I just spoke on the phone with Virginia Senator George Allen. I began by asking Senator Allen what he thinks of talk that a vote on Bolton could be delayed until right before the Memorial Day recess.

“I think we should get to this next week. First, we do the Highway Bill, then Bolton and then judges.”

“When it comes to Bolton, people are going to talk a lot. But if we let him sit out there for weeks, more false accusations are going to come out there. Even when they are shown to be false, it will hurt him. But once we get to his vote, I think we will have the support.”

Allen notes that Democrat Senators Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu voted to confirm Bolton last time. “I think we can get at least two of them to support his nomination.”

I then asked Senator Allen what he thinks about Democrat threats to filibuster Bolton’s nomination:

“It is a concern, but I believe if they filibuster, it will be another example of their obstructionist, negative approach. I think there are enough people on their side who are smart enough to know that.”

Finally, I asked Allen about the danger of a successful vote to end judicial filibusters giving Democrats incentive to filibuster Bolton’s nomination if he is not taken care of first, “That’s a very good question. They may. That’s something that ought to be taken into consideration when we sequence these votes.”

CQ (subscription required) reports on why Barbara Boxer has placed her “hold” on Bolton’s nomination:

“A spokeswoman for Boxer said she wants three separate packages of documents to be turned over to the Foreign Relations Committee. The first is a series of NSA intercepts that contain U.S. names that Bolton reviewed as undersecretary of State. Democrats want to know why Bolton asked for these classified intercepts and what American names he viewed.”

“The second request is for memos and drafts dealing with a speech Bolton gave regarding Syria's weapons programs. Democrats contend that Bolton often tried to ‘cherry pick’ unrelated bits of intelligence to justify a hard-line policy against foreign countries.
Boxer also wants more information about State Department employee Matthew Freedman, who works for Bolton but also does outside consulting work on foreign policy. Democrats want to see whether there is a conflict of interest with Freedman's business dealings.”

Another Senate insider tells me Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are not happy with the length of time it is taking to get a floor vote on Bolton. Bill Frist’s office has not listed a scheduled time, but is aiming for shortly before Memorial Day, according to several sources. The Senate source tells me:

“That’s a lot of time for this guy to bleed out there. There’s no reason we couldn’t have had the vote today. Even Monday night, or Tuesday.”

I’ve been asking around as well if there are any other Republican Senators besides Chafee or Hagel who might be on the fence regarding Bolton’s nomination. So far, the answer has been no.

A Senate insider writes in with some additional information on Barbara Boxer’s “hold” of John Bolton’s nomination:

“Traditionally, holds are placed in order to signify an intention to filibuster a nominee or piece of legislation. Any Senator can place a hold but it is the majority leader's prerogative to honor the "hold." I'd bet on Frist ignoring Senator Boxer's hold.”

I spoke with George Voinovich’s office and they have confirmed that the senator intends to vote “no” on Bolton’s Senate floor vote.

When I asked if Voinovich will be lobbying anyone in the GOP caucus to vote “no” on Bolton, they directed me to this portion of Voinovich’s statement from yesterday’s hearing as an example of the message he will be conveying:

“If that goes to the floor, I would plead to my colleagues in the Senate to consider the decision and its consequences carefully, to read all the pertinent material -- so often we get nominees and we don't spend the time to look into the background of the individual -- and to ask themselves several questions.”

Lincoln Chafee, Chuck Hagel, Lisa Murkowski and George Voinovich all expressed reservations about John Bolton over the course of his Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings. However, we all know that Voinovich was the only member to break with GOP ranks, forcing Bolton out of committee without a recommendation.

Now that his nomination is heading to the full Senate for a vote, how will Republicans with doubts cast their votes? Chuck Hagel said recently that his support in committee of Bolton did not guarantee a “yes” vote on the floor.

I just spoke with Lisa Murkowski’s office, and they assure me that despite whatever concerns she had previously, she plans to support Bolton’s nomination on the floor. One down, three to go?

Many Beltway Buzz readers have written in today asking about Barbara Boxer’s move to put a “hold” on the nomination of John Bolton. Traditionally, holds on nominees are a tactic used to force further negotiation or to prevent a nominee from reaching a full Senate vote at all. Boxer was not clear what her exact intentions were and her press secretary dodged the question when asked.

