Hmmmm... was it the Lemon Chicken or the Rice Pilaf that finally broke Frist?

I hear the side dishes are positively BRUTAL.

So Bush is running the Senate now?

The vote on closure was closer than I thought it would be especially with the Repub defections. I imagine some pretty hard arm-twisting will go on this week, and a cloture vote early next week. I think it's going to be close.

Steve: I know you will continue to lead on this issue and I support your further efforts. The Dems must heold firm and both Lieb and Feinstein should be asked to continue their support for the documents. No time for wobbles!

I have to agree with David...Any 'weak links' need to be identified...

Other than Lieberman (I was surprised at his vote against cloture...) and Feinstein, who do you think is weak?

RedStaters are now asking themselves, "Does Bolton really matter?"

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/6/20/22222/9009

Amazing how perceptions shift over time.

Steve,

Two questions:

1. Do you think the administration is pushing for another run at the nuclear option? Seems to me that they're looking for any way possible to do away with filibusters altogether, and that the Bolton nomination gives them another opening.

2. If Bolton does get in via a recess appointment, how lame is duck will he be? Will US influence within the UN be reduced? Or will he be able to go ahead with forcing through hard line positions on Iran, etc.?

I believe that this needs to be understood in the shadow of the Nuclear Option. The White House doesn't mind having the Dems block cloture on Bolton, as long as it reinforces the impression that they are "obstructionist." Then, when Rehnquist retires, they can go Nuclear on the Supreme Court, which is really more significant in terms of their long-term objectives. I actually wouldn't be surprised if they try to go nuclear on Bolton as well: the "theory" (if one can call it that) was that filibusters are unconstitutional because the Senate is refusing to advise and consent by refusing to vote. That should apply just as well in the cases of executive branch nominees. And given many evangelical groups' hatred of the United Nations, this could play well with the base.

Is it possible there is an intra-GOP dynamic.

What if Rove/Bush have cut a deal with McCain? Could this be another way to make Frist look ineffectual?

I've never understood the intricacies of Senate procedure, but wouldn't Voinovich of all people have to be the one to reintroduce the cloture vote? I thought the reason Frist voted no the first time was because you have to have voted no in order to reintroduce it? Am I wrong here?

Steve says, "...the media and others watching this process will not settle for much less than full disclosure and provision of the requested documents..."

But the media repeats the White House assertions that the Democrats are obstructing. It seems a majority of the stories I hear repeat that sentiment. It feels rare to hear that the White House balks at providing evidence...

Steve,

It may not be what's in the documents but their calculation that this is the major power game that they cannot lose. They are afraid.

Bolton opponents created a new playing field, one that that put this Admin on the defensive. What a stupendous change in dynamics.

For a God fearing bunch, they clearly put the fear of God in Frist.

It's Frist's very own, "I actually did vote for the $87 million dollars, before I voted against it" moment.

It's possibly a "time management" game to get them closer to the next recess.

Can the Democrats refuse to go on recess?

No recess...no recess appointment.

"Can the Democrats refuse to go on recess?

No recess...no recess appointment"

Now that is truly an interesting option...I do not know my parliamentary procedure but that is a good question...

Frist fries?

I guess this is one way to shrink the GOP field of 08 candidates...

The media is downplaying the dispute over documents and information. In David Stout's article in the NY Times about Frist's about-face and on NPR this morning little or no mention was made of the White House's unwillingness to supply documents or even to compromise on these information requests.

I don't know how the Democratic Senators and staff are playing it in conversations with journalists, but shouldn't White House obstructionism be played as the key factor as far as cloture is concerned if the Democrats are to win the P.R. battle.

In response to the question on refusing the recess...

If the motion to recess for the week fails the vote, there would be no recess. Debate would continue on the topic at hand...

So, now I ask...It is possible, but is it conceivable that the motion to recess would fail?

Dave J asks a good question,

Does Frist even have the ability to even bring the vote to the floor again? It seems he would have to get either Voinovich or the Democrats to permit it.

Voinovich has really hardened his position since this got out of committee, saying he's gotten some mysterious new information. And I don't see why Democrats would do Frist any favors.

