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

[Vast LWC]

Face it people, what it all comes down to is this:

One Senator is being a little ***** because he didn't get an earmark for his state, and the corporate interests that fund his campaign.

So now he has decided to personally obstruct the appointment of 70 needed personnel, because he's throwing a hissy fit.

 

[Vast LWC]

BlablablaBOOOOSH!blablablaBOOOOOSH!blablanbla

Get a new tune, hack.

Yet again, an "I have no argument" deflection.

What part of what I said is inaccurate?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

It happens on both sides of the aisle and you know it. Just because you don't get your way anymore is no reason to get upset.

It does happen on both sides of the aisle, and has been doing so in an ever-increasing frequency, until we have reached the point we are currently at:

Where nothing can be done at all.

Welcome to politics 2010...that's why I said in another thread that any incumbent should be worried in November.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Face it people, what it all comes down to is this:

One Senator is being a little ***** because he didn't get an earmark for his state, and the corporate interests that fund his campaign.

So now he has decided to personally obstruct the appointment of 70 needed personnel, because he's throwing a hissy fit.

Since when do jobs for your state equate to a budgetary earmark? You may need to retake a civics class...or 2.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

With the current crop of progressives that have infested government it's a good thing to hold up these nominees until they can be properly vetted.

But strangely you didn't seem to feel that way when Democrats were blocking far-right appoiontees, in far smaller numbers..

How odd.

and they blocked them...didn't they? Please cite your specific example where I trumpetted the appointment of a far right wing reactionary.

Haven't got one do you...

How expected.

 

[Oddball]

Face it people, what it all comes down to is this:

One Senator is being a little ***** because he didn't get an earmark for his state, and the corporate interests that fund his campaign.

So now he has decided to personally obstruct the appointment of 70 needed personnel, because he's throwing a hissy fit.

Fact it...You have NFI what you're babbling about.

Tell ya what...You go out into the real world, submit a construction bid, then have it not only yanked out from underneath you but also turned over to your competitor, so they can see your numbers for their re-bid........Bloody ditz.

 

[Vast LWC]

Welcome to politics 2010...that's why I said in another thread that any incumbent should be worried in November.

Look, if there's a whole bunch of Senators that are really worried about the nominees in question, and are blocking them because of that, that's one thing.

That happens on both sides of the aisle, yes. It's happened slightly more with Republicans than Democrats, but the difference in numbers doesn't really matter, since it boils down to the fact that they both do it.

I completely agree. I don't like it, I wish both sides would agree more when it comes to making government work, but you're right, that's part of what government has become.

But this is ONE Senator who is trying to hold up the process because his state, and the special interests that got him elected, aren't benefitting from an Earmark.

Now, I'm sorry if you all think I'm some sort of partisan hack for saying so, but I think there's something severely wrong with that, and I think I honestly would say the same thing no matter who was doing it.

This is a whole new level of obstructionism.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I'll ask again. Since when do jobs for your State equate to Federal budgetary earmarks? Where is the line item in the budget that specifically says Sen Shelby put in an earmark related to this?

 

[Vel]

I tell ya, it's pretty fucked when we are almost 18 months since Obama's election we STILL don't have an NSA director confirmed yet.

Let's see. Sen. Shelby put a hold on nominees yesterday. So what's Barry's reason for not getting an NSA director in the 17 mos and 29 days prior to yesterday? Could it be he was busy failing to capture the Olympics and picking up his Nobel Prize instead of focusing on the job he was hired to do? It's not as if he hasn't had a filibuster proof Congress for most of the last year.

A single senator can place an anonymous hold on any appointee.

At this point right now, there are something like 170 unconfirmed nominees that are being held up.

Tell me you didn't know this.

So? Who was the single senator that was holding things up PRIOR to Shelby? Obama has had since a full year to work on getting confirmations of his nominees and has focused very little on it. You can blame Shelby for the immediate hold, but I don't see any good excuses as to why Obama hadn't been more proactive about getting his people confirmed up to this point.

 

[Oddball]

I'll ask again. Since when do jobs for your State equate to Federal budgetary earmarks? Where is the line item in the budget that specifically says Sen Shelby put in an earmark related to this?

You're arguing with an willing idiot, dude.

Shelby is sticking up for constituents of his who got royally screwed.

Could he have taken another approach?....Probably.
Is this completely unheard of and beyond the pale?.... Not by the "standards" (for lack of a better term) of the District of criminals, by a dam sight.

Meet the new boss.......

 

[Vast LWC]

Fact it...You have NFI what you're babbling about.

