WASHINGTON -- John R. Bolton, President Bush's sharp-elbowed nominee to become U.N. ambassador, survived a cliffhanger Senate committee vote Thursday after renewed criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, leaving the final confirmation decision to the full Senate.

The Foreign Relations Committee voted 10-8 along party lines to advance Bolton's nomination without the customary recommendation that the Senate approve it. The procedural move spared Bush outright defeat in the Republican-led committee but still represented an embarrassing setback early in his second term.

The pivotal vote came from Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich, who said Bolton was a sometime bully whose short fuse would have gotten him fired in the private sector.

"This is not behavior that should be endorsed as the face of the United States to the world community at the United Nations," Voinovich said. "It is my opinion that John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be."

It was not clear when Bolton's nomination would come to the Senate floor. Republicans hold a 55-44 majority, making confirmation likely. One wild card: Democrats could still try to block a final vote.

The White House predicted eventual victory despite Voinovich's harsh assessment and weeks of tumult over whether Bolton abused subordinates, stretched government intelligence to fit a preconceived ideology or misled the Senate committee.

Public misgivings among four of the panel's 10 Republicans held up the Bolton vote for three weeks, and the White House launched a full-throated lobbying campaign.

In the end, only Voinovich broke GOP ranks. The committee's chairman, Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, gave point-by-point answers to many of the allegations against Bolton, such as instances when he may have improperly pressured or retaliated against government analysts who disagreed with him.

Even that lengthy defense of Bolton carried an asterisk, however.

"Secretary Bolton's actions were not always exemplary," Lugar said. "On several occasions, he made incorrect assumptions about the behavior and motivations of subordinates. At other times, he failed to use proper managerial channels or unnecessarily personalized internal disputes."