I’ve put in a call to Boxer’s office to find out exactly what the motivation for the “hold” is. As soon as I have a response, I will post it on the Buzz.

I have a new article up on the main site today on John Bolton. Now that Bolton has made it out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee what lies ahead for his nomination? Will Democrats filibuster? Can the White House round-up GOP support?

The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reports House and Senate Republicans are considering increasing the retirement age as part of the plan to ensure Social Security’s solvency. Bill Thomas said, “It is clear that some adjustment there should be looked at.”

In the first day of House hearings on Social Security yesterday, Ways and Means Chair Bill Thomas presented one idea for increasing the amount Americans put into savings: automatic savings plans that individuals could opt out of. Or, the exact opposite of how the system is currently run.

Thomas also said it was essential to change the Social Security system to acknowledge the number of women in the American workforce today.

When reiterating his intention to have a Social Security reform bill ready by June, Thomas said, “"It's time we move forward. The president went out, he finished phase one. We're now in phase two."

Last month, the New York Times editorial page solicited former congressman Bob Livingston to pen an op-ed suggesting Tom DeLay step down as House Majority Leader. When Livingston responded that he did not share this sentiment, the NYT withdrew its offer.

Los Angeles Times reporter Tom Hamburger notes Livingston was in attendance at last night’s DeLay tribute dinner showing his support:

"Are we going to let them beat him down?" asked former Louisiana congressman Bob Livingston, the Speaker-designate who resigned his seat during the 1998 Clinton impeachment shortly after reports surfaced of Livingston's extramarital affairs.

"No!" the crowd roared.

"Are we going to fight to be sure Tom DeLay is here for a long time to come?"

"Yes!"

The New York Times notes Bolton’s vote out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday was the third “no recommendation” vote in 22 years from the SFRC. Other notable nominees to leave their respective committees without a recommendation but who ultimately won confirmation include Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Kenneth Adelman, President Reagan's nominee as director of the arms control and disarmament agency.

Other nominees who left committee without recommendation and failed to win confirmation include Robert Bork and John Tower, the first President Bush’s pick for Defense Secretary in 1989.

In his column on yesterday’s Bolton hearing, Dana Milbank gives the expected praise of George Voinovich. In his last few articles, Milbank has demonstrated a clear effort to play his coverage in a less partisan manner. He even devoted a recent column to exposing the poor word choice of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

However, one glaring inaccuracy in Milbank’s piece appears in his describing Voinovich as “a loyal party man.” Aside from Bolton, with his break on tax cuts and other issues, “loyal party man” is an assertion many conservatives, especially those from Ohio, would take issue with.

Here’s the Associated Press take on last night’s DeLay tribute dinner.

Last night I attended the American Conservative Union’s tribute dinner for Tom DeLay. There was a strong showing of support for the House Majority Leader with over 900 in attendance, an assortment of video tributes and even ice cream cakes with little frosted hammers.

But before entering the Capitol Hilton, I was first greeted by an assortment of liberal protestors who call themselves “Billionaires for Bush.” The group has actually been around since the 2000 campaign when they used to protest Al Gore as well as Bush. Their routine is to dress as big corporate elites, showing their “support” for conservative economic policy. Some of their displays included a 10-foot-tall spinning wheel with revolving allegations against DeLay. I spoke with one of their representatives who used the moniker Ivan Tital who spoke in sarcastic tones about DeLay, saying, “Just because Tom DeLay doesn’t meet the minimum standards of Congress is no reason he should be investigated.”

Despite their very essence being to protest Republicans, B4B is mostly a light-hearted group. I don’t think anyone heading into the dinner was taking them too seriously. More importantly, unlike most liberal protest groups, they didn’t seem to be taking themselves too seriously either.

Well, the vote is complete. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has voted 10-8, along party lines, to send John Bolton out of committee without a recommendation. The clear downside to this is Bolton leaves the committee without a recommendation, which will undoubtedly be the media’s focus tomorrow.

The upside is Bolton has finally made it out of committee. Should Chafee, Hagel and Murkowski stick to their votes of support, Bolton should not face the same difficulties in ultimately winning Senate approval. And unlike with this committee vote, there is still the possibility some Democrats will support his nomination. That may seem hard to believe based on the behavior of Democrats in the SFRC, but it’s still a possibility.

