2010 is shaping up to be a banner year for Republicans. The American people are learning once again that when you scratch a Democrat, you will nearly always find a good old-fashioned tax-and-spend liberal. Spending is up and going higher. Deficits are up and going higher. Taxes are up and going higher. So you would think that now would be a great time for Republicans to drive home the point that we are the fiscal conservatives. Right?
Apparently the Republican Senator from Alabama, Richard Shelby, didn’t get the memo. He has placed a hold on all of Obama’s nominees in the Senate. Not one, not a couple, not a few, but ALL of them. The latest count is somewhere around 70.
And the reason for this massive gum-up the works? Does he doubt their qualifications? No. Does he have a problem with their records? No. Is he concerned with their attitudes, ideology, and/or approach to their prospective jobs? No. Well, if not any of those, then what?
Shelby doesn’t think the Obama Administration is moving fast enough in delivering pork to Alabama.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary “blanket hold” on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, according to multiple reports this evening. The hold means no nominations can move forward unless Senate Democrats can secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold.
According to the report, Shelby is holding Obama’s nominees hostage until a pair of lucrative programs that would send billions in taxpayer dollars to his home state get back on track. The two programs Shelby wants to move forward or else:
- A $40 billion contract to build air-to-air refueling tankers. From CongressDaily: “Northrop/EADS team would build the planes in Mobile, Ala., but has threatened to pull out of the competition unless the Air Force makes changes to a draft request for proposals.” Federal Times offers more details on the tanker deal, and also confirms its connection to the hold.
- An improvised explosive device testing lab for the FBI. From CongressDaily: “[Shelby] is frustrated that the Obama administration won’t build” the center, which Shelby earmarked $45 million for in 2008. The center is due to be based “at the Army’s Redstone Arsenal.”
Notice the word “earmarked” in that last sentence.
This is already causing GOP embarrassment:
- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office first doubted the story was true. Later, after Shelby confirmed it, McConnell’s office refused to talk about the holds.
With friends like these…
February 5th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Okay, I am going to partially disagree with you. Either we need to ban all earmarks, or non at all. Will I don’t like the idea of earmarks, I don’t see why republican states should lose out while liberal or swing states get theirs. While I oppose Earmarks, I do recognize Senator Shelby’s right to stand up for his state.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I want to hear Mr. Shelby’s take on this.
HA HA Obama’s going to spin the 2010 elections by saying the people are mad at the Dems for NOT passing his healthcare nightmare and that’s why they’re getting voted out. With friends like that….
February 5th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Thunder wrote:
While I oppose Earmarks, I do recognize Senator Shelby’s right to stand up for his state
While I tend to agree, my honest question is what if a Dem Senator did this within the 1st year and a month of ta Rep President’s term? I think it’s great that Sen Shelby is looking out for his state, but Landrieu’s a pork HOG?
February 5th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Thunder,
Simple question. What happens if it becomes common practice for a Senator who is “stand[ing] up for his state” to put holds on all Presidential appointments until his concerns are met?
Remember, holds can only be removed by a cloture vote of 60+ Senators.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Actually, it is a common practice, so what is your point. Shelby is not the first senator to do this (both Democrat and Republican), and I doubt he will be the last. If it is too ridicules, political pressure and the Senate itself can override him.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
It’s called the rule of law. Even if you disagree with Landrieu’s pork, the President doesn’t have the right (without the Veto) to ignore part of the law just because he disagrees with it.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
My question for those who disagree with Shelby is, what if a President Obama only allowed Pork projects in Democrat districts to go through and stopped all those in Republican Districts?
February 5th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
No, Thunder,
Putting a hold on ALL of the nominations is NOT a common practice.
February 5th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
#7.Thunder,
Perhaps you were not aware of a law that was passed in the Nixon Administration? The President is required to spend every dime that has been legally appropriated. The President cannot not spend money.
February 5th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
McConnell and the Senate GOP Caucus should shut Shelby down immediately!
The RSC should publicly call for Shelby to remove his holds as should RNC Chairman Steele.
Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin should be vocal in making the case that Shelby’s actions demonstrate the damage that RINOism does to the GOP’s reputation and election prospects.
