Bush: Politics stalling Bolton vote

So what are the real reasons for the delay in confirming John Bolton as United Nations Ambassador?

The CNN story is here:

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee delayed a scheduled vote Tuesday on President Bush's pick for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations when a Republican member balked at voting during a contentious hearing.

Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the committee's Republican chairman, had pushed for a vote on John Bolton's nomination Tuesday afternoon.

That plan was derailed after a member of the panel's Republican majority joined Democrats in seeking a delay so the committee could consider new allegations about Bolton's conduct.

"I've heard enough today that I don't feel comfortable about voting for Mr. Bolton," said Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio.

"Maybe it would be in the best interest of this committee to take a little bit more time," Voinovich said.

The committee, dominated 10-8 by Republicans, is expected to meet again in early May. A majority vote in favor is needed to send the nomination to the Senate floor. A tie would be the same as a no vote.....

President Bush's support of Bolton is here:

President Bush on Thursday urged senators to "put aside politics" and confirm John Bolton as the country's new U.N. ambassador, calling him "the right man at the right time for this important assignment."

"Sometimes, politics gets in the way of doing the people's business," Bush said in a speech to the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America convention in Washington. "Take John Bolton, the good man I nominated to represent our country at the U.N.

"John's distinguished career and service to our nation demonstrates that he is the right man at the right time for this important assignment," Bush said. "I urge the Senate to put aside politics and confirm John Bolton to the U.N...."

So, what are the real reasons behind the delay?

Time for the Libs to dig up some dirt and if none is found manufacture a controversy anyway?

Or is it like Professor Bainbridge suggests:

As I understand it, the official case against John Bolton's appointment as UN ambassador consists largely of claims that he's a lousy boss who is mean to his subordinates. Uh, huh. If being a jerk at work is disqualifying, I wonder how many Congressmen would have to stand down? Half? Two-thirds? More?

Probably both.