[OAW]

The White House fired back this morning at a move by Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama, who placed a “blanket hold” on dozens of President Obama’s nominees awaiting confirmation before the Senate.

Roberts Gibbs, the White House press secretary, sharply criticized Mr. Shelby’s actions, calling it the best instance yet for how Washington is broken. “I guess if you needed one example of what’s wrong with this town, it might be that one senator can hold up 70 qualified individuals to make government work better because he didn’t get his earmarks,” Mr. Gibbs told reporters today. “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.”

He added: “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.”

A spokesman for Senator Jeff Sessions, also a Republican from Alabama, confirmed that he also has placed holds on nominees because of concerns over the proposed tanker contract. But in Mr. Sessions’ case, the holds are limited to two Pentagon nominees — Erin Conaton and Frank Kendall III.

White House Blasts Shelby Hold on Nominees - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

So is this more general Republican obstructionism ... or simply a couple of Republican Senators basically telling President Obama "B*tch better have my money!"?



OAW

[turtle777]

WTF ?

I don't think what Shelby is doing is right (because I oppose ALL earmarks), but those f*cking hypocrite Democrats demonstrated over and over again how earmarks can used to reward or punish, and how to "buy" votes with earmarks and special considerations.

I guess nobody told Shelby that earmarks are only ok for Democrats, but not for Republicans

-t

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I guess nobody told Shelby that earmarks are only ok for Democrats, but not for Republicans

They just told him.

[Shaddim]

Screw `em all, I hope they gridlock everything for the next 3 years.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

WTF ?

I don't think what Shelby is doing is right (because I oppose ALL earmarks), but those f*cking hypocrite Democrats demonstrated over and over again how earmarks can used to reward or punish, and how to "buy" votes with earmarks and special considerations.

I guess nobody told Shelby that earmarks are only ok for Democrats, but not for Republicans

-t

I hear you when it comes to earmarks. And I could be wrong, but it seems that you are missing the point. The primary issue here isn't the earmarks ... the issue is whether or not Senator Shelby of Alabama is abusing his power by putting a blanket hold on Presidential nominations. The reason why is almost immaterial it seems. The Senate has the Constitutional duty to "advise and consent" on Presidential nominations. But couldn't we all agree that a "blanket hold" on all nominations ... for all positions ... regardless of qualifications ... is a tad bit over the top?

OAW

PS: And even if one can't get past the earmark aspect, wouldn't it be a tad bit uh ... "questionable" ... to support Sen. Shelby's actions but then criticize the provisions of the Healthcare Reform bill that Sen. Ben Nelson got for the benefit of Nebraska?

[mduell]

Incredibly petty thing to do, but they can still pass 98-2 vote instead of by unanimous consent.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

PS: And even if one can't get past the earmark aspect, wouldn't it be a tad bit uh ... "questionable" ... to support Sen. Shelby's actions but then criticize the provisions of the Healthcare Reform bill that Sen. Ben Nelson got for the benefit of Nebraska?

I never supported Shelby taking money in return for confirmations, and I equally despise how Nelson was paid off.

Both are (would be) despicable.

But, to be fair, Nelson HAS already taken the money, Shelby only used money as an argument. We don't know what's behind it, and if he's really after the money, or if he's just pulling this out of his ass to delay the confirmations.

-t

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So is this more general Republican obstructionism ...

What? This holdup has lasted all of 1 day. Democrats had a super-majority for over a year until this past Thursday. What was the holdup on these confirmations before then?

The Dems had more than enough time to get these appointments through, and there was nothing the Republicans could do about it.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

What? This holdup has lasted all of 1 day. Democrats had a super-majority for over a year until this past Thursday. What was the holdup on these confirmations before then?

The Dems had more than enough time to get these appointments through, and there was nothing the Republicans could do about it.

An individual Senator can place a hold on a nomination and stop the confirmation process in its tracks. Which party is in the majority has nothing to do with it and makes no difference whatsoever.

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Screw `em all, I hope they gridlock everything for the next 3 years.

That's a pretty unpatriotic thing to say, no?

When things are not working, you try to fix them.