»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Stonewall Shelby and the Party of "NO"
| The Alley |
|
Stonewall Shelby and the Party of "NO" |
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
By Bennet Kelley “As Washington is paralyzed by the "snowpocalypse," images of the city's majestic monuments in a sea of white snow bring back fond memories of my years there. Eventually Mother Nature or the D.C. government will clear away the snow, but even then Washington will remain paralyzed by something far less endearing than even yellow snow -- Republican nihilism. Last week, Senator Shelby (R-AL) used a parliamentary tactic known as a "hold" to block confirmation of all 70-plus Obama nominations currently pending -- including key national security positions. This tactic is not even in the Senate rules but has long been used by Senators to block a single bill or nomination and can only be overruled by 60 votes. The use of a blanket hold for all nominations is unprecedented, having been used only one once before by former airport bathroom tap dancer Senator Larry Craig (R-ID). And what was the weighty issue leading to the Shelby Stonewall? It is pork barrel politics pure and simple. Shelby wants President Obama to force the Air Force to reverse the award of a $100 billion contract to Boeing through a competitive bid process and instead award the contract to a foreign company that has some operations in Alabama; and also move forward on a $45 million project Shelby earmarked in 2008. For that, the business of governing the nation must come to a halt.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennet-kelley/stonewall-shelby-and-the_b_452414.html |
||
| © Copyright 2010 JenniferMaxwell - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
The Republicans are the party of No Way, not No. When continually asked to spend spend spend they say no no no When the Democrats submit a bill that doesn't involve massive unpopular spending for programs that people that actually WANT, perhaps the Republicans will actually cast a positive vote for a progressive idea. Until then, they are the party of No Way! And under our current economic conditions, they are correct to object to unnecesary massive spending. umm...by the way I don't agree with no-bid contracts either. There are laws in-place that prohibit this kind of stuff. [This message has been edited by threadbear (02-08-2010 08:23 PM).] |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Looks to me like Shelby, a Republican, is more than willing to spend spend spend on pork barrel projects that benefit his state (and his chances for re-election when the time comes) and risk the security of the entire country by blocking confirmations that include those of key national security personnel. ........................................... The Republican Holding Government Hostage by Benjamin Sarlin February 5, 2010 | 2:20pm Sen. Richard Shelby's threat to block all of Obama's nominees is unprecedented obstructionism. Americans wondering why Congress has failed to pass major legislation or fill crucial national security jobs amidst terrorist attacks should get acquainted with Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL). Overnight the Alabama lawmaker has become the new face of obstructionism in a Congress already beset by a minority party that proudly employs every trick at its disposal to slow business to a halt. On Friday, Sheby admitted to placing a “blanket hold” on at least 70 of President Obama's nominations for appointed positions in an attempt to keep a $40 billion Air Force earmark in his state. ........... The White House hit back hard on Friday, with press secretary Robert Gibbs addressing the issue in his morning briefing. "If that's not the poster child for how this town needs to change the way it works, I fear there won't be a greater example of silliness throughout the entire year of 2010," Gibbs told reporters. "It boggles the mind to hold up qualified nominees for positions that are needed to perform functions in a government because you didn't get two earmarks." http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-05/the-republican-holding-government-hostage/p/ |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: quote: As much as I dislike bad politics, I dislike bad writing even more. These guys both need to look up the word unprecedented.  |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I did and I see your point. Nice catch. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Threadbare, it's not the party of No Way. The Democrats are right. It is indeed the Party of Know.  |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Well, threadbear, looks like you and I have really turned things around. Shelby just announced he’s releasing the blanket hold on most of the 80 nominees. Maybe he’s planning on giving up pork for Lent? |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Don't know if you heard, but the King of Pork, John Murtha, probably my least favorite politician, died today. If only the Democratic pundits were half as concerned with Murtha's pork when it happened. as they currently are with Shelby dot dot dot |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I don't think the Dems were as concerned about Shelby getting his share of the pork as they were about his blanket hold on nominations. Key positions need to be filled. His pouty over pork was obstructionism and sort of like Bush's my way or the highway. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
PS - Rest in Peace John Murtha, Patriot and Veteran awarded a Bronze Star with Valor Device, two Purple Hearts, Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Didn't a junior Senator from Illinois use a blanket hold on all EPA nominees of Bush and also used the hold on an FEC appointment? (purely for political purposes) Didn't he also try and prevent the vote of numerous federal judge appointments of Bush along with a Supreme Court nominee and a UN ambassadorship? How many federal judgeships weren't filled during the Bush administration because of Democratic tactics preventing votes on the nominees. Criticize the process, not the party. Democrats are equally adept as the Republicans in the Senate in abusing the system. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You don't understand, Tim. It's ok when Democrats do it. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
But of course, Balladeer. Thanks for the info, Tim,. I really didn't do my research before I posted the copy and past article. That'll teach me! |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Hey, but, Jennifer, you are still on track with your thought. Your BS Detector went off for all the right reasons. Dem/Indie/Repub makes no difference. At a critical economic time, there should be agreement within all parties to suspend earmarks. (sorry for the below diversion: my curiosity knows no bounds) Just for grins, however, here are the origins of the words: EARMARK and PORK BARREL: EARMARKS, in another literal sense, are the clippings and tattoos given farm animals, including pigs, that identify the animal to a specific farmer. --- Origin: of PORK BARREL As an actual container for storing pig meat in brine, the pork barrel has been with us since the early days of the Republic. It seems to have been a measure of present and future prosperity. A farmer's almanac of 1801 urges readers to "mind our pork and cider barrels." A midcentury author states, "I hold a family to be in a desperate way, when the mother can see the bottom of the pork barrel." "I know our crops will be short next season," declares another almanac, "for the brine has all leaked out of the pork barrel!" In the twentieth century, modern refrigeration made the actual pork barrel obsolete. But it took on new life in referring to political bills that bring home the bacon to a legislator's district and constituents. Pork had been used at least since the 1870s as a label for politically motivated federal funding for local projects like post offices. We read in the Congressional Record in regard to an 1888 rivers and harbors appropriation, "Has the pork been so cunningly divided amongst the members of the House in this bill that its final passage is assured?" By 1909, pork barrel itself was making the rounds of Congress. An article that year explains that the Democratic Party "has periodically inveighed against the extravagance of the administration, but its representatives in the Legislature have exercised no critical surveillance over the appropriations. They have preferred to take for their own constituencies whatever could be got out of the congressional 'pork barrel.'" Similarly, an article in 1916 opposing a "trend towards national defense on the basis of the State militia" argues that it is "a triumph for the pork-barrel." Even without ever having seen an actual pork barrel, we continue to use the term today for its vivid negative implications. A pork barrel suggests fat and grease, not only in its contents but also in those who reach for it. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I remember many holds on nominations in the Clinton Administration as well. Over the past thirty years or so, we've been very tough with each other on nominations. This is also one of the places where the threat of Fillabuster seems to come into it's own. I was happy to see how decent people were to each other here. A breath of fresh air. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
