STONEWALLER DEMS BAD FOR AMERICA

Count every vote.

That's the Dem rallying cry. You know--thousands of people in Florida were disenfranchised in the 2000 election, had every vote in Ohio been counted, Kerry would be in the White House right now. Blah, blah, blah...

If the Dems were sincere about voting, about the voices of the people being heard, they would stop obstructing the President's nominees and allow votes in the Senate to take place.

The fact is they aren't sincere. Their rhetoric is empty. Count every vote only when it's politically expedient--that's their motto.

The fact is the Dems are afraid to vote.

They have no other strategy than to obstruct the majority. That's their only plan. The only power they have is to stand in the way of Republicans trying to do the people's work.

Why is the minority being allowed to hijack the Senate?

I see that as an abuse. Having simple up or down votes on the President's nominations is not an abuse of power.

The vote.

From AP:

"Some on the other side of the aisle are obstructing a highly qualified nominee and I believe by not allowing him to assume this position yet are doing harm to our country," Frist said.

...Some Republicans argued that holding Monday's vote would at least put Democrats on record again of delaying final confirmation. That could provide political cover for the White House for a recess appointment or to withdraw Bolton's nomination by letting the administration claim they were forced to take those steps because of Democratic stonewalling.

..."We ought to move on and get a different nominee," argued Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., one of Bolton's most vocal critics.

But Sen. George Allen, R-Va., and one of Bolton's staunchest backers, said: "I would hope the president would stand by John Bolton and keep fighting for him."

Dodd is nuts. Bush is not going to abandon Bolton. I don't think he'd hesitate to use a recess appointment.

It's been suggested that going that route would mean sending a weakened nominee to the UN. That doesn't make sense to me. I thought the problem with Bolton was he came on too strong, right?

As far as his ability to negotiate with others goes, the UN is such a corrupt, utter mess, I don't believe that the lack of a Senate confirmation vote is going to matter one bit. Will the other ambassadors make fun of him? How lame!

Bolton doesn't need the backing of the left to represent U.S. interests. The U.S. Ambassador to the UN will speak for America. The process of his confirmation will be irrelevant once he is there.

The bottom-line is the U.S. is the world's sole superpower. Bolton will not arrive at the UN weakened when Bush appoints him.

The Dems are playing games and not acting in the best interests of the country. So what else is new?