Re Observer:
Why must every vote be seen in terms of the political implications? This is the problem with the Democrats, especially the moderate ones. Vote for what is right and have a damn good reason why. That is the best weapon against any name calling. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for cloture, they just need to be articulated clearly. "WE ARE THE SENATE AND WE NEED DOCUMENTS TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION TO DO OUR JOB. HOW CAN WE HIRE A MAN FOR A JOB IF WE AREN'T ABLE TO LOOK AT THE INFORMATION ABOUT HIM." How simple is that. Lets cut the posturing. I think rational thought is still valued in this country. That was the secret of Bill Clinton, he explained what he did in logic terms and let his arguments persuade you.

". . .the media and others watching this process will not settle for much less than full disclosure and provision of the requested documents . . ."

The words I've italicized disturb me a bit, and that the FRC requests on Michael Freedman seem to get overlooked. What does "not much less than" mean?

I want nothing less. This is a battle of Constitutional proportions and not one with room for additional compromise.

Can a motion to recess be filibustered?

As important as I feel this Bolton issue is, I feel this is a diversionary tactic of a WH strategy to divert the nation's attention AWAY from the Downing Steet memo and the prison scandal. Afterall, this Downing Street thing could lead to impeachable proceedings.

This is also diverting attention away from his social security "reform" initiative.

If the nuclear option is used to push through Bolton's confirmation, then Bolton becomes the poster boy for the nuclear option, and an issue in the '06 and '08 elections. His image right now is already bad enough. Think of what it will be like after he acts up at the U.N.

According to the Precedence of Motions, a motion to recess is not debatable, therefore, not subject to a filibuster...it would have to fail by majority vote...

Flipflop? By Republicans? Is their game falling apart?

Joe,

The Bolton fight has been going on long before DSMs. Not everything has to be a conspiracy.

Great work on this Steve.

What the hell is in those documents?

Where's Deep Throat when we need him?

Re sgiff--
I think we're in agreement here; I was attempting to suggest that this was the reason for the ADMINISTRATION'S strategy of repeatedly callling for cloture votes that they have little chance of winning. I agree with you completely about what the Dems should do; perhaps a little less so about what the effects will be. The media's seeming inability to understand what you very clearly articulated is beginning to drive me crazy. But you are right that slinking away here is wrong in and of itself.

According to Senate Rule XIII, in order to get the Senate to reconsider the cloture motion, Frist will have to get one of the non-voting Republicans to move for reconsideration either today or Wednesday, and a majority of the Senate must agree to reconsideration.

Here are the Republicans who didn't vote yesterday:

Thune
Burns
Coleman

Coleman is one of Bolton's staunchest supporters, so he'll probably make the motion.

You missed the part of Rule XIII that says you can only file one motion for reconsideration. That bolt was shot yesterday.

There is nothing, however, that stops Frist from filing a new cloture motion as many times as he feels like it. He just needs to give 48 hours advance notice, etc.

This isn't my idea, someone suggested it in another blog in response to something I posted.

What about Bill Clinton for Ambassador?

Anyone know how to leak an Idea to the Press?

Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop

Poor, poor rockFristhardplace. If I were him, I'd think about voting NO on cloture next time it comes up. You know, just for fun. Otherwise, what's his campaign slogan gonna be? "Frist 2008: Bending Over for America?" At least he'd probably get another free lunch out of it. Oops! I forgot..."There is no free lunch..."

Stygius -- Thanks for posting that about how Frist might move the cloture vote again. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee tells me that all Frist needs to do is to refile a new cloture petition -- announce it several days before the planned vote, schedule debate, etc. . and then we can have another vote, without one of the other absent senators moving to reconsider. Just wanted to fill out the brief,

Steve Clemons

and what if they trot out the Nuke option for this? ignore the rules and change the rules at the same time???

WE DON NEED NO STINKIN RULES MISTER......!!!!

aremaggenon outta here......

What strikes me about this mess is that Bush is clearly unwilling to make any sort of concession whatsoever and still fully expects to get his way in the end. He behaves like a small boy who has been so humored by indulgent adults that it simply cannot enter his brain that things might not always go his way or that they should *not* necessarily go his way, when he is wrong. In all honestly, it scares me to death to think of such a person in charge of *anything* much less this country. A lifetime of coddling and indulgence has ill-prepared him for even relatively small setbacks. His "stay the course" actions in the face of a reality he doesn't wish to take a good look at is a dangerous folly costing us dearly.

