Wash Note explains What is About to Happen: When 10-8 vote is a 9-9 vote

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

May 12, 2005
by Steve Clemons

Explaining What is About to Happen: When a 10-8 Vote is REALLY 9-9

Senator Lugar is not going to allow a vote on John Bolton in the Committee. We will get no 9-9 tie because Lugar won't allow a loss, or stalemate.

What will happen shortly is that Lugar will move that the committee report the nomination to the floor without recommendation. That nomination will pass 10-8, on a party line vote.

According to a source close to the action, "A lot of people misunderstand what a "neutral recommendation" means. It does not mean that the vote was tied. It means literally that a motion is made that the nomination be sent to the floor without recommendation. The Committee could also theoretically report the nomination to the floor with a negative recommendation."

Unfortunately, it appears that Voinovich, although he will vote no on the floor, is not insisting that the committee report out the nomination with a negative recommendation.

more..he predicts a great fight ahead

[jojo54]

1. There's still hope in the Senate.....

...........isn't there??? :dilemma:

[flpoljunkie]

3. Yes, Washington Note predicts a great fight ahead.

This is going to be a great fight -- lots more room to squeeze the issues out and compel the White House to defend a flawed and damaged Bolton nomination.

So, stay tuned -- lots and lots more ahead.

And by the way, victory is preempting the Committee's recommendation to confirm John Bolton.

The tide turned our way today.

-- Steve Clemons

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

[LSparkle]

2. Oh please I hope so

The committee debate is only the beginning -- I hope we get some great speeches on the Senate floor and ultimately give this jerk a thumbs-down.

[jojo54]

4. That's exactly what happened too.

DAMN IT, DAMN IT, DAMN IT!!!

EDIT:I mean he was nominated. DAMN IT!!!!

[LSparkle]

6. By the time they vote on the floor, Flynt's allegations will be out

and there will be plenty of debate beforehand.

[BOSSHOG]

7. I'm not familiar with "Flynt's allegations"

Could you shed a little light please.

[flpoljunkie]

8. Read this from James Wolcott: "Dirk Diggler to the UN?"

http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/05/dirk_diggler_to.php

Dirk Diggler to the UN?

Posted by James Wolcott

Next door to the Latham was the much nicer, pricier Hotel George, where squads of stewardesses (as they were called then) and pilots in their spiffy uniforms dragged their luggage carts down the sidewalk and up the steps with a jauntiness you seldom see now in the deregulated, demoralized era of aviation. But at some point the Hotel George went south too, and its banquet room became a swingers’ pad, where people paid admittance to have sex with strangers.

It was the heyday of Plato’s Retreat, and a few copycat establishments popped up here and there in the city to catch the overrun, but none had the high visibility and pagan rep of the original pile-on palace, which conjures up an entire lost realm of chest hair, gold medallions, platform shoes, bellbottoms, rubber mats, frizzy Afros on white people, and the birth of porn video. One of my colleagues then at the Village Voice, Michael Tolkin (who went on to become an accomplished, disturbing novelist and screenwriter—The Player is his best-known novel, but his film The Rapture may be his most relevant work today), wrote an inside-tour of Plato’s Retreat that drew a lot of attention. I remember him comparing the sight of swingers humping on the mats to the action of oil pumps in the Texas panhandle, but my memory may be embellishing.

I wonder if during his journalistic tour of duty Tolkin ever came across the now-familiar face and less familiar buttcheeks of Bush’s nominee to the United Nations, John Bolton.

According to a shock claim by Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine, trumpeted on the Raw Story site, Bolton was a paid visitor to Plato’s Retreat, which in the seventies brought together many people of differing viewpoints, penis and bra-cup sizes, much as the United Nations has done since its founding. Perhaps Bolton went (if he indeed went—we must preserve the benefit of doubt) for the excellent buffet, of which the owners of Plato’s Retreat always expressed pride. I understand the conversations in the buffet line could get quite racy. ("Hey, this salad dressing tastes funny...") Or perhaps it was the aromatic atmosphere he couldn’t resist as he padded around in a white towel and flipflops. According to one former enthusiast, "One of the things I'll never never never forget -I think it was Plato's Retreat - it was walking in and having a waft of red energy, but it had no thorns in it, everyone was there consenting to be there. Everyone was there for the same purpose. It was so hot and so heavy."