Tell ya what...You go out into the real world, submit a construction bid, then have it not only yanked out from underneath you but also turned over to your competitor, so they can see your numbers for their re-bid........Bloody ditz.

So, this Senator is the CEO of Northrop/Grumman?

And this hasn't happened before? (Because I know it has.)

And what the **** does that even have to do with the nominee process?

 

[uscitizen]

Face it people, what it all comes down to is this:

One Senator is being a little ***** because he didn't get an earmark for his state, and the corporate interests that fund his campaign.

So now he has decided to personally obstruct the appointment of 70 needed personnel, because he's throwing a hissy fit.

Since when do jobs for your state equate to a budgetary earmark? You may need to retake a civics class...or 2.

If it comes from taxpayer dollars....

I thought the govt did not create jobs?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Face it people, what it all comes down to is this:

One Senator is being a little ***** because he didn't get an earmark for his state, and the corporate interests that fund his campaign.

So now he has decided to personally obstruct the appointment of 70 needed personnel, because he's throwing a hissy fit.

Since when do jobs for your state equate to a budgetary earmark? You may need to retake a civics class...or 2.

If it comes from taxpayer dollars....

I thought the govt did not create jobs?

Define earmark.

 

[paperview]

Let's see. Sen. Shelby put a hold on nominees yesterday. So what's Barry's reason for not getting an NSA director in the 17 mos and 29 days prior to yesterday? Could it be he was busy failing to capture the Olympics and picking up his Nobel Prize instead of focusing on the job he was hired to do? It's not as if he hasn't had a filibuster proof Congress for most of the last year.

A single senator can place an anonymous hold on any appointee.

At this point right now, there are something like 170 unconfirmed nominees that are being held up.

Tell me you didn't know this.

So? Who was the single senator that was holding things up PRIOR to Shelby? Obama has had since a full year to work on getting confirmations of his nominees and has focused very little on it. You can blame Shelby for the immediate hold, but I don't see any good excuses as to why Obama hadn't been more proactive about getting his people confirmed up to this point.

He talks all the damn time about it. Where have you been.

He has no control over the Senate, he can only use his bully pulpit. And youa sk who?

Did you note the word anonymous in there?

Obama’s 177 Unconfirmed Appointees - The Daily Beast

 

[uscitizen]

Since when do jobs for your state equate to a budgetary earmark? You may need to retake a civics class...or 2.

If it comes from taxpayer dollars....

I thought the govt did not create jobs?

Define earmark.

Yep just what is an earmark? What is pork?

 

[Vast LWC]

I'll ask again. Since when do jobs for your State equate to Federal budgetary earmarks? Where is the line item in the budget that specifically says Sen Shelby put in an earmark related to this?

A rose or an earmark by any other name smells exactly the same.

A defense contract awarded to a corporate entity that provides jobs for a particular state is, essentially, an "earmark".

Which is of course why this Senator is so mad about it.

 

[paperview]

"Congressional dithering on nominees is, in and of itself, nothing new. Four years ago, Republicans were incensed over holds on judicial nominees and then-President George W. Bush's appointee to the Environmental Protection Agency. Some senators even considered trying to change the Senate's approval requirement from 60 to 50 to help speed the process.


But President Barack Obama's first year has brought an unusual number of holds, and on unusually prominent positions. One year into the Bush administration, there were 70 appointees awaiting confirmation. One year into the Obama administration, there are 177. And dozens of those holds are directly affecting the agencies responsible for the United States' security and foreign policy, amid two wars and an amped-up terrorism threat. The United States has no ambassador to Ethiopia, no head of the Office of Legal Counsel, no director at the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, no agricultural trade representative.


Newsvine - Help Wanted: TSA nominee and 176 other Obama appointees still unconfirmed. One year on, what's taking so long?

 

[Modbert]

Do my eyes deceive me? So called Republicans or Libertarians defending earmarks?

 

[uscitizen]

Do my eyes deceive me? So called Republicans or Libertarians defending earmarks?

Of course their earmarks are not really earmarks

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I'll ask again. Since when do jobs for your State equate to Federal budgetary earmarks? Where is the line item in the budget that specifically says Sen Shelby put in an earmark related to this?

A rose or an earmark by any other name smells exactly the same.

A defense contract awarded to a corporate entity that provides jobs for a particular state is, essentially, an "earmark".

Which is of course why this Senator is so mad about it.

Since you cannot find the line item placed in the budget by Shelby I'll take it as you don't know what an earmark is....regardless of how a government contract smells.