Many thanks for the large number of Beltway Buzz readers who have written in today to share your thoughts on all things Bolton. Wish I could publish them all. Here’s a small sampling of what the readers are thinking and saying:

From reader Eric:

“All I can say is, make him pay. If there's anything Ohio wants, until they replace their senator, they don't get it.”

From reader Mike Cakora:

“What Voinovich also misses is that Bolton was implementing administration policy in the face of bureaucratic infighting. Had he been in the private sector he would have been given a bonus for doing what his bosses wanted - getting the job done the way they want it done, not the ‘that’s the way we’ve always done it’ way that the water-cooler commandos would prefer.”

Julie F says:

"Voinovich's remarks re: the Bolton nomination was confusing to say the least. Thank goodness I listened to the end to hear him say the nomination should go to the full senate for an up or down vote. However, his lack of endorsement and outrageous remarks are disappointing. Hopefully Bolten gets confirmed. I, for one, trust GW's instincts when it comes to who he wants in the UN."

From John B:

“Voinovich said Bolton ‘would be fired’ if he worked in the private sector. How on earth would Voinovich know that? He hasn't had a non-government job since he entered the state legislature at age 31, in 1967, almost 40 years ago.”

From reader Michael P:

“As a long time supporter and constituent (even to his days of resurrecting Cleveland from the mess created by Dennis Kucinich), I had even faxed him a letter to that effect yesterday. To say that I am disappointed is an obvious and monumental understatement… More importantly, I believe that this is a sign of the unrealistic and ‘weak on principal’ behavior that all too many Republican Senators seem to be afflicted with.”

Reader Will F adds:

“Voinovich's worst sin in all this is that it encouraged Biden to pontificate even more sanctimoniously than he usually does … There is no doubt that this delay has cost the U.S. precious inertia in the push for UN reform.”

David F thinks this goes all the way to the top:

“We need a Republican equivalent of Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson.”

J. Douglas concurs:

“Bill Frist hasn’t given Reps any reason to applaud his work this term. Whether Bolton gets a vote or not, the least Frist can do is to make Voinovich pay—painfully and publicly.”

Reader Patrick C points his finger at Lugar:

“Don't spare the blame for Richard Lugar, either. He is an embarrassment as Chairman of that Committee. One almost could believe that he is working for the other side. The Republicans on that Committee, including staffers, are an unorganized, clueless bunch. And I say that with Lincoln Chafee being my Senator. An utter embarrassment!”

And finally, Michael C, one of many angry Ohio voters to write me today, stresses:

“I called his Columbus office this morning and asked he vote for Bolton. For God's sake, we sent him there to work with the President, not get touchy-feely with the oppressed office workers in the State Department.”

Does Barack Obama know he is lying? He just asserted before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Bolton sought to have colleagues “fired” while working at the State Department. Joe Biden first issued this accusation almost two weeks ago and it was promptly shot down. Even the most ardent Bolton critics acknowledge he sought to have some associates reassigned to other sectors over procedural differences. He never had and never sought to have colleagues fired.

Like Biden and Voinovich, Obama is stressing how he normally goes along with the president’s nominees, but that he’s making an exception, where “the lines of politics and policy” cross here.

He also just blamed Bolton for poor relations with North Korea. No, really.

Obama also says, "I'm a little bit baffled," by Bolton's defenders. Based on the false accusations he just threw out, it would seem so.

At Bolton’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, John Kerry is speculating on just how offended the United Nations would be if John Bolton wins confirmation.

“When he comes in people will be asking, ‘Is he sitting on one of the floors he wants to eliminate?’” Kerry said.

Kerry also asserted that any U.S. intelligence Bolton were to present at the United Nations would be questioned by the world and would require officials going back to the intelligence community to assure it was not Bolton simply asserting his own point of view.

George Voinovich asserted that Bolton would have been fired from his job if he had worked in the private sector. Thing is, Bolton did previously work in the private sector. It was when he was hired as a lawyer that the controversy surrounding Melody Townsel emerged.

But Voinovich says even though he missed the first two Bolton committee hearings he’s read “all the papers.” So, surely he knows this. Right?

The reader responses to Voinovich have been pouring in fast and furious. Readers such as Robert R., John C. and Kevin J. all expressing outrage over Voinovich’s Bolton remarks. Many readers asking what they can do to support Bolton should his nomination make it to the floor for a vote. Please keep them coming and I will post a sampling later this afternoon.