[LSparkle]

5. Just happened, just as said above

Good for Sarbannes for confirming it was WITHOUT recommendation!

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

9. Does the recommendation really mean anything?

I like to think I'm basically familiar with how your government works, but the fiddly bits like this confuse me.

As I understand it, the question of whether to appoint Bolton is eventually going to come down to a yea-or-nay vote in the Senate, no matter what happens. The purpose of the committee hearings is simply to decide whether to give him the committee's endorsement.

But just how much weight does that endorsement (or lack thereof) carry? Isn't the Senate more likely to completely ignore them and just vote along party lines anyway? Is the committee actually capable of blocking Bolton's appointment?

Edit: Well, not any more, if they decided to go ahead with the vote. But were they ever?

[flpoljunkie]

10. Voinivich voting no on the Senate floor may encourage other R's to vote no

Those who know say this is not good for Bolton's prospects on the Senate floor, and that there will now be a fight--a great fight. I look forward to it.

And, of course, having a 10-8 vote without a recommendation out of committee does not bode well for Bolton's chances on the Senate floor--even though we know Dubya and Rove will be doing a lot of arm twisting cause Dubya cannot be foiled and look like a lame duck.

Should be interesting...

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

12. But what does it actually *mean*?

Maybe I just don't get it, but I don't see how or why the committee's granting or withholding their endorsement would actually influence anybody's vote on the floor. I suspect that most of the Senators on both sides made up their minds (or had their minds made up for them) a long time ago.

Is there some consequence for voting against the committee's recommendation that I'm not aware of? Because if there isn't, then I frankly don't see the point in the committee making a recommendation at all (the hearings sill make sense, though).

[ljm2002]

20. A lot of it is based on tradition...

...and political pragmatism.

Traditionally, a candidate with the committee's endorsement is in a stronger position; it only stands to reason. So there is a statement in not recommending him. But also, there are the pragmatic considerations: if they had the votes on the floor, guaranteed, they'd be in a better position to insist on the positive vote out of committee; and the committee would be more inclined to fight for the side, to preserve the advantage.

Too bad it was never in the cards to squash his nomination in committee, which is where it belonged -- squashed, never to reach the Senate floor.

Since it has reached the Senate floor, we can hope it proves to be a bruising encounter for Mr. Bolton. If Mr. Flynt's allegations are correct, or even if there is some provable truth to them, then Mr. Bolton's changcs may turn out to be "not bloody likely".

Only time will tell.

[gratuitous]

11. My sentiments exactly

By voting the nomination out of the committee for a full vote on the floor, the committee has abandoned its duty to vet the nomination. The Republicans and more importantly the administration don't care if the committee sent the nomination on to the full Senate with a recommendation, without a recommendation, or in a pink tutu and leather jacket. Once to the floor, all the parliamentary maneuvering is in the hands of the majority, and unless the Democrats are willing to filibuster Bolton's horrid nomination, he'll become the next UN ambassador.

The Republicans can count to 50, and they do it quite well. The hold a 55-45 majority, and even FIVE defections from the goose-step party line means that Cheney can still break the deadlock in favor of Bolton's confirmation. So assuming the Democrats hold together -- and Lieberman has shown great deference to the administration's need to have its nominations confirmed -- that means six Republicans have to cross the aisle. I can think of Voinovich possibly voting no.

Anyone care to come up with five more sure-fire names of Republicans who won't confirm such an unqualified man as John Bolton? I sure can't.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

13. Actually, that wasn't my point.

I don't disagree with what you said, mind you. I'm just trying to ask a question about procedure.

