Wrong answer shades! For the record it was the "democrats" filibustering his nomination

Most recently, it was Senator Chafee (A REPUBLICAN) who put a hold on the nomination. No one filabustered the nomination because it never made it to the floor.

Only "one" which is NOT what shades is saying. Now is it?

Dr. Miler did you read what I said? I said a REPUBLICAN Senate would not confirm him. Currently the Senate is republican (as in the Republican's have power, for at least a couple more weeks anyway), and currently the President can't get the Bolton nomination through (which was the reason behind the first recess appoinment--so which part did you think I was wrong about?

The nomination did not make it out of the Foreign Relations Committee--which again, because the Republicans are in the majority, they have a majority of the seats on the committee. All they needed was to pass the nomination out of the committee by one vote, and they couldn't muster that. Let's not pretend that this is a partisan issue. People on both sides of the aisle think Bolton is a terrible UN Ambassador and he has done a dreadful job while he's been at the UN. Secretary Rice has spent her days apologizing for his behavior--he's a liability, not an asset--and it's about time he found himself a new job.

(Citizen)shadesofgreyDecember 4, 2006 18:24:06

hey shades? after I heard from you know who about what you did for that gal and her child, you have free liscense to say and do as you please here and I will never mess with you.
You are my new hero.

(Citizen)Island DogDecember 4, 2006 16:22:07

Why does the left like Bolton again? Oh thats right, he's "mean" to people.

and he does not kiss democrat ass properly.

ParaTed2kDecember 4, 2006 18:03:19

Prs. Bush didn't just "give" on this one, he accepted his Lame Duck status and threw himself into the flow. Republicans have long been hoping to see Prs. Bush stand up to the "nuclear option". We have hoped he would let the democrats and RINOs in the Senate talk their way into a corner. Prs. Bush had his last chance with Bolton. Here was a more than qualified nominee who has already proven himself in his temp position. To filibuster Bolton would be nothing short of hatemongering. It was the perfect opportunity for Prs. Bush... but he squandered it. In doing so he has told the world that his administration is officially over.

his admin ended nov. 7th this year ted..sucks.

his admin ended nov. 7th this year ted..sucks.

Yes and no. He still had until the new congress to get things done. Not pushing Congress for Bolton's confirmation showed the world he isn't willing to do much of anything anymore. So yes his administration ended on the 7th, but it didn't have to.

MM--ah, she wasn't meant to tell! I'm sure anyone else who could have would have done the same. But still, you're free to give me a hard time whenever you'd like!


As for the topic at hand--Bolton is appointed through the end of this Congress (so January 2007). There seems to be a misunderstanding of the nomination process--there is no need to filibuster (filabuster sp??) the nomination because there is a hold system in place. Any Senator can (anonymously or not) place an unlimited hold on any nomination. This effectly blocks the nomination until the Senator releases. It's one of the perks of being in the "upper" house.

(Citizen)shadesofgreyDecember 4, 2006 19:39:44

As for the topic at hand--Bolton is appointed through the end of this Congress (so January 2007). There seems to be a misunderstanding of the nomination process--there is no need to filibuster (filabuster sp??) the nomination because there is a hold system in place. Any Senator can (anonymously or not) place an unlimited hold on any nomination. This effectly blocks the nomination until the Senator releases. It's one of the perks of being in the "upper" house.

joe biden told Bush do not bother that he would block Bolton.

his admin ended nov. 7th this year ted..sucks. Yes and no. He still had until the new congress to get things done. Not pushing Congress for Bolton's confirmation showed the world he isn't willing to do much of anything anymore. So yes his administration ended on the 7th, but it didn't have to.

(Citizen)ParaTed2kDecember 4, 2006 19:37:33

see above what I told shades, read her answer above that first.

For the record, Bolton resigned because a REPUBLICAN Senate would NOT confirm him.

Uh, excuse me, it takes 51 votes to confirm. He had 58. Dont split hairs here, the democrats filibustered it. Period. They have not had a filibuster proof majority in my living memory.

THAT is for the RECORD.

Most recently, it was Senator Chafee (A REPUBLICAN) who put a hold on the nomination. No one filabustered the nomination because it never made it to the floor.

Yeah as in a "single republican".

For the record, Bolton resigned because a REPUBLICAN Senate would NOT confirm him.

These are "your" words and as I have shown, they're wrong! A single senator is "not" the entire "republican senate.

