May 27, 2005

Democrats block vote on Bolton

Democrats blocked an up-or-down vote on the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations yesterday, opening their first filibuster of the year three days after a bipartisan deal to avoid filibusters of judicial nominees.
[One of the best kept Beltway secrets has been that the Dems have been using their crazy cloture/filibust rule as an obstructionist tactic not only on judicial nominees, but on any Bush nominees like Bolton--Jen].
    
Three Democrats and 53 Republicans comprised the 56 votes against the filibuster, but 60 votes are needed to force an up-or-down vote.
[..for "cloture."--J.T.]
[...]
"Actions speak volumes, and so does inaction," Mr. Frist said. "Given the chance to advance the cause of comity in the Senate, the Democrats have chosen partisan confrontation over cooperation."

Why is it that you can't trust Democrats to be gentlemen/gentlewomen?
Why do they never mean what they say?
(You don't suppose they're lying, do you?)
Why won't they keep up their end of a bargain or agreement?

They're stalling Bolton just to stall him;
they promised a vote on him by May 12 and now it's (check your watches) May 27.
He's been approved by the Senate for 4 previous appointments! (same personnel files, same "kiss up, kick-down" guy!)
And how did the Dem senators decide that their "advice and consent" roles, to be governed by cloture and filibuster rules normally required only for signing treaties, stretch to include the President's choice for UN rep?
Sooner or later, the GOP Senators under the flaccid leadership of Dr. Sen. Frist, are going to have to use the "Constitutional option" because the fallout from *not* using the "nuclear option" is hurting this country.