E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIf President Barack Obama selects United Nations envoy Susan Rice to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he’ll face determined opposition from at least three Republican senators: John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. Ayotte and Graham would each place a “hold” on Rice’s nomination if she were nominated, their aides told NBC News Tuesday. McCain's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte stated that, after meeting with Amb. Susan Rice, they are more "troubled" and still have many questions regarding the administration's handling of Benghazi.
The three GOP senators met with Rice Tuesday and said afterwards they still weren’t satisfied with the administration’s handling of the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi and Rice’s initial role in explaining that attack.
Related: Senators not satisfied with Rice's Benghazi story
If Rice were nominated and her nomination came to the Senate floor for a vote, it seems highly likely that with Democrats holding the majority in the new Congress, she’d be confirmed.
But her Republican opponents could use the Senate rules to try to prevent her nomination from coming to a floor vote.
A “hold” is an informal procedure by which a senator signals to his or her floor leader that he or she doesn’t want a bill or nomination to come to the floor. Holds have been used for years by senators to indicate that a nomination is so unacceptable to them that they’d try to filibuster it -- to stop it through endless debate -- if necessary.
Ambassador Nicholas Burns talks about Ambassador Susan Rice's meeting with Sens. John McCain, Kelly Ayotte and Lindsey Graham. He also talks about the challenges facing the next Secretary of State.
“I would hold her nomination until I had additional answers to questions, and then I will render judgment," Ayotte told reporters after meeting with Rice.
When Graham was asked by Defense News if he would place a hold on Rice’s nomination, he said, “Oh, absolutely. I would place a hold on anybody who wanted to be promoted to any job who had a role in the Benghazi situation.” Graham’s office confirmed that account.
Graham told a press conference Tuesday after he, McCain and Ayotte met with Rice that “before anybody can make an intelligent decision about promoting someone involved in Benghazi, we need to do a lot more (investigating).”
But indicating they’d put a hold on a nomination does not mean that Rice’s opponents could themselves kill her nomination.
If Rice were nominated and if the Foreign Relations Committee reported her nomination to the full Senate, it would be up to Majority Leader Harry Reid to decide when to bring it to the floor for debate.
Susan Walsh / AP
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, center, flanked by fellow committee members, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., left, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., right, speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2012, following a meeting with UN Ambassador Susan Rice. Rice met with lawmakers to discuss statements she made about the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that left the ambassador and three other Americans dead.
If senators opposed to Rice were able to keep debating the nomination, and if Reid failed to muster 60 votes for cloture, bringing the debate to a close, then the nomination would essentially be dead.
It’s early in this battle, and it’s not clear there would be enough Republicans to sign onto a filibuster, but one Democratic Senate aide said Democrats would welcome the fight and are confident she would be confirmed. “People are happy to fight for her,” the aide said.
There are echoes here of the nomination battles of the Bush era. Democratic filibusters blocked, and ultimately killed, a number of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees and Bush’s nomination of John Bolton to be U.N. ambassador.
“I remember the John Bolton episode pretty well,” Graham told reporters Tuesday. “Democrats dug in their heels saying we're not gonna vote, we're not gonna consider this nomination until we get basic answers to our concerns.”
There were two cloture votes on Bolton’s nomination in 2005. He got 56 votes on one of them, four shy of the number needed to end debate and confirm him.
In some cases, a senator putting a hold on a nomination is enough to convince the majority leader or the chairman of the committee considering the nomination to not try to move ahead with it.
For example in December 2011 the Washington Post reported that Matthew Bryza, Obama's nominee to be ambassador to Azerbaijan, was "deemed insufficiently hostile to Armenia's enemies by the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) and two Democratic senators with Armenian American constituencies, Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Robert Menendez (N.J.)."
Boxer and Menendez put a hold on his nomination, preventing or at least delaying a floor vote. Obama gave Bryza a recess appointment and renominated him.
But Boxer and Menendez continued to oppose him and the Post reported that Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., never scheduled a hearing on his nomination.
Sometimes a hold on a nomination is simply a way of trying to extract some specific policy change or administrative action from the executive branch.
For example, the Hill reported last year that Sen. David Vitter, R-La., announced he was lifting his hold on Obama’s nomination of Dan Ashe to head the Department of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service.
Vitter wanted speedier action from the Obama administration on approving deep-water drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico.
“I said I would lift it when we got to 15 permits,” Vitter said on June 1, 2011. “We finally reached that mark today, and I’m lifting my hold.”
But the stakes would be far higher if Obama nominated Rice, partly because it would be the first nomination battle since he won re-election last month.
NBC News’s Domenico Montanaro contributed to this story.