Dr. Miler did you read what I said? I said a REPUBLICAN Senate would not confirm him. Currently the Senate is republican (as in the Republican's have power, for at least a couple more weeks anyway), and currently the President can't get the Bolton nomination through

Yes I read what you wrote. And it's still incorrect. The democraps put a hold on his nomination, NOT the GOP! And while I'm at it....did you read what I linked? It sort of shoots your theory in the foot.

~DrM~

I think what shades is trying to say, is that currently the congress is in GOP hands, and obviously, if they wanted to have him, cause they are in the majority...they'd have passed him. However, since Bush cannot even get Bolton approved in a congress controlle by his OWN party...there is about a chance in hell that he would get him approved by a democrat controlled congress.

You understand?

(btw, this was said neutrally)

where does rumsfeld's memo (you know...the one in which he said pretty much the same thing as murtha) fit into to all this giving?

next it'll be cheney.

if barney's got half a brain, he's all packed and ready to hit the road even tho i'm guessing the dog will beat out laura to survive the next round of 'giving'

Uh, excuse me, it takes 51 votes to confirm. He had 58. Dont split hairs here, the democrats filibustered it. Period. They have not had a filibuster proof majority in my living memory. THAT is for the RECORD.

Dr Guy--is it possible to have a conversation without you being condescending?

I'm not splitting hairs--if Chafee, Voinovich and Hagel hadn't raised questions in committee, the Foreign Relations committee would have sent the Bolton nomination to the floor recommending confirmation. Instead, they simply allowed the Senate to vote without recommending that Bolton be confirmed (without holding a vote in committee because they KNEW it would fail). The fact that it never actually made it to a floor vote has more to do with influential republicans putting their foot down than any tactics of the democrats.

The fact that it never actually made it to a floor vote has more to do with influential republicans putting their foot down than any tactics of the democrats.

No, even without the recommendations a floor vote was possible. But the threat of a filibuster was enough to kill it. I love the way things are getting spun now. If the Senate did not waste time fighting a filibuster, then it must be that they did not support the nominee.

~DrM~ I think what shades is trying to say, is that currently the congress is in GOP hands, and obviously, if they wanted to have him, cause they are in the majority...they'd have passed him. However, since Bush cannot even get Bolton approved in a congress controlle by his OWN party...there is about a chance in hell that he would get him approved by a democrat controlled congress. You understand? (btw, this was said neutrally)

But shades has "still" not taken into account what I posted earlier. Here, maybe this will help. From wikipedia.com:

On August 1, 2005, Bush made a recess appointment of John Bolton, to serve as U.S. representative to the United Nations. Bolton had also been the subject of a Senate filibuster. The filibuster concerned documents, which the White House refused to release, which Democrats suggested may contain proof of Bolton's abusive treatment and coercion of staff members, or of his improper use of National Security Agency communications intercepts regarding U.S. citizens. He will remain an ambassador at least until a new Congress takes office in January 2007.

To a Democrat, "Bipartisan" means, "Do it my way"

From a President that practically made the word unilateral a household word.

From a President that practically made the word unilateral a household word.

Name his "unilateral" actions. Spouting talking points is easy. Backing them up takes facts.

Reply By: whoman69Posted: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 To a Democrat, "Bipartisan" means, "Do it my way" From a President that practically made the word unilateral a household word.

  to a party {democrats} THAT NEVER WANTED TO WORK with the President in the first place.

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 From a President that practically made the word unilateral a household word. Name his "unilateral" actions. Spouting talking points is easy. Backing them up takes facts.

 

Facts never got in the way of a liberal arguement.

Bush being the smart man he is let Rummy go.

Yeah, It only took 6 years. That one is right up there with trading Sammy Sosa for Bush's long lists of ingenius motives.

It was more of a sacrifice to the liberals that wanted Rummy's head on a spit.

I did a little research on Rummy and 9/11 did you know that he was the only one that saw a terrorist attack on the United States? On tuesday September 11th he had a breakfast meeting wtih the Congressional leadership where he argued the need to increase troop levels, revamp the military in order to deal with a war on terror. He was told that Congress was fixed on the social security lock box and nothing that threatened social security would get serious consideration. This was from both sides of the isle. In order fot the SecDef to talk to Congress he had to get permission from his boss the President. Yet no one seems to understand why Our president allowed 9/11 to happen. I can't understand why he got rid of the only person that was working to fight the terrorist before they attacked us.