May the real Karl Rove stand up? --

What's going on? Has Rove been replaced by a look-alike? Or is this is the WH turning the other cheek?

Maybe there's something that Rove, Bush and Cheney have in common after all.

It is their bottomless vanity.

Did you hear what I heard the majority leader announce to reporters in the palace driveway: "The emperor made it very clear that he expects an up or down vote."

Is Congress not loyal enough to this fake Bonaparte any more? Is that your problem, Mr Bush?

Who's is trying hardest to break up the ruling party - the disciplined opposition or the vain ruler?

I think it's time to turn up the heat on these pranksters. Reid should hold a press conference and demand WH provide all requested documents.

"What are you trying to hide from Congress, Mr President? We have to conclude that it has to be extremely damaging to you, given your continued intransigence and obstruction."

"How come a nominee, who lied under oath to Congress, can see NSA intercepts in a minute but United States Senators charged with oversight are denied access?"

Me flip flop Steve Colbert?

I change my mind all the time.

Oops. Steve (not Clemons) was right. Rule XIII only allows one reconsideration. My bad.

...if upon reconsideration the Senate shall affirm its first decision, no further motion to reconsider shall be in order unless by unanimous consent.

Why and how could Bush go nukes on this? There are already a number of GOP Senators just looking for an excuse to oppose Bolton. WHich suggests all the compromise 7 (with the exception of Warner probably) plus at least Voiny would vote against nukes. And then you've got people like Brownback (who wants to filibuster stem cells), who might want to retain the concept of the filibuster for non-judicial issues.

Seems to me, if you go nuclear with Bolton, then you risk dropping your bomb--and missing by a mile. You don't get to drop nukes twice.

Could it be that Bush DOESN'T CARE whether Bolton is approved or not? Seriously. If he had his way, there would be no U.N. anyway. So why would he care if we have no U.N. Ambassador for the foreseeable future? Plus, this situation frees him from having to deal with the U.N. in his future "adventures."

Great thread, good questions.......

I was under the impression that to go on recess you need an "unanimous consent" agreement.

If one Dem says NO U.C. shouldnt that mean NO RECESS? And thus no recess appoint?

The DEMS have to win the PR battle here. Everytime a Republican claims "obstructionist"
there should be atleast two Dems screaming:

WHAT ARE YOU HIDING IN THOSE INTERCEPTS?

WHO DID BOLTON SPY ON? Who at The UN? State Dept? Chalabi? Israeli left wing?

DID BOLTON FUDGE THE SYRIAN WMD claim just as he did the false IRAQI WMD claim?

WHAT IS GEORGE BUSH and the REPUBLICANS HIDING?

This is a poor move by Team Bush. And weaker of Frist to admit to serving Bush directly. Frist has doubly lost already by flip flopping to Bush.

There's no strategy behind this move its just pig-headedness. However one should still watch the flanks, the republicans love dirty pool. The third no vote should cost the President double the second.

The only way Bolton gets through is on a 3 card monte play. And unless Bush is hedging on a large national distraction for that monte, this will be a very expensive overstep.

The bill is still due. The reason Frist feels the president's credit is still good, rests with Frist at this point.

I really believe we're getting to the point where the stupid OBSTRUCTIONIST label might actually be a GOOD THING.

An enterprising reporter should find out if Frist was scheduled to have lunch at the White House or if he was ordered to after making his first pronouncement.

I think this is a way to keep the meme of "Democrats are obstructionist" alive. What else does Bush have? He needs something to cover for the failures of his policies and the unpopular agenda he is pushing. What else would talk radio have to talk about?

I find it hard to believe that Bolton himself wants to go through the humiliation of a third vote, or be sent to Turtle Bay thoroughly castrated and delegitimized.

At what point does he say "Thanks, but no thanks. This is hurting my President," and withdraws?

Following on from BobM: the Dem should be calling the White House tactic of not providing information to the Senate as OBSTRUCTIONIST. Call this time after time. The WH is obstructing the release of information required by Senators to perform their advise and consent function. It is time the Dems went on the offensive.

Steve: I hope we can help with this.

According to Robert's Rules of Order, the motion to recess requires a majority vote...Unless someone knows a Standing Rule of the Senate (that I couldn't find!) there's nothing that requires a unanimous consent for the motion...Too bad too, that would be an awesome move...

By the way, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong... I'm new to this stuff...