Voinovich just announced he hopes Bolton will leave the Senate Foreign Relations Committee without a recommendation. But he adds that Bolton deserves an up or down vote on the Senate floor and an opportunity to answer questions about his ability to perform as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Joe Biden is up now. He just opened with a joke about how he's glad he didn't object to Voinovich speaking second.

And now Voinovich says, “I believe John Bolton would have been fired if he worked for a major corporation.”

Voinovich added, “He is just the kind of example of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be.”

Voinovich also added that he did not attend the earlier Bolton hearings. He says in normal circumstances he is “inclined” to support the president’s nominees, but that Bolton does not fall under these guidelines.

George Voinovich is speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations committee right now. It sounds like he won’t vote in favor of Bolton. He just said of Bolton:

“What kind of message are we sending to the world when we nominate someone who has been accused of being arrogant … acting unilaterally … the very characteristics we are trying to dispel.”

Voinovich notes he met with Bolton this week, stating, “I have a particular concern about this nominee and it is in the issue … of public diplomacy.”

In an editorial, the Wall Street Journal writes the failing pension programs at United Airlines are indicative of what will happen to the U.S. Social Security system if reforms are not enacted:

“As United's workers are learning, defined benefit plans ultimately depend on the financial health of a single employer. … The same thing will eventually happen to the Social Security benefits of workers if the AFL-CIO and AARP succeed in blocking private investment accounts.”

The House Ways and Means committee today begins discussing Social Security reform in hearings.

The New York Times runs its own rehash of Bolton accusations today, but leads with some news. John Kerry sent a letter to Bolton asking if he believes officials have the right to interpret intelligence findings and if as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations he would follow guidelines for presenting and analyzing intelligence. In response:

“Mr. Bolton told the committee that he would adhere to rules that require formal clearance of any statement purporting to describe intelligence agencies' views. But he also said, ‘A policy official may state his own reading of the intelligence (assuming the information is cleared for release as a policy matter) as long as he does not purport to speak for the intelligence community.’"

I’ll be live-blogging the Bolton hearing with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee starting in just about an hour, up through its scheduled 3:30pm conclusion.

The Washington Post publishes a round up of allegations against John Bolton today. Nothing new in their reporting, though halfway into their coverage they quote David Rothkopf, a senior official in the Clinton administration, who said, “he found the attacks on Bolton for being a tough guy ‘a little bit disingenuous’ because ‘policymaking in Washington can be a pretty rough game.’”

Upon returning from his European trip, President Bush appeared with members of Congress yesterday to discuss his experience. On his visit to Russia, Bush said:

“Sitting in Red Square honoring the veterans of World War II was an amazing event. I remember as a kid watching the missiles parade through Red Square -- and here I sat as the President of the United States in Red Square, paying homage to people who died to defeat Nazism. And I was sitting beside a friend. Russia is not an enemy; Russia is our friend. And it's important that we work together to achieve peace. Obviously, we have a difference of opinion on certain issues, but we don't have a difference of opinion on working together for peace.”

I just got in touch with Steve Hourahan from Chafee’s office. He tells me that Chafee’s endorsement of Bolton is not final. “If nothing else new emerges, then with everything we’ve seen as of today, the senator will reluctantly support him.”

When I asked what could change Chafee’s mind, Hourahan said, “Anything that is disqualifying. Something that is a crime or a smoking gun that we have not seen so far that is disqualifying. The senator has seen a lot of materials so far and finds some of them troubling, but nothing that is disqualifying.”

Hourahan added that Chafee has not met with Bolton since their meeting after his nomination was first announced but that he has had several meetings with Bolton supporters to discuss the issue.

The Associated Press is now reporting Lincoln Chafee will “reluctantly” support Bolton’s nomination. Chafee told the AP, “I won't deny a lot of the information certainly brings great pause, but I fight the administration on so many issues; this is one of those that I've been with them on - to appoint their team.”

Though Chafee does receive much disdain from conservatives over his splits with the administration on several issues, John Bolton is an exception. I’ve said it before on the Buzz, Chafee has been rock solid on this issue and deserves credit for remaining firm in his principles despite immense pressure from the media and liberal advocacy groups.

