Senator Ben Nelson's "exceptional" reason for a filibuster...

[kentuck]

On C-SPAN the other morning, the "moderate" Senator from Nebraska was asked for an example of when a filibuster would be justified? He said, for him personally, it would be withholding information on a nominee. Will he apply this same standard to the John Bolton nomination? Should the Democrats use this standard also, and filibuster this nominee ?

[Coexist]

1. why, yes, I believe it would!

Dodd was going on and on yesterday about how he "really didn't want to" and how "just getting him the information would prevent his HAVING to do it"!

[Inland]

2. Keept the "hold" on

Some had placed holds because Rice had decided that some information wasn't necessary for their decision. Not HER business to decide what they need, and if they need it and can't get it, a hold is precisely what should be done. After all, we can't assume that even the asskissing repugs would vote for him once all the info is available.

[kentuck]

3. Can the Repubs get the 60 votes needed for cloture?

To stop the debate and vote on Bolton? If Ben Nelson doesn't vote for Bolton, I don't see how they could get the 60 votes needed??