Dear Steve,

Senator Frist proves that he is nothing more than a puppet-cum-toady for the corrupt Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rove machine...

Moreover, Bush has no respect for the American people who overwhelmingly do not want Bolton to disgrace us at the United Nations... We deserve a better ambassador to represent our nation...

* What are the Bushies up to???...

* Do they have a "trick-up-their-sleeve" that will enable Frist to get a vote in the Senate???...

* Does the Senate's right to advise-and-consent (and to hold the Executive in check) not count anymore???...

Why are the main-stream media refusing to condemn the corrupt Bush/Cheney administration's arrogant bullying to push-forward the crooked Bolton, instead of insisting that they appoint a UN ambassador with the right background to such an important role...

Thank you...

Thomas, "unanimous consent" is quite different from a unanimous vote. It basically means "no objection." (I think.) Thus it's actually weaker than a simply majority vote.

How's this for a scenario: Frist schedules a cloture vote for the Friday afternoon before the July 4 weekend. One hour (or some other insignificant amount of time) before the vote, the White House releases the requested documents, thereby removing the Dems charge that they haven't released requested information. If the Dems still kill the cloture, then Bush busts out the recess appointment, charging that he complied with what the Dems wanted, but they were still obstructionists. If the Dems don't kill cloture, Bolton is confirmed.

Seems to me at this point that Bush's main strategy is how to spin a recess appointment in such a way that he come out looking best.

"Thomas, "unanimous consent" is quite different from a unanimous vote. It basically means "no objection." (I think.) Thus it's actually weaker than a simply majority vote."

Ahh ok..that makes sense...Sorry for my ignorance and thank you for the information...High school civics isn't what it should be...

So, does anyone think that there is anyone that would object to the recess? Is it a reasonable possibility??

Thomas, I don't recall learning that in civics class (or anything else for that matter), just by watching some Cspan. As for objecting to a recess, would you have ever objected to a recess in grammer school? ;-)

Cheers,

"As for objecting to a recess, would you have ever objected to a recess in grammer school? ;-)"

I can honestly say that if the UN Ambassadorship were about to be handed to one of the worst examples of American bullyism, then yes, i would've !!

Ok, this is twice I've heard allusions to something radioactive in those docs. What is the speculation here?

If Bolton gets a recess appointment is he the Ambassador or the Acting Ambassador? If he gets fired for acting up - as Sen. Graham says and I do not believe - given Bush's record, does he get to be called "Ambassador?"

I think it likely that more revelations about Bolton will drip drip drip out of State and elsewhere -- NSA?

Vachon,

The speculation is that Bolton was involved in "fixing the facts around the policy". Also there is an outside chance that he may have been the one that outed plame.

Given the Bush people's disdain for the UN, it could be they are happy to not have an ambassador at the UN -- especially if they think they can get away with blaming the Dems for the vacancy.

Stygius queried, "At what point does he, (Bolton), say "Thanks, but no thanks. This is hurting my President," and withdraws?"

Mr. Kiss up/Kick down Bolton will withdraw when Daddy Dick says he can. Bolton knows who not to piss off. How else would he have gotten to the level he has?

burro -- What you suggest calls for a sense of duty. That's not what these folks are about. They expect fealty -- the very essence of the kiss-up/kick-down thing.

One possibility other thwn a recess appointment-- just announce that there will be a UN ambassador when John Bolton is confirmed. Just leave the set vacant.

Biden on Charlie Rose tonight....

I believe there is another element to the Bush/Rove strategy, which is the hope that a few days go by without more revelations about Bolton.
Notice that not much new has come out in the last couple of weeks---about Bolton, that is.
This allows the White House to argue that everything is out there. Of course they will be ignoring the pending requests, but I think the strategy could put pressure on the waverers.

I hope that Steve can coax some more leaks out of his sources in the next week. If he can do so, the White House will be even more embarrassed by the time the next vote comes around.
What Steve should not do is simply wait and assume the White House will fail again---not that I believe he will do that! But please, while the White House puts the screws to Voinovich and the DINOS, please use the rack and other mild incentives to get more from your leakers, Steve!

Didn't Jay Rockefeller already see the intercepts?