This morning I put in phone calls to the offices of Chafee, Hagel, Murkowski and Voinovich. All of their press contacts were in the office and available. However, when I was identified as being with National Review and wishing to discuss Bolton, all put me through to voicemail. So far, no returned calls.

In addition, Foreign Relations Committee Chair Richard Lugar has received much criticism for his handling of the Bolton hearings. When I spoke with a source close to Lugar on the committee I asked what Lugar’s strategy would be for tomorrow’s meeting. I received a decidedly unfriendly response illustrating the obvious:

“The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. Republicans and Democrats will each have 2.5 hours of debate. Many members will speak, and the meeting will conclude with a vote.”

In their Bolton story headlined, “Bolton's Fate in the Hands of 4 Senators With Doubts” the New York Times notes Senators Chafee, Hagel, Voinovich and Lisa Murkowski all still have doubts about Bolton, but it’s Voinovich who makes Bolton supporters “most nervous.”

Yesterday, Voinovich told reporters, “If I should decide that I'm not going forward and support him, I don't think that's bucking the party.” Something tells me the White House, congressional Republicans and most conservatives wouldn’t agree with that assessment.

As part of their most valid argument against Bolton, Democrats have suggested he gave speeches that were not cleared by intelligence officials. However, in regards to Cuba, there is evidence, even from Bolton critic Carl Ford, that his speech was cleared. And now, the State Department has released emails showing that Bolton’s North Korea speech in 2003 that angered the North Korean government was cleared.

So, Bolton critics are now left arguing that a speech he gave, which was cleared by a State Department headed by Colin Powell made Kim Jong Il upset. For most Beltway Buzz readers, I’m guessing that’s all the more reason to support Bolton.

Still, it doesn’t stop the Washington Post from skewing their headline: “Bolton Talk On N. Korea Apparently Was Cleared”

In their last ditch effort to sink Bolton, Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee are distributing recently declassified emails they argue demonstrate a “dispute” between Bolton and State Department officials over CIA intelligence. However, the Washington Post notes:

“The evidence collected by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including numerous interviews with participants in the matter, does not conclusively link Bolton to the incident.” What’s more, Bolton says he has no recollection of the described events.

Bolton’s chief of staff Frederick Fleitz says he sent the cited emails without notifying Bolton.

Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have said they will no longer stall a vote on the nomination of John Bolton. Even Joe Biden, who had repeatedly threatened to again delay a vote, said he would cooperate on tomorrow’s scheduled hearing.

Still, it is not assured all Republicans on the committee will vote in support of Bolton. Lincoln Chafee has said he is “inclined” to support Bolton, Chuck Hagel has made similar statements, but George Voinovich told reporters, “I don't feel pressure from anyone,” in stating his preference.

The Associated Press reports John McCain told fellow Senate Republicans at their weekly meeting they should compromise with Democrats on avoiding an end to judicial filibusters. McCain says he believes Democrats will allow votes on “most” of Bush’s stalled nominees and any future Supreme Court nominees.

Now that funding for the war on terror is in place, Frist is expected to push through a transportation bill that has bipartisan support by the end of this week. That will move judicial nominations to the front of the agenda, setting up a vote for next week.

Meanwhile, Harry Reid made clear what the filibuster fight really represents to Democrats, “This fight is not about the seven radical nominations. It's about clearing the way for a Supreme Court nominee who only needs 51 votes, not 60.”

Frist countered that Republicans, “have to look to the future to see that nominees for … the circuit court level and the Supreme Court have that opportunity for an up-or-down vote.”

The New York Times reports Harry Reid has rejected the latest compromise offer from Bill Frist on judicial nominations and now appears resigned to a vote on ending judicial filibusters. Reid said in a letter to Frist, “I want to be clear: we are prepared for a vote on the nuclear option.”

Frist now says the vote could come as early as next week. George Allen added, “The sooner, the better.”

Dana Milbank turns his attention to Harry Reid in today’s Washington Post. Milbank notes that since become Senate Minority Leader, Reid has, “called the president of the United States a ‘loser,’ the chairman of the Federal Reserve a ‘hack’ and a Supreme Court justice an ‘embarrassment.’”

While many Democrats worry about Reid’s word choice, he’s getting sympathy from none other than Howard Dean, “Many times in the campaign I said a few things like that without thinking through the implications of what I was saying.”

