The performance of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under a presidential "recess" appointment has not been as contentious as some of his critics feared.

But the underlying qualities that made Bolton the wrong man for the job remain intact. President Bush would do well to pull Bolton's nomination and find another nominee whose record does not so clearly ring with disdain for the United Nations and its mission.

That, however, is unlikely to happen. The ball is now in the court of Senate Democrats, who last year launched a successful filibuster on Bolton's nomination.

That led Bush to name Bolton to the U.N. on a temporary basis after Congress recessed.

Bolton immediately went to work to validate the concerns of his critics. He played around with last-minute amendments on a plan for U.N. organizational reforms that left the effort close to pointless. He balked at a new U.N. Human Rights Council and he pushes for changes that alienate other members and leave many convinced his true goal is to render the U.N. toothless.

All this is reason enough for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to reject Bolton. But with the change of mind of Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, that now seems unlikely.

We are left with the probability that the nomination will go to the Senate floor. If that happens, Democrats should make their case as forcefully and completely as possible.

But once that is done they should allow a floor vote, up or down, on the nomination. Both Bolton and the president deserve no less.

In fact, Bolton's diplomacy on behalf of the U.S., as rough as it is, will hardly be helped if he continues to serve without a signal of support from the U.S. Senate.