Win Some, Lose Some

by dj moonbat

...and some are rained out. Yesterday's Bolton vote was perhaps a bit of a wash.

I had predicted, wrongly, that Bolton was dead in the water. Instead, he's still thrashing around, waiting for the Senate to gaff him and hit him in the head with a club.

USA Today is reporting that Dems are considering a possible filibuster if they don't think that they'll have the votes in the floor fight:

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said the White House is confident Bolton will be confirmed. However, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said outside the committee room that "we always have in the back" the option of a filibuster, a parliamentary maneuver to prevent a vote.

Bolton is a jerk of the highest order, and yes, he'll do a bad job. But filibustering the man would be an incredibly bad idea. First, I think the GOP votes are out there to kill the nomination outright. But if they aren't, make some angry speeches, vote no, and call it a day, folks.

The rest of the world is going to hate the Bush administration whether we send Bolton to the UN or Emily Post. So let's not blunt the edge of the filibuster on this petty little fight; we're going to need it something fierce in the upcoming months, and the public will be a lot more receptive to Dems using it on radical judges if we didn't recently use it on Bolton.

UPDATE: Via not stupid, Steve Clemons informs us that Barbara Boxer is instead placing a hold on the nomination until Condi coughs up some information on Bolton's interactions with intelligence analysts w/r/t Syria. Overturning a hold would require sixty votes, just like a filibuster, but by tying the hold to Condi's refusal to answer some questions, it will stink a lot less. Good move, Senator.