The Lincoln Plawg - the blog with footnotes
Friday, April 29, 2005
Dem senator puts a hold on one nominee - why not Bolton?
The Senate 'hold' is the current bête noire here: a mysterious piece of inside baseball mumbo-jumbo maintained in obscurity by a pol-journo conspiracy to keep the voter out of the loop.
Or so it appears.
It's exquisitely unsearchable; so like the ivory-billed woodpecker, when you spot one, it's a red-letter day.
An AP story says
Senate Republicans will try this week to overcome a Democratic senator's block on President Bush's nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.
Now, Carper's  'hold' is what one might call collateral: he doesn't object to the nomination, he's using the 'hold' as blackmail to extract certain information from the EPA.
A lot of confirmation 'holds' are like that, apparently. Boxer and Nelson (FL) had holds on Johnson which they lifted
only after Johnson canceled a pesticide study in Florida involving children.
But it is, I think, perfectly permissible to put a 'hold' on with a view to balking the nomination itself.
The obvious question is, why have Dems not used the 'hold' in dealing with various high-profile nominations viewed as toxic by many amongst their number. Rice, Negroponte (several times) - and now Bolton?
Are some nominees too 'big' to be subject to a 'hold'?
(The floor votes on such nominations tend to be of the Uriah Heap 98-1 variety, so far as I'm aware. Which suggests that the problem is not the availability of the means (ie, the 'hold') but the lack of will amongst Dem senators.)
Here's a thought: in these hyperlinked days, why not a site recording all known Senate 'holds'?
Perhaps there is one: I did say the expression was unsearchable...
free website counter