UNPRECEDENTED: Sen Shelby is placing a hold on ALL Nominees FOR WHAT? TO GET PORK!

[Oddball]

It's not an earmark. It's a legitimately won bid for a contract, thrown out on a political whim.

The difference isn't even subtle.

 

[paperview]

Scratch the surface of Shelby and you find a deep pig birther idiot with the ethics of rattlesnake.
Let's scratch a little further and see what Shelby's personal stake is in this deal.
It's desperate move, even for the low levels of that piggy Bush Republican.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

This disgusts me.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) on Thursday placed a blanket hold on all of President Barack Obama's nominees before the Senate, according to his spokesman.


Shelby's holds mean that the Senate cannot vote on a nominee unless the hold is broken using a cloture vote that requires 60 senators or if the senator lifts the hold.
​

Sen. Shelby puts hold on all Obama nominees - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Foul piece of shit senator.

Using extortion to get his Piggy Piggy PORK.

This is politics. Checks and balances at work. No more ramming through commies, Che Guevara fuckers, Maoists and Stalinists. It's about time we check this progressive bullshit at the door before they completely destroy the country.

 

[Liability]

I'm sorry. I call that a crap reason to hold nominees ransom for Alabama earmarks.

No matter how it is spun, that's what it comes down to.

I do thank you for your explanation of how you see it though.

Getting Sen. Landrieu's vote for the Health Care bill by offering her state 300,000,000 was pretty damn cheesey, too. The point? The process has gotten corrupted.

Sure, it's not a new thing.

But at least Shelby is doing his thing to register a valid protest that procedures (designed for fairness, in theory anyway) should NOT be tossed aside for such cheap political reasons. And when it happens, the folks doing it should expect consequences in like measure.

IF it forces this Administration to stop handling all "obstacles" like a bull "handles" the wares in a china shop, maybe Shelby's behavior has some merit.

2 wrongs never make a right....

there are no excuses in my book, to do something that is wrong...even if it is to prove a point.

care

Demonstrating to a thuggish Administration that they are not at liberty to blithely ignore or trample upon established fair procedures is a perfectly good reason to use the political process to smack them upside their stupid head.

Besides. Who said it's a "wrong?"

Anything at all that stalls this Congress and this Administration from doing almost ANYTHING they want to "do" is (with a few notable exceptions) fine by me.

 

[Oddball]

Didn't we have a deal a few years ago about C-130's made in Al and bought fy the govt and the military did not even request them?

We do not NEED these damn tankers in the first place. The military does not want them.

Wrong again, which is about the only thing you are consistant with.

The AF has wanted to replace the tanker fleet for years, it dates back to the IKE era, and picked the Airbus plane to replace it.

Boeing's lobbyists badgered Barry and got the project contract cancelled and now they are redoing the process.

They aren't just redoing the process, they've given the Airbus specs to the Boeing engineers.

If this was being done out in The World, people might well be going to jail.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This disgusts me.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) on Thursday placed a blanket hold on all of President Barack Obama's nominees before the Senate, according to his spokesman.


Shelby's holds mean that the Senate cannot vote on a nominee unless the hold is broken using a cloture vote that requires 60 senators or if the senator lifts the hold.
​

Sen. Shelby puts hold on all Obama nominees - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Foul piece of shit senator.

Using extortion to get his Piggy Piggy PORK.

Actually a cloture vote requires two-thirds present and voting for cloture for it to pass. That means 67 out of 100 not 60.

 

[Liability]

So, he is holding out for the government to help employ his people with government contracts and tax payer dollars? Sounds like Socialism to me...

As was already pointed out, national defense is one of the very few legit functions of the federal gubmint.

Pretty lame attempt, even for you.

AND the Federal government should be allowed to do it's job. Not be held captive by this asshat in AL. Agreed?

No. No agreement.

Since you libs don't even comprehend what it is that constitutes the actual "job" of the Federal Government, why should we agree with you on that "point?"

 

[paperview]

It's not an earmark. It's a legitimately won bid for a contract, thrown out on a political whim.

The difference isn't even subtle.

It's 40 Billion dollars for his state he is demanding. And another 45 million he earmarked in 2008.
Call it what you want.

It's piggy piggy pork and he's using the nominee process to get $$$$$ for his fat piggy piggy projects.