My God… HOW COULD SHELBY BE SO STUPID AND SELFISH…?!?!
February 5th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
This type of behavior will get us axed real fast once we retake the Congress, and even worse if we have the Presidency too.
As the minority party we are getting too used to not being scrutinized by others, so we don’t scrutinize ourselves nearly enough.
February 5th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Thunder,
Your argument would make sense if both senators from AL had done this, but Sessions simply placed holds on Pentagon nominees. Wow, how quaint… relevant holds.
February 5th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Shelby is an opportunistic RINO and needs to be retired now!
Oh wait, you’d never see that headline show up on RedState.
Folks are real idiots, thinking that Lindsey Graham is a bigger threat to conservatism, than stuff like this.
February 5th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Thunder,
BTW, it was the Pentagon that reset the bid, not the WH, which, btw, was under the aegis of the former President when this occurred, not the current one. If he’s po’d at the Pentagon, why not send Sec. Gates et al a nasty letter? Holding all appointments hasn’t been done. (and no, Sen Reid’s holds didn’t include executive appointments. Also his hold was in late 04, not in Feb of 02).
Besides, wasn’t it Sen Shelby who was whining and moaning about up and down votes for Bush’s judicial nominees.
Finally, I wouldn’t mind this as much if he had legitimate objections to these nominees, but as his PR rep’s statement infered, he does not. Remember, he’s doing this so he can have a face-to-face with the Pres.
February 5th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
This is a perfectly legitimate move by Senator Shelby and well within the rules of the Senate. He is standing up for what he believes to be military readiness and cuts in defense so politically it plays well against this administration for being weak on defense. We need to be drawing attention to non-defense related spending and Democrat earmarks and wasteful spending.
February 5th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
How can we do anything about the Democrats’ wasteful spending, when with guys like Shelby we can’t even keep our own house in order Pruce
February 5th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Note: McCain drew a primary challenger but Shelby is running unopposed this year. Am I seeing something backwards here?
February 5th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
This could cut both ways. Now that Senator Shelby has opened to door to blanket-holding ALL of Obama’s nominees, what is to prevent someday, say, Bernie Sanders or Al Franken for example from someday placing a similar blanket-hold on every single nominee of a Republican President simply because he doesn’t think any Republicans should be appointed to any position in Government?
In effect we could have 101 President, the elected President and all 100 members of the Senate. This could set a bad precedent, a very, very bad precedent. At the very least it would force the next Republican President to use up all his political capital and a great deal of time just getting sixty votes in the Senate to force confirmation votes on every single nominee, one at a time.
February 6th, 2010 at 10:55 am
Didn’t the Democrats block Bush’s judicial nominations to the federal bench for 8 years? Why should the Republicans let ANYTHING through? Dems only want compromise if the other side gives up; they yield nothing in their drive to socialize the country.
February 6th, 2010 at 11:02 am
GO SHELBY!!!!
ANYTHING that stops the Progressive/Socialist machine should be used as often as possible.
“GO SHELBY!!!!”
Regardless the reason!!!!!!!
***Edited by marK***
*Be nice*
February 6th, 2010 at 11:23 am
To use this tactic to hold up the Obama Agenda – stimulus, health care, cap&trade, etc. would be the act of a patriot. To do it for Alabama pork is the act of scoundrel. It’s why we want to throw ALL the bums out.
February 6th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
In all fairness to Shelby, the story behind that tanker dispute is ridiculous and validates his concerns. The only reason EADS doesn’t already have that contract is the Dems control of Congress. The Washington senators cried “outsourcing jobs” when Boeing was going to lose those jobs. Of course those jobs would instead be moving to the South and not going to Europe like they claimed. But they won by stirred up protectionist sentiment against the “foreign” EADS and got the winning bid nixed. The EADS tanker is cheaper, better, and already in use by other air forces. The Boeing tanker isn’t even built yet. Go figure.
February 12th, 2010 at 8:06 am
[...] Democrats time to catch their collective breath. As Race42012.com’s Mark Lowe pointed out yesterday: 2010 is shaping up to be a banner year for Republicans. The American people are learning once [...]