Re Obstructionism:

Sen. Lautenberg 6/16/05 – excerpts from Senate floor speech:
“On Tuesday… President Bush gave a speech in which he complained that the Democrats… are obstructionists because we’re not accepting his agenda. The president also said we say no to everything… but look at all the things HE says no to… to Tony Blair when [he asked] for more help for Africa... no to kids with juvenile diabetes or autism, or other childhood diseases, when they ask to be permitted to do stem cell research… says no to parents and teachers who want education fully funded… no to a real patient’s bill of rights… no to making polluters pay for Superfund environmental cleanup…[but] said YES to making taxpayers pay… said no to getting tough with the Saudis [re oil prices]…

“What is means if you oppose any of President Bush’s policies is that you’re an obstructionist, and frankly in a democratic nation, it’s unacceptable, it’s a disastrous line of thinking… if you don’t like challenges, then you don’t understand democracy.

“This isn’t a nation where we have a dictator…

“Saddam Hussein didn’t have to worry about obstructionists, not in his country, he killed them, jailed them…

“Leaders who are free of obstructionists are also known as dictators.

“Throughout history, so-called obstructionists have been the champions of democracy.”
(Lautenberg showed posters and talked about each: of a man standing in front of tanks, the Boston tea party, the founding fathers who stood against King George III, Rosa Parks getting fingerprinted, photo of Margaret Chase Smith who stood against Joe McCarthy, and a photo of woman suffrage advocates. Each poster had the word “Obstructionists?” printed at the top.)

“Obstructionism is not an evil course if you’re on the side of the people. In light of our democracy’s heritage of productive obstruction, I will be proud to obstruct some of President Bush’s proposals this year.” (He noted privatization of social security, Medicaid cuts to the poor and elderly “Is there any compassion there – I don’t think so.”, and other issues.)

“Obstructionism is all that separates democracy from dictatorship.”

What's the big deal? So a guy says a few things that aren't exactly true. I mean, who hasn't?

-

WHAT US CITIZENS WAS BOLTON ILLEGALLY SPYING ON? ... along with the Syria lies, that's all we want to know. Bush, Frist, Cheney? .... just give our representatives in the Senate the names of who he was spying on.

That's it. Tell us who Bolton was using his authority (rightly or wrongly) to spy on ... and we'll call it a day - you get your vote.

Black and White just like Bush likes it.

It is a mistake to ever assume that Bush is a rational actor. Bush is an emotional actor. Emotion is the defining characteristic of the Religious Right. Bush as the first true religious right president understands this. Bolton is a pawn who understands his role. If he is not UN ambassador, BushCo will find him a spot in the administration or BushInc will find him a lucrative spot in the private sector. Bush is flexible. If he wins, he wins. If perchance he loses, he will seek revenge on those repsonsible for his loss. Be mindful that whatever Bush does will be part of a calculated political strategy. The only way to counter someone like Bush is to find a principle and stick to it. Then instead of rejoicing, pound Bush over his flip flop.

I bet Frist is not too happy. Looks like Bush is growing tiresome to his own party.

Has anyone raised the issue of NO UN Rep being just what the WH wants? If no one is there in our name, it's even more irrelevant as an international-law body! Always assume these people are more arrogant and opposed to checks and balances than you could ever imagine--and you are there....

The Bolton documents aren`t the only ones being kept from Congress; can you say Halliburton ?

"...Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee's subcommittee on national security, emerging threats and international relations, said the redactions "regretfully, very regretfully, make it appear DOD has something to hide. This undermines our international standing and, even more importantly, harms our efforts in Iraq."

Shays said he has repeatedly "begged" the Pentagon to provide Congress with the documents underlying its decision to black out parts of the audits. Yesterday, he threatened to seek a subpoena if the documents aren't provided by Monday."

"...playin with matches in a pool of gasoline..." - Swamp Mama Johnson

Craig Ferguson and Jon Stewart tonight. Bolton really has become a household name, and it's synonymous with being crazy.

Bush may be head of party, but Frist is going to be the big loser out of this. Some essays on Bush and alcoholic obsession with power are starting to look more prescient as Bush destroys his party to chase his goals.

The Dems should start using the "obstructionist" label when speaking about the White House. After all, it is the White House that is obstructing a vote by withholding important documents about Bolton's past.

TOON OF THE DAY: Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue

Please Sen. Biden TRY thinking before you speak and play Hardball with these War Criminals.