As I understand the process, a nomination eventually goes to a full vote anyway, no matter what happens in committee. Assuming I'm right about that, what's the point of the committee even giving their recommendation? I can understand the point of having hearings, to make sure the Senate has all the information they want, but once all the voters have made up their minds one way or the other, why would anyone care what the committee thinks?

[gratuitous]

14. Whoops, I misunderstood

No, if the committee deadlocks or does not pass the nomination on to the full Senate, then the nomination dies and the President has to nominate someone else. The make-up of the various committees reflects the proportion of the parties in the Senate as a whole. This particular committee has 18 members, 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats.

By changing what they were voting on, the chairman (a Republican), steered the Bolton nomination out of committee to a vote of the full Senate. The committee could have done one of three things: Not voted on the nomination at all, in effect killing it; voted not to pass the nomination on to the full Senate, again killing the nomination; or voted to pass the nomination on to the full Senate, with or without a recommendation. In this instance, the committee voted to pass the nomination on to the full Senate without any recommendation, which is rather unusual for such a high-level appointment.

The Republicans are heavily results oriented, and so getting the nomination out of the committee at all is a bit of a victory, even without the committee's recommendation to confirm Bolton. It is my contention that the Republicans will now go ahead and confirm Bolton, and damn the appearances and any consequences.

[KoKo]

17. I'd like to think this was a "clever save face move for both Repugs & Dems

but our history of Bush getting everything he wants makes me feel that your scenario is the correct one.

Steve Clemmons is telling us that more dirt will come out about Bolton that will make it impossible for him to win a full Senate vote...but I fail to have trust that he is correct.

Bernie Kerik is the only victory we've had. And only one victory is a sad record given the Criminality of this Administration. They lied us into a war and lied to the Senate and House...but no one cares and in fact I believe many Democrats were complicit...just as they have been in giving Bush every appointment except KeriK that they ever asked for.

I try to remain optimistic but if Bolton wins this then I know we live in a Fascist state...It will be confirmed and I will know that if any Democrats vote for that scum then I'm in the wrong party and we need a "third way," whether we lose or not in 2006.

I'm really pissed over this...but can hope that the dirty flies on Bolton and Bush and WMD and the Lies between now and when the Senate does it's final vote. :-(

[ieoeja]

16. While 18 Senators met in this committee.

38 Senators were busy in other committees. Had this committee recommended confirmation, many Senators pre-occupied with other matters may have routinely gone along with the recommendation. The lack of a recommendation from a Republican controlled committee for a Republican nominee nominated by a Republican president is going to make even the most obtuse stand up and take notice.

[gratuitous]

18. Under ordinary political circumstances, I'd agree with you

But time and again since 1996 or so, the Republicans have shown that there is no depth they won't plumb, no level so low they won't stoop to it, and no means so sleazy or unethical that they won't use them to further their ends. Fifty Republican Senators, I practically guarantee you, will vote for Bolton's confirmation. If the Senate is tied, then Dick "Crashcart" Cheney will pop up out of his hidey-hole to cast the tie-breaking vote in Bolton's favor and he will become the next ambassador to the UN.

The Republicans will all mouth the same words about how the president deserves to have his nominees confirmed, and that troublesome "advise and consent" language in the Constitution just isn't all that important. And when Bolton's at the UN, figuratively pissing on the carpet or farting in crowded elevators, these same Senators will evince total bewilderment at why anyone would find his behavior objectionable, or feigh complete ignorance of how in the world such a churlish boor could have achieved such a high and sensitive placement.

Then they'll all retire to their lairs and have a drink and a good laugh at the gullibility of the American people.

[MsTryska]

15. well now i hope

the dems swing into full opposition tomoffolery - much like a bunch of poo-flinging and rather menacing monkeys.


seriously.


i want to see a brawl.

[AlinPA]

19. He will be confirmed- Lieberman will say "aye", Voinivich "no". Plus

there will probbaly be some other Dems who buckle and cross over. Landrieu, Lincoln, Pryor, Salazar, maybe Corzine.