I think the hearing suffered in part due to the lack of questioning on issues of foreign and defence policy in comparison to previous hearings. I don't believe Phil's intervention was productive to that effect.
I don't believe this to be accurate. The Nay voters didn't outline any objections to this nominee at all. If they were concerned over hugh's foreign and defence policy stances, they surely would have questioned him in this regard.
That's partly the point I was making. Very few questions were asked because the hearing was sidetracked. Had the proceedings run more smoothly I'm sure such issues would have been touched apon.
Possibly, but it was always still open to Senators to question until the vote was called.
It still remains very unclear, to me, why exactly the no votes were lodged. No explanation has been given by any of the pertinant Senators in this regard. Until otherwise asserted, I can only assume that it was Phil's intervention which swung the votes.
