Bolton vote pulled Posted by Lorelei Kelly

This from Reuters, posted at 10:20 am today:

(Latest is that Lincoln Chafee is leaning toward a "no" vote)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
on Thursday scrubbed a planned vote on President George W. Bush's bid to keep
John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, did not explain why
the vote on whether to send Bolton's nomination to the full Senate was removed
from the day's agenda and did not say if or when it would be taken up again.

Comments

[stephanie]

I hope that it comes back into a vote, because the man needs to be removed.
He obviously has no plans to help achieve the Millenium Development Goals, which were agreed to by almost every nation on earth in 2000, and which President Busy agreed to aid with in 2002. No action has been taken, and Mr. Bolton's presence is obviously hindering any progress that could be made within the UN, as he was famously quoted for out-right hating the institution.

[SoldierInIraq]

It would be interesting to peek at a straw vote amongst Democracy Arsenal's contributors.

If Lorelei Kelly had a vote, would she cast it to keep Bolton around?

How much of his personal, administrative baggage should be considered?

Or is all that trumped by his reformist policy goals, which, if we're being intellectually honest, aren't probably that different from what Suzanne Nossel, et al, have discussed in print.

I, for one, would like to know from Shadi Hamid about how the UN would factor into his larger democracy-centric foreign policy suggestions (and would a man such as Bolton) serve those goals?