dems?  Losing a filibuster cloture vote would not be good.

      by marchmoon on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:46:07 PM PDT

      •  I think we can win this

        Murkowski, Hagel, and Chafee all very carefully couched their "vote" today. It was about passing Bolton on, not approving him. They left space to oppose him, definitely.

        And then you add in just about everyone else who is voting against the nuclear option: Collins, Snowe, Specter, DeWine, Dominici, McCain. You might not get them all. But if you stress this is about the White House refusing the accept the Senate's advice--and, more importantly, refusing to let the Senate ecercise it's oversight by looking at the NSA intercepts--then you've got constitional issues which parallel the nuclear option issues.

        I fully expect Joementum to vote against. But still, I think we win this, fair and square on the Senate floor.

        by emptywheel on Thu May 12, 2005 at 05:58:28 PM PDT

        •  Domenici isn't hitting the button???

          Whoa, where'd you see this?  I thought he was on the "aye" side.  And where'd ya see that Collins was a definite no?

          by Christian Dem in NC on Fri May 13, 2005 at 02:03:40 PM PDT

      •  hmm. true.

        I guess I was assuming that we'd have our side in order.  But to be frank, I don't see any upside for a democrat voting for this guy?  Maybe if you traded the closing of an army base for not giving a no.. I dunno.  

        What I do know is that AP news this morning called the fact that he got out of committee without a recommendation a serious embarassment to the admin.

        I have to agree.

        by bill in wa on Fri May 13, 2005 at 07:47:31 AM PDT

  •  while i agree with the fact that a fillibuster

    should be saved for life-time appointments, i doubt that republicans will choose anyone more controversial for their nukular showdown

    by chinkoPelinke on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:45:38 PM PDT

    •  I guess it also seems a little petty.

      Well, not petty, because he is a dog of a nominee (my apologies to caninophiles out there).  But it is not a good idea to look too obstructionist.

      But then again, with a sex scandal, the public might swing more our way.

      by marchmoon on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:51:02 PM PDT

      •  Being obstructionist is exactly what's needed

        The Dems, especially in the Senate, aren't nearly obstructionist enough. Everything that's come from the Rs in the past three months has been pure evil. The Democrats should be standing up and screaming, and shutting down meetings, and convening separate hearings, and squirting super glue in all the locks.

        Exactly what are we getting by preserving decorum in Congress?

        Really.
        

        by CupaJoe on Thu May 12, 2005 at 05:14:32 PM PDT

    •  Smoking memo.

      Besides being a great way to frame the filibuster issue around Bolton, filibustering Bolton could be used as a way to force the mainstream media to cover the Downing Street smoking memo.

      by lysias on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:55:59 PM PDT

      •  Sorry to laugh

        but I wish you luck with that thought.

        In a perfect world and all.

        Sigh

        by marchmoon on Thu May 12, 2005 at 04:00:18 PM PDT

        •  WaPo Reports Smoking Memo.

          An article on the smoking memo finally appeared in this morning's Washington Post.  British Intelligence Warned Blair of War: Prime Minister Was Told of White House's Resolve to Use Military Against Hussein.  As might have been predicted, they buried it, on page A18.

          by lysias on Fri May 13, 2005 at 07:42:01 AM PDT

•  No

  Make it a party-line vote and hang him around the Republicans' necks when November of 2006 comes around.

  Given past experience, he is going to mess up and mess up big.

  by TarheelDem on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:40:48 PM PDT

  •  Who knows we could win on the merits?

    If Voinavich is willing to chew the guy out and not vote for him on the merits, maybe other GOPers will as well.

    by ohwilleke on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:53:23 PM PDT

    •  My personal opinion

      If we ever win anything on the merits from this Congress, the House will impeach W the next week.

      In other words, I'm not holding my breath.

      by TarheelDem on Thu May 12, 2005 at 04:00:04 PM PDT

•  You Know

  I'm not all that convinced that having a huge fight over Bolton is even really a good idea.

  It uses a lot of intellectual firepower that might be better directed elsewhere, and even if we do defeat his nomination, whoever does get eventually appointed is likely to be just as bad, but with a more congenial veneer on it.

  Fight the Bolton nomination?  Sure, because he's a bad choice and because Democrats oppose his positions on the UN.  Make the anti-Bolton fight a centerpiece of the political battle against Bush?  Meh.

  by Slade on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:42:03 PM PDT

  •  why not?