 

[Oddball]

Shelby is demanding that the agreed upon bid process be adhered to. He's not looking for a federal handout, to build the Richard Shelby Memorial Asylum and Casino.

 

[Liability]

It's not an earmark. It's a legitimately won bid for a contract, thrown out on a political whim.

The difference isn't even subtle.

It's 40 Billion dollars for his state he is demanding. And another 45 million he earmarked in 2008.
Call it what you want.

It's piggy piggy pork and he's using the nominee process to get $$$$$ for his fat piggy piggy projects.

It's also rules of procedure and fairness and the unacceptablility of changing those rules, procedures and results by arbitrary executive fiat.

If the President doesn't like THIS, then he might be forced to consider his own behavior in the future. A mighty fine outcome.

(Note: this doesn't necessarily suggest that the motives of Sen. Shelby are all pure and what not. It may very well be that his more abiding concern IS just pork-style politics. Who knows? Frankly, I don't care. As long as it teaches this Administration that this President will not be permitted to rule by imperial fiat, it's all good.)

 

[paperview]

Hmmm.

This looks like this tanker contract has been a fuck up since the get go.

And what's this: ??

Boeing backers blame McCain for losing deal

By ERIC ROSENBERG
P-I WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Supporters of The Boeing Co. blame Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, for the company's failure to win the lucrative $35 billion contract to build new Air Force aerial refueling tankers.


Boeing backers blame McCain for losing deal

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Hmmm.

This looks like this tanker contract has been a fuck up since the get go.

And what's this: ??

Boeing backers blame McCain for losing deal

By ERIC ROSENBERG
P-I WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Supporters of The Boeing Co. blame Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, for the company's failure to win the lucrative $35 billion contract to build new Air Force aerial refueling tankers.


Boeing backers blame McCain for losing deal

Who cares...that's old news.

 

[beowolfe]

Crap, earmarks and pork nothing...Airbus/Northrop/Grumman won the bid to produce something to serve in one of the few actually legitimate functions of the federal gubmint.

You're going to get this when the previously agreed upon rules of the process are thrown out by fiat.

There is going to be some fight over this.

You can bet though that its more then just the contract, the goP had to suck on it while Barry passed a number of questionable apointees into the gov, now they have a say again.

questionable appointees? All POTUS's have questionable appointees. So that can't be it. IMO, this is just another example of how the Senate is 'broken'.

 

[Oddball]

It's also rules of procedure and fairness and the unacceptablility of changing those rules, procedures and results by arbitrary executive fiat.

If the President doesn't like THIS, then he might be forced to consider his own behavior in the future. A mighty fine outcome.

(Note: this doesn't necessarily suggest that the motives of Sen. Shelby are all pure and what not. It may very well be that his more abiding concern IS just pork-style politics. Who knows? Frankly, I don't care. As long as it teaches this Administration that this President will not be permitted to rule by imperial fiat, it's all good.)

I don't even know that this is necessarily all about the current administration.

I misspoke in my first post on this subject...The bid was awarded and challenged two years ago.

Still, throwing the bid out on political caprice is soooooooooo Soviet, no matter who is behind it.

 

[paperview]

This was interesting:

"Because of warring factions in the military-industrial complex. Don't think it's some matter of principle -- it's a hugely lucrative and very long-term military contract at stake. One of the biggest military contracts ever. It's been fought over for more than a decade.
First Boeing won the contract. Then Airbus/Northrop Grumman won the contract. Then the win was taken away from Airbus/Northrop:

But the decision was overturned after the Government Accountability Office found that the Air Force mishandled the yearlong competition by failing to credit Boeing, which had offered a tanker based on its 767 airliner, for some of its plane's capabilities.​

Contest for Air Force refueling tanker contract again hits turbulence - Los Angeles Times - Page 2


These first two awards and reversals all happened during the Bush years, lest you think it's some Obama plot.
The arguments presented are about bid specs and who meets them better. But it's a fight about money for the companies, and pork for congress-critters."

