A New Outlet