Well, it’s early in the day — and there is always the chance that trolls will distort the poll (at bottom of page) that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is running, but at this point — it is not distorted.
The paper asks:
Are nominations as U.N. ambassador important enough to merit a filibuster in the Senate?
12.9% No, the ambassador represents the country but doesn’t determine policy.
31.5% No, not under normal circumstances. But the administration should give senators documents they want.
54.5% Yes, if the nominee is unqualified.
1.1% Not sure or don’t care.
Total Votes: 178
While only a couple of hundred votes, the trends are interesting.
More than a majority believe that a nominee to the U.N. Ambassadorship IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH to be filibustered if unqualified or unfit for the post.
And on top of that 31% think that while the position is not important enough “under normal circumstances” to be blocked by filibuster — the respondents clarify that the administration should provide the Senate-requested materials and evidence on Bolton. They thus imply that this is not a ‘normal circumstance.’
TWN thinks that the editors of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer try a second draft of an otherwise decent editorial.
But yielding on important principles at the heart of the system of checks and balances in our government is not a good thing for important players in America’s civil society establishment to be doing.
— Steve Clemons