 

[Oddball]

This was interesting:

"Because of warring factions in the military-industrial complex. Don't think it's some matter of principle -- it's a hugely lucrative and very long-term military contract at stake. One of the biggest military contracts ever. It's been fought over for more than a decade.
First Boeing won the contract. Then Airbus/Northrop Grumman won the contract. Then the win was taken away from Airbus/Northrop:

But the decision was overturned after the Government Accountability Office found that the Air Force mishandled the yearlong competition by failing to credit Boeing, which had offered a tanker based on its 767 airliner, for some of its plane's capabilities.​

Contest for Air Force refueling tanker contract again hits turbulence - Los Angeles Times - Page 2


These first two awards and reversals all happened during the Bush years, lest you think it's some Obama plot.
The arguments presented are about bid specs and who meets them better. But it's a fight about money for the companies, and pork for congress-critters."

I don't think it's an Obammy plot at all.....It's clearly changing the rules when you don't like the result, which us unfair and un-American no matter your politics.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

This was interesting:

"Because of warring factions in the military-industrial complex. Don't think it's some matter of principle -- it's a hugely lucrative and very long-term military contract at stake. One of the biggest military contracts ever. It's been fought over for more than a decade.
First Boeing won the contract. Then Airbus/Northrop Grumman won the contract. Then the win was taken away from Airbus/Northrop:

But the decision was overturned after the Government Accountability Office found that the Air Force mishandled the yearlong competition by failing to credit Boeing, which had offered a tanker based on its 767 airliner, for some of its plane's capabilities.​

Contest for Air Force refueling tanker contract again hits turbulence - Los Angeles Times - Page 2


These first two awards and reversals all happened during the Bush years, lest you think it's some Obama plot.
The arguments presented are about bid specs and who meets them better. But it's a fight about money for the companies, and pork for congress-critters."

I don't think it's an Obammy plot at all.....It's clearly changing the rules when you don't like the result, which us unfair and un-American no matter your politics.

They didn't want the Europeans to get the contract for our defense needs. Whether or not it was right or wrong is a different story and can be argued that we shouldn't outsource our defense needs to other countries.

 

[Liability]

It's also rules of procedure and fairness and the unacceptablility of changing those rules, procedures and results by arbitrary executive fiat.

If the President doesn't like THIS, then he might be forced to consider his own behavior in the future. A mighty fine outcome.

(Note: this doesn't necessarily suggest that the motives of Sen. Shelby are all pure and what not. It may very well be that his more abiding concern IS just pork-style politics. Who knows? Frankly, I don't care. As long as it teaches this Administration that this President will not be permitted to rule by imperial fiat, it's all good.)

I don't even know that this is necessarily all about the current administration.

I misspoke in my first post on this subject...The bid was awarded and challenged two years ago.

Still, throwing the bid out on political caprice is soooooooooo Soviet, no matter who is behind it.

I failed to dig for the info on my own. But, the BELATED behavior of Sen. Shelby does make me say "hmmmm." Since it might have been a bit more appropriate to take up this matter when it happened, the luster of teaching the Obama Administration a lesson kind of goes by the board. And, in turn, that elevates the porkiness of Sen. Shelby's action.

So until I dig deeper, I am gonna qualify what I said earlier. Teaching the Obama Administration a lesson for actions taken under the prior Administration would be ridiculous. That being the case, maybe paperview was more on the mark then I realized.

I want to know what Sen. Shelby has to say. (A spokesman is quoted in reference to this in the New York Times, I saw earlier. Her words didn't impress me. A glance at the Senator's Senate Webpage showed me nothing either. I am gonna have to look a bit more fully.)

 

[Bfgrn]

This one is way deeper than merely an issue of pork.

Please explain.

Sure.

About a year ago, a consortium of Airbus and Northrop/Grumman won the bid process to build the Air Force's new aerial tanker. Boeing, a bunch of their lobbyists and a slew of ignoramus economic populists cried foul. So, in direct violation of the bid process, the winning bid was thrown out and Boeing was given another shot at it.

That Shelby is mad over jobs in his state at Northrop/Grumman being put on hold, if not lost altogether, is quite understandable.

Shelby's anger is understandable and legitimate, his actions are NOT.

 

[Oddball]

They didn't want the Europeans to get the contract for our defense needs. Whether or not it was right or wrong is a different story and can be argued that we shouldn't outsource our defense needs to other countries.

It was a consortium bid. Most of the components would be built and all of the assembly would be done in America, by Northrop/Grumman and their contractors.