    I think its worked pretty well actually.  Its kept the spotlight, at least a little bit, on the fact that intelligence was fixed to meet the policy.

    by bill in wa on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:44:51 PM PDT

  •  in other words

    Let him get confirmed and then trust that he'll embarrass Americans on the world stage, thus bringing the GOP into disrepute?  My, how cynical.

    Needless to say, I love it.

    by Adam B on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:46:10 PM PDT

•  No, distinguish it from judiciary/lifetime appts

  This point has been made above by other posters, but only as a secondary ("besides," "also") point.

  It is a primary point for the Dems in the filibuster debate -- that judicial appointments are lifetime appointments.

  To dilute the Dem argument about the filibuster for a different appointment that expires at the end of the presidential term (looooong as I know each excruciating day of this regime makes it seem!) would be a mistake.

  Admittedly, filibustering over an appointment of the importance of our UN ambassador might be worthwhile at another time.  Thus, the timing of this might well be a reason why Republicans agreed to delays blamed on Dems.

  But the filibuster is about who will serve on SCOTUS, and that might affect our international policy and future even more.
  

  by Cream City on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:46:20 PM PDT

•  I was going to vote yes...

  But you guys are 100% correct when you say that lifetime appointments are more important.

  Not too mention how much news fodder this guy will create! That is just the bonus.

  by m16eib on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:48:59 PM PDT

•  The point of the Bolton case is to show

  graphically that Republicans are lunatic lemmings who will follow Bush, who has no ability whatsoever to judge good character, off a cliff.

  If we filibuster, people can say their vote was becasue they believed in an up or down vote on the President's nominee.

  If we make them cast a party line vote in favor of Bolton, they have to argue come election day that he was a good guy.

  Also, he will only serve for three and a half years max, and of particular importance, if he is defeated on a filibuster, he can be put in for a year and a half as a recess appointment anyway.

  by ohwilleke on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:50:21 PM PDT

  •  Some really good points.

    The most long term damage that he is likely to do is to make Bush look bad.

    by marchmoon on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:57:09 PM PDT

    •  As if Bush could look worse to the world! (n/t)

      But yes, Bolton is just more same old same old from this WH.  A good guy probably wouldn't be believed, representing this WH, anyway. . . .

      by Cream City on Thu May 12, 2005 at 05:38:23 PM PDT

•  I'm thinking now . . .

  that the Dems should take the high road. No more filibustering of nominees (except the most radical judicial nominees, for reasons I'll explain below). Let them go to the floor, let the Bush wing of my party (I'm a real live Republican!) put their names on the great Scorecard -- yes, I voted to put this bozo where he was when everything went to hell. I sided with the President. The Dems can smile and nod, make their best case to the sensible Republicans, and cast their votes of conscience. In three years and change, the new guy (or gal) can make their appointments -- and I think there's a much better than even chance that guy (or gal) will have a "D" by their name, or at least be a Sensible Republican, the kind the Bush wing calls RINO, who will make appointments that will send the Far Right machine into a tizzy anyway. What will they say? Will they fillibuster? Will they make loud and vicious accusations? Will they show themselves to be scum-hearted liars about "believing a President should get his nominees"?
  I have come to see the weakness of the Far Right -- any attempt, however polite or proper, to thwart their agenda is persecution, and feeds the fires they spread through their talk radio/think tank/conservapundit network. The one thing they don't plan for is success, because their ideas are simplistic, muddled and not grounded in reality. They don't work. Imagine if the Dems had been more muted about the war -- never gone on the attack, but just left that Lancelot Link imitator blinking at the camera, as his administration bungled the aftermath of the war. Attacks and criticism make them stronger, give them an out. Sometimes, it's best to let fools be fools, and fail. Our republic will survive, with a valuable lesson learned (as my mother said many times when I was a child "bet you won't do that again."
  So let these smug twerps confirm Bolton, and let him hang around their necks when he blows the boilers.

  by Jaxpagan on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:58:19 PM PDT

•  Feelling Down

  I wish I could share the sentiment of those who feel Bolton will be a stone around Bush's neck, but I can't. Instead, I feel like just slid down another few feet on the slippery slope to WWIII (although many neo-cons believe we are already there.)