Keep the Seenate OPEN over the July 4th break. Have 2 Democratic Senators Rotate, 6 hours each and do the minimal requirements to KEEP THE SEANATE IN SESSION.

Secondly, regardless of the Bolten appointment, THE SENATE SHOULD STILL DEMAND or SUBPOENA the Documents that have been requested and which the Senate is entitled to. WHAT IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HIDING? in the

1) Spying Intercepts
2) SYRIA and WMD scam
3) Matthew Freedman's private clients and work done on Government time.

WHAT IS GEORGE BUSH HIDING?

Toughen up boys, and as Hilliary has said: TIME TO GET SOME SPINE.

What I don't understand is why the Democrats are not playing the "Lugar" card. Lugar reneged on his promise to ensure that the FRC had all the documents (especially the intercepts) before a final vote on Bolton.

If the White House wants to play hardball, the Democrats have to respond in kind. And if that means making Dick Lugar look like a ball-less White House patsy, so be it.

From today's SF Chronicle and WSJ:

It was Cheney who insisted on keeping the Bolton nomination alive.

R's are looking to the GOP "compromisers" to work out a deal. Also looking for D's. Feinstein is hanging tough--says she won't waver.

Perhaps Bush wants to work the field a bit, see what he can get, and then if necessary try for a recess appointment during the August recess (longer; they will know about Rehnquist etc.)

I'm not surprised that the White House isn't giving up or giving in (on the requested documents) because it's completely counter to their M.O. It's been clear to me for some time that they see compromise as weakness and, to them, any sign of weakness can't be countenanced. This is, in my experience, a completely new way to govern in the American political system. I question whether they will be able to continue operating in this style when their failures are so starkly obvious.

Tonight, we'll turn on the TV and see Frist and Reid shaking hands over a deal to give Bolton his up or down vote. Some of the documents the Dems asked for will be handed over with many blacked out pages. The WH will claim that they cannot release the rest due to security risks.

Kind of strange not seeing a new post here from you, Steve. Hope you're well and that all is okay . . .

"all of us can agree that the world’s terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror...." - Our Evil War Criminal President.

If the White House wants to play hardball, the Democrats have to respond in kind. And if that means making Dick Lugar look like a ball-less White House patsy, so be it.--p.luk

I suspect Joe Biden has opposed doing this.

To the question: Where is Steve?

I just heard from him. Evidently he was supposed to get married this weekend but got cold feet instead, and is now the Runaway Groom. He is on the road somewhere between Las Vegas and Alburquerque. Hope to hear from him again soon.

PS: Katie Couric called, I have a message from her! :-)

The administration will never release the documents. Never. The reason is more subtle then you might think. They don't want to set any precedent on executive privilege. When Rehnquiest retires, two of the top candidates are Olsen and Gonzoles, both of which would have interesting documents in play if Bush didn't claim executive privilege. They really aren't that concerned with the U.N. Ambassador, but they have a "War Room" setup and a permenent staff working daily to prepare for the Supreme Court vacancies. It is very likely they will have at least 2 appointments, and possibly 3. However, as it gets closer to 2008, it becomes harder for them to confirm a candidate.

Speaking of security risks, is somebody as obviously unstable as Bolton a good security risk?

What positions in government are eligible for recess appointments? If Bush can put the people he wants into an office while Congress is in recess why submit them to the Senate to begin with? Sure, they're short term appointments but upon expiration recess appoint them again. Can you be kept in an office by multiple recess appointments? They wouldn't have the cache' of a Senate stamp of approval but since when does Bush care about what others think of they way he governs? Do you know the answers to these questions, Steve?

Steve Clemons,

Did you see this paragraph from Newsday's coverage?

The problem, according to diplomats at the State Department and the UN, is that Bolton may not be willing to accept a recess appointment, which would be good until the next Congress convenes in January 2007. That could not be confirmed yesterday, but sources said it is widely believed to be true at both institutions.

This Aggression Will Not Stand!

Bush's strategy, as stated at the June 13th Gala Dinner:
"What's my strategy? I will be RELENTLESS!"

The Nuke-The-Recess option looks really good right now. Is that possible? Would our Dems be willing to spend the holiday in DC? (We could show them some true Populist hospitality!)

Let's be fair to Rove. He's hardly in a position to know what loyalty, or service, or sacrifice, are all about.