Democrat Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska is one of those rare Democrats President Bush has been able to negotiate with successfully on a number of issues. Sometimes when contrasted with Republican Chuck Hagel, Nelson will come across as the conservative senator from Nebraska.

Both Hagel and Nelson appeared on TV yesterday to discuss judicial filibusters. Hagel again walked the line, saying the filibuster should be approved but he would like nominees to have a vote. Appearing on CNN’s Inside Politics, Nelson put his view in more clear and concise terms:

“I think it's important not to be seen as an obstructionist. You can certainly disagree and vote against many of these candidates if you don't think that they are going to be good judges on the bench. But I think there is a major concern about just obstructing the process. But some people think that obstructionism is good. I just don't happen to be one of those. I've always wanted to support the president when I could, oppose when I must, look for compromise or solutions wherever possible, but not obstruct.”

Appearing on MSNBC’s Countdown last night, the Wall Street Journal’s John Harwood summed up the battle over judicial nominations:

“Usually in Washington, when you have the votes, you call the vote. The Republican leadership's put out the word, that's not going to happen this week. They're going to focus on the highway bill and some other things before the Senate. So I think the outcome on this is still unclear. There's some talk of negotiations between the two parties to try to sort of back away from this. But Bill Frist, the majority leader, has got himself in a position where he's probably got to go for this. But he may not have 50 votes to make this happen.”

Senator Norm Coleman told the Washington Times yesterday prospects for John Bolton’s nomination have been bolstered on two fronts:

“One of the things that helped John Bolton's nomination was Zimbabwe being put on the human-rights commission last week. That was a very public indication of the need for U.N. reform, and I think my colleagues understand that. And there is nothing that has come up in all the interviews that has moved me, and at this point any of my other colleagues, to move away from supporting the Bolton nomination.”

In their second Bolton-related piece today, the Washington Post profiles George Voinovich and how he comes to his views that are often out of step with the administration.

Colin Powell’s chief of staff Larry Wilkerson says Richard Armitage had occasional disagreements with John Bolton over his “diplomatic tone.” To any fair observer, this displays Armitage’s impartiality and should weight to his endorsement of Bolton last week.

Most players on either side of the Bolton debate are rooted in partisan stances. His critics have largely been self-described “very liberal” Democrats. While Bolton’s supporters are generally supporters of U.N. reform and President Bush’s agenda.

However, Washington Post staff writer Glenn Kessler leads his piece on Wilkerson by describing Armitage’s “apparent” endorsement of Bolton. Kessler’s wishful thinking is misleading to Post readers – he insinuates Armitage did not actually endorse Bolton because Wilkerson asserts they had cosmetic differences. It takes Kessler five paragraphs after his editorial slant to note that Armitage did, in fact, endorse Bolton.

Gallup’s new poll shows a bounce for President Bush’s approval rating. Bush’s approval rating is up two points to 50 percent, while his disapproval rating has dropped four points from 49 to 45 percent.

Congressional disapproval continues to slip, with only 35 percent approving and 57 percent disapproving, a deterioration of three points in each category.

Just spoke with David DiMartino from Senator Ben Nelson’s office. DiMartino tells me that despite the press release from Trent Lott’s office claiming otherwise, Senators Lott and Nelson met as recently as yesterday to discuss a possible compromise on judicial filibusters. “If you go back and read that statement, you’ll notice how very careful they were about wording it,” DiMartino said.

DiMartino added that Lott and Nelson, along with a handful of other senators from both parties have been negotiating the details of a compromise for several months and have consulted with Harry Reid and Bill Frist on the matter.

“It’s our belief that we have the six votes needed on the Democrat side. We thought we had the six votes from the GOP or were at least very close. Senator Nelson is going to talk to other Republicans today.”

DiMartino said that the compromise talks originated when Senator Nelson had planned to introduce legislation that would allow all judicial nominees to receive committee votes and floor votes without filibusters. Though Nelson is still considering introducing the legislation, the 67 votes required for a rule change makes its chances for success almost impossible.

Reader Jeff from Mississippi writes in to say:

“Word of Sen. Lott’s compromise got to Mississippi. It is my understanding and belief, that Sen. Lott’s office was swamped with calls against any compromise. Much less a compromise in which he brokers the deal.”