  Bolton is being pushed for a reason. Blair just announced he's taking Iran to the UN. With Bolton there, this is perfectly primed for a UN showdown that will lead to a)War with Iran and b)a significant withdrawal of support from the UN.

  If Bolton hits the UN, we will have another war before the '06 elections.

  by DJ Adequate on Thu May 12, 2005 at 03:58:36 PM PDT

•  Tactics of Legislation

  It is may already and we are still talking about nominations, some of them from last term, we haven't even started to move on really major legislation like stripping Social Security.  If things continue on the path they are on, there will not be enough time to get things done like the budget...

  I think that this congressional system will be about running out the clock and making sure that they score as few points as possible in the process.  Each Senator should have a chance to state clearly and at length their objections to Bolton, and predict that he is not up to the task of running our delegation to the UN.  If more evidence comes out in the meanwhile they may have to speak again.

  Bush will eventually get someone to be ambassador whom we dislike.  Chances are they will be more suitable to Bolton if he is defeated.  We would be unpatriotic to support someone who is such a risk to national security, but if Bush wants to spend his political capital strong arming his Senators and embarrassing himself over an ambassador, then let him.

  We shall make it costly and time consuming and when things go poorly we shall remind the public that we opposed him and doubted his ability.

  Meanwhile the business of government is being ignored, and policies we dislike will languish in the queue.  That will be a problem for the ruling party in November 2006.

  by Luam on Thu May 12, 2005 at 04:05:22 PM PDT

  •  Voting without a recommendation is rare

    Despite Voinovich's sharp criticism of Bolton, who now serves as undersecretary of state for arms control, the White House was clearly relieved that the Ohio senator had agreed to let the full Senate decide.

    Voting without a recommendation is a rare occurrence.

    According to the Senate historian, it has happened only six times on nominees forwarded by any of the Senate standing committees since 1988. In three of those six cases the nominee did win confirmation in a floor vote.

    by progressivearlingtonian on Thu May 12, 2005 at 04:17:27 PM PDT

•  well it seems pretty even (51/48)

  does anyone know where Bolton stands in the polls, is there anyone even polling on thi guy?

  if public opinion isn't with us then its a lost cause

  by chinkoPelinke on Thu May 12, 2005 at 04:41:26 PM PDT

•  Bolton should be poster child FOR the filibuster!

  The Democrats should make Bolton the example of why we MUST preserve the Senate tradition of filibuster -- to prevent the rash and irresponsible Bush people from appointing an abusive, wife-trading, sex-club-frequenting, anti-family-values guy to represent the United States of America.

  I say, filibuster away ( ...fer Christ's sake).

  by CupaJoe on Thu May 12, 2005 at 04:53:12 PM PDT

  •  I share your frustration

    but we need to save it for the real fights that matter to millions of American's, like the fight to control the Supreme Court.

    by mrblifil on Thu May 12, 2005 at 06:36:53 PM PDT

•  Bolton will make a mash...

  ..of U.S. representation the U.N.  He will make "bubble boy" look like the petulant adolescent that he is.  I say let Bolton go and make a fool of both of them.  After all, the U.N. knows what we know(and keeps us from despair). Bush's term and influence will, mercifully end.  They are a temporary scourge, just as the damage he creates will be temporary.

  I do wish that Bolton would get someone to gnaw off that white thing under his nose, though.

  by waztec on Thu May 12, 2005 at 04:55:49 PM PDT

•  Filibuster over the NSA intercept delay

  The Senate has been deprived of the ability to make an informed decision about Bolton because the State Dept has withheld key information.
  This is a reason to filibuster---to protect the prerogatives of the Senate for BOTH parties.

  by BoringDem on Thu May 12, 2005 at 05:11:11 PM PDT

•  It would make us look petty

   We can't afford to lose the filibuster ish to Bolton. If we string em' out and leave them a little line we'll probably need that chance to hold back a Bush nominee for the sup court. Can you imagine what a Bush nominee would be like? scares me.

  by sparky22 on Thu May 12, 2005 at 05:13:43 PM PDT

•  I say no...

  
  Certainly the Dems should vote against him - no point in giving him a pass, but I don't think the fillibuster is warranted here.

  The sex scandal could become hot, but it will just serve to embarass all of the Republicans who defended him so strongly.
  

  by ericy on Thu May 12, 2005 at 06:15:54 PM PDT