TPMCafe
« Trifecta's Failure -- the Fingerprint File | Home | Senior Republican Foreign Relations Committee Staff Reports "Bolton Confirmation Dead" »

Senior Republican Foreign Relations Committee Staff Reports "Bolton Confirmation Dead"

user-pic

The Washington Post has run an article this morning stating that the administration's effort to get John Bolton "confirmed" is now essentially dead -- though Condoleezza Rice seems ready to deploy some theatrics to try and get Senator Lincoln Chafee to change his mind.

My question is why didn't she do that after the late July hearing in which Chafee clearly outlined his serioius problems with the administration's Middle East foreign policy. Playing catch-up won't get Bolton confirmed.

Peter Baker and Dafna Linzer write:

President Bush's nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations appears increasingly endangered in the Senate, prompting the administration to explore other ways to keep him in the job after his temporary appointment expires in January, officials said yesterday.
The situation represents a sharp turnaround from two weeks ago, when the White House was confident it could finally push through Bolton's long-stalled nomination. But last week's surprise move by Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) to delay a vote convinced Republicans on Capitol Hill that the nomination may be doomed, prompting a search for alternatives.

Administration officials said they have not given up. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Chafee yesterday to kick off a lobbying campaign that will continue today when he returns to Washington after his hard-fought Republican primary victory in Rhode Island on Tuesday.

Bush and national Republicans pulled out the stops to help Chafee win the primary, and they expect a payback. But with Chafee now preparing to face a strong Democratic challenger in a Democratic state in November, many Republicans said he has less incentive to support a firebrand figure such as Bolton.

"It's dead as far as the Senate is concerned,"
said one Republican official at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where Chafee holds the decisive vote. "Chafee made it a 9 to 9 vote, and that's not going to change." A Senate Republican leadership aide added: "Chafee holds Bolton's future in his hands, and people are very worried he's going to squeeze and never let go." [emphasis added]

This article validates what I posted right after last Thursday's failed effort by the administration to secure a vote on John Bolton in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

-- Steve Clemons is Senior Fellow and Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation and publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note.


8 Comments

| Leave a comment

Good. Bolton is trouble.

The Republicans must be really worried about losing the Senate. Surely the time to get a commitment from Chafee to support Bolton was when Chafee really need the national party's help to fight off Laffey. They have much less leverage over him now.

Playing catch up with theatrics may not help get Bolton back in, but it sure will help Chaffee with his "independent" bona fide. Theatrics are likely planned to give Chaffee a boost in time for the general election.

Theatrics would defintely help Chaffee in the manner you describe, and Bush does have more to fear from a Democratic controlled Senate than not having his man in the UN. The UN is not important to Bush and his base and Bolton was intended to be a sort of poison pill; still, having a high-profile nominee shot down is a tough political loss.

Tough call. Perhaps they figure they can either get their nominee, or worse comes to worse, keep control of the Senate. They have nothing more to lose by making a show of it.

Who's to say that the 'committment' isn't already in hand, ready to be dealt? Else, I hope that Chafee has more spine than the Maine twins, Snowe and Collins. They talk a tough, moderate game on many difficult issues, but when the time comes to vote, thay collapse under minimal party pressure, and vote the leadership's way...every time.

I think the adviser gets it wrong:

Chafee's office said he has not decided how to vote. But an adviser outlined the difficult choice: "Politically it's a no-win for the senator. He votes against it, and he hurts the Republicans who just helped him in a primary in a very, very tight race. . . . And he votes for it, he hurts himself with the Democrats that he needs in November."

I disagree. He no longer needs the Republicans help. He needs to tack toward the center to win in November.

I know I'm being naive, but how about doing the right thing because it is what you believe is right for the country?

What honest person could be in favor of Bolton to represent us?

Jan Knaus

Honest? And that means?

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »



Book Club Calendar


Coming Soon



Nov. 30-Dec. 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Kyle Krahel-Frolander



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address