The Washington Times reports this morning that Bill Frist plans to use Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen as the nomination to launch a vote ending judicial filibusters.

GOP sources both on and off the Hill tell the Washington Times that Frist will use Owen because she is virtually guaranteed approval if granted an up or down vote and because she’s a “great face” for the issue.

Yesterday, Trent Lott spokeswoman Susan Irby denied Lott was negotiating a compromise on judicial nominations with Ben Nelson and other Senate Democrats.

Irby says Lott, “Did not even speak with Sen. Nelson last week or this weekend. He has not changed his contention that all judicial nominees should have an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.”

Bill Frist spokeswoman Amy Call yesterday added that Frist would welcome Lott’s involvement in a compromise deal if it could prevent future filibusters of judicial nominees, “If he can get a deal with the Democrats that gets an up-or-down vote, that would be great.”

Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Judiciary Chair Arlen Specter said both parties deserved blame for escalating the debate over judicial filibusters, “Each has ratcheted up the ante in delaying and denying confirmation to the other party's presidential nominees.”

President Bush took time out from his European trip yesterday to call for an up or down vote on his judicial nominees Priscilla Owen and Terrence Boyle.

The Washington Post says that by sending back nominees Democrats filibustered in his first term, President Bush is, “essentially guaranteeing a showdown that is as much about the power of the presidency as Democratic obstinacy.”

Reader Kyle writes in with two good questions concerning Trent Lott’s rumored compromise proposal on judicial nominations:

“1. Who gets to tell the 3 of 7 nominees they aren't deserving of a floor vote?”

“2. By agreeing to "extreme nominee" language and dropping 3 nominees, wouldn't the GOP be implicitly signaling that those 3 were "extreme" and not worthy of backing, and allowing the Dems to call every future nominee they don't like "extreme like (fill in blank of dropped nominee)"?
All around it's a bad deal. The GOP needs to stand up for voting on the nominees, and the Dems need to have the courage to go on record for each and every nominee.”

As a "goodwill gesture,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has agreed to a floor vote on the nomination of Thomas Griffith.

Of the gesture, Reid said, “Let's take a step away from the precipice. Let's try cooperation, rather than confrontation, which seems to be the hallmark of what we've been doing here lately.”

In a story mostly overlooked this weekend, the Los Angeles Times looked at the debate within the Democratic Party over whether or not to offer a plan of their own to reform Social Security.

As the LAT notes, “Most Democrats in Congress are content to watch their Republican colleagues and President Bush hold the floor alone in proposing ways to improve the finances of Social Security.”

However, some in the Democratic brain trust disagree. Last Friday, James Carville said, “The Democrats should say no to privatization — there's no compromising on that — but they should seize the moment to address pension reform, health costs and other issues.”

Roll Call (subscription required) reports that Trent Lott and Ben Nelson are leading a bipartisan effort that is “close to a deal that would avert the looming showdown” over judicial filibusters.

The deal would call for 6 senators from each party to sign a “memo of understanding” for judicial nominee procedures. The Republican collaborators would oppose ending judicial filibusters while the 6 Democrats would pledge to vote on 4 of 7 circuit court nominees and vote to end cloture on all other judicial nominees named by President Bush, “except in extreme circumstances.”

Even for those on the right open to a compromise with Democrats, the “extreme circumstances” clause is most likely a deal breaker. Isn’t this the exact defense Democrats like Chuck Schumer have given as their primary argument for opposition to the current stock of stalled nominees?

If Lott can push for a clear definition of “extreme” it could reveal Democrats as desperate on the issue. But if he too readily agrees to a compromise that fails, the media will undoubtedly portray the GOP in a negative light.

Reader Steve writes in on John Fund’s lockbox proposal:

“Eric:

John Fund is on to something.

I have always wondered why the Republicans did not amend SS a bit at a time. To nibble away at the more socialist aspects of the program. The first step should be legislation that grants us all (we contributors) a property right to our money. A single person (unmarried) who contributes thousands of dollars and dies one day short of retirement ‘loses’ their entire ‘investment’ in the system. A surviving spouse is forced to ‘choose’ between receiving their own benefit or the benefit of their spouse. How is this fair to any two income couple?”