Leave a Comment:
Oh PALEEZE, first of all it was proven that Condoleeza Rice and others were lied to and misled by many players from foreign policy experts to National Security members. She did not KNOWINGLY speak untruthfully as Susan Rice admitted yesterday she KNOWINGLY did. HUGE DIFFERENCE, therefore your argument is apples to oranges. When in the hell will you bleeding heart liberals grow up and stop falling back on the "It's the Bush Administration's Fault" when the TRUTH OF THE MATTER is that you know it, we know it, and the world knows the TRUE EXPLANATION would make everyone involved with Benghazi debacle guilty of cover-up, lying to the country because it would have gone directly against the talking points obama was including in his campaign platform, treason, accessory to murder of our own American Citizens, and to hide the complete lack of leadership not only within the U.S.A., but in foreign policy matters as well. EVERYONE from the President on down who is involved in this travesty should be held to answer for their part in this. There should be public hearings and input on the testimony of the people and when they are found guilty of collusion should be charged and censored accordingly. Starting with the impeachment of obama for a multitude of actions he has perpetrated from the time he broke every law there is during his first campaign to his cover up of the murder of these citizens to keep from having to talk about it durin his campaign of lies where he claims Al-Quaida to be on the run (they are NOT) and Bin Laden is dead (for which he had nothing to do with and even stopped it from happening three times before they finally went thru with it. When they did the Navy Seals and the commanders went ahead anyway despite obama trying to call it off again). Once the impeachment is completed the rest of the players should lose their positions and never allowed to run for office again and/or hold any type of Government job. The only thing worse than lying to the American Citizen is doing so even though you know we are not stupid nor gullible enough to just accept your hijinks without question. IMHO, I would rather have the opportunity to investigate and debate than have my intelligence so blatantly insulted.
Oh, and BTW, I am a concervative Democrat, and/or a Liberal Republican (that would make me a Centrist for those of you who have never considered another view point). I have no particular interest in favoring one party over the other and I happen to think this whole two party system needs to be disbanded and our election process revamped to give anyone who wants to run an equal footing.
That N---r Lying Bitch doesn't deserve to be S of S... She's so far up Obama's assho-e she can't see the day of light, let alone, not being able to tell the truth.
She's "NO CONDI RICE" and never could walk in that womens foot steps...
Fire the Lying Bitch !!!!
He won't, she's a personal friend of Obama's, which is why he wants to give her the top prized position.
Plus she lied for him about Benghazi & kept the heat off him.
Politicians having shame...are you serious. There is no shame in politics, and the witch hunts aren't limited to the Republicans my friend. Both parties do it to each other, and the same can be said from either side.
The public deserves answers to questions about Benghazi...questions about why additional security was denied...and why for weeks following the tragedy the administration was spreading disinformation about known facts concerning the attack. The Democrats demanded as much of Nixon, and in his case there were no bodies.
And finally...yes Obama was re-elected. You should stop reciting the party line, and demand of him and fellow Democrats as much you demand of the Republicans. fact is the Republicans control only 1/3 of DC...Democrats continue to control 2/3 of DC. The Democrats had complete control of DC during the first two years of the Obama administration, and did absolutely nothing about jobs...spending...or taxes.
So time to move on from the party mantra that we've heard...2008 to 2012 it was Bush's fault...now it's the Republicans' fault. They say the first step to a cure is to recognize one has a problem...so prehaps it's time the Democrats step up, admit there's a problem, and help the country find a cure.
They should nominate her. She fits right in with the rest of the liars in Washington. The United States is truly a joke at this point. Anyone in the armed services should think about getting out ASAP if this clown becomes the Secrtary of State.
That is about the stupidest comment I have ever read. I think your post demonstrates that you are the clown.
Appraiser, maybe you should think about leaving?
Try living in one of the African nations or the Middle East and give us an update about the US being a "joke".
New World Order? Dear lord, it has been 40 years since I first read similiar rants. Some of y'all are in serious need of a hug!
I've noticed something very strange coming from the Left. They are defending Susan Rice on the basis that "loose lips sink ships." How noble and patriotic of them to want to make sure our national secrets are protected. So it comes as no surprise that the best way to do this is to release disinformation (lies) to the public which is what dictatorships have been doing for years. It is one thing to protect classified information and quite another to deliberately mislead the public. Susan Rice demonstrates that she is as lacking in integrity and credibility as her boss, B. O. I think what we are seeing in this disastrous cover-up is something of the true nature of the kind of people who are now representing the American people. What we are finding is something that smells more and more like petty Chicago street thug tactics. What we have is not just an act of war against the US which resulted in a series of murders but a deliberate attempt by our anti-President to refuse to defend the nation and then to cover up all that happened for naked political reasons. This is how treason and tyranny are defined.
so the BUSH ADMINISTRATION was a DICTATORSHIP ????????????????????????
Where was John McCain when Condoleza Rice said that Irag had all those WMD's and when she threatened the American peolple with the idea of a mushroom cloud? When you think about it Miss Condi Rice got twice as many Americans killed than the 911 terrorists did with the misinformation she fed to congress. Whers was John McCain? Don't forget how many thousands of innocent children died because of her misinformation. Where was John McCain? And don't forget about the tens of thousands of amputees and permanantly injured veterans the government will have to pay for for the rest of their lives because of her misinformation. Where was John McCain? Don't forget that half our deficit is beause of the infomation Miss Condi Rice fed the congress. Worst of all Miss Condi Rice had over 2 months of very clear warnings that this attack might occur. I think John McCain has Romnesia and is going after the wrong Miss Rice.