Over at the Wall Street Journal, John Fund is striking a similar tone to David Brooks. However, Fund suggests one way to further put Democrats on the defensive is to bring back Al Gore’s much-parodied Social Security lockbox:

“There are ways for Mr. Bush to turn the political tables on his opponents. He made a start by endorsing the progressive indexing of Social Security benefits, which would ensure the bottom 30 percent of wage earners would all get benefits that lift them above the poverty line. He could combine that with a bold move to protect the $2.2 trillion in Social Security surpluses flowing into the system over the next nine years from being 'raided' by a spendthrift Congress. One way to do that would be to create a true 'lockbox' that allows people to put their share of the surplus into their own personal account to help fund their retirement.”

David Brooks writes in his latest column on how Democrats have responded to President Bush’s progressive indexing proposal for Social Security:

“George Bush has been willing to address a long-term, politically thorny problem [of Social Security]. He's pursued it doggedly while most members of his party wish he would just drop it. But his Democratic counterparts are behaving like alienated junior professors. No productive ideas. No sense of leadership. Just half-truths from the peanut gallery. … When a Republican president embraces progressive indexing [of Social Security benefits], something big is happening. When the Democrats oppose it, you know their party has betrayed an animating ideal.”

Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times rarely misses an opportunity to insult President Bush. However, in her text">take on this weekend’s meeting with Vladimir Putin, Bumiller notes:

“President Bush met Sunday night with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in what was widely expected to be a tense encounter after days of recriminations over Russian rollbacks of democracy and the Soviet Union's actions in the World War II era, but the top foreign policy advisers to both men swiftly pronounced the meeting a success.”

The Washington Post writes that Tom DeLay’s behavior has changed in recent weeks, “Everywhere there are signs of a politician in retreat.” The brash and confident attitude that served DeLay so well for the past decade is at least temporarily being replaced by a more low-key presentation. DeLay has not been appearing at press conferences with the House leadership and has scaled back his weekly meetings with reporters.

One anonymous GOP aide said, “He's withdrawn, he's tired, he looks like he's not sleeping.” Although David Dreier countered, “The demonization of Tom DeLay has been a sport in this town that has gone on for a long period of time, and clearly it is moving beyond the Beltway. We acknowledge that. But that doesn't make it necessarily more successful. DeLay is a guy who, when people are attacking, he just puts his head down and charges right ahead.”

The Wisconsin GOP held a straw poll over the weekend that amongst other questions asked who would be their preferred White House candidate for 2008. Of the 315 votes cast, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice emerged as the winner with 34.9 percent. Rudy Giuliani finished second with 23.5 percent and Jeb Bush was third with 15.6 percent.

In a letter to Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Joe Biden, Condoleezza Rice explains her refusal to hand over additional documents concerning John Bolton.

While the State Department has already complied with five “broad” information requests from Biden, Rice said recent specific memos Biden has requested could have a “chilling effect” on the ability of administration officials to openly discuss and debate policy matters. Rice also said the material Biden is requesting does not pertain to the debate over his nomination.

USA Today writes the stakes are high for President Bush this week. Thursday’s Bolton confirmation vote “could strengthen his hand in future battles over Social Security and judicial nominations if he wins, or weaken him if he loses.”

They also note that since 1789, the Senate has rejected only 9 out of more than 700 cabinet nominations. USA Today argues that if Bush loses the Bolton fight, it will make him appear vulnerable on other issues, giving Democrats an opening and the confidence to more openly oppose other elements of his agenda.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Richard Lugar told CBS’s Face the Nation he believes John Bolton will win confirmation on a party line vote this Thursday.

Appearing on ABC’s This Week yesterday, Chuck Hagel again voiced his opposition to ending judicial filibusters stating, “some of us might be moderately intelligent enough to figure this out.”

Hagel added, “You can't give up a minority rights tool in the interest of the country, like the filibuster. The other part of this, which I also believe strongly, is that presidents deserve votes on their nominees.”

Four years ago today, President Bush nominated Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada to federal appellate courts. The Democratic filibustering of these two nominees led to the battle over President Bush’s judicial nominees that many expect to culminate this month.

The Washington Post reports that several congressional aides suggest a vote on ending filibusters could come in about two weeks, shortly before the Memorial Day recess. The two-week delay would allow the Senate to pass legislation including the transportation bill before the filibuster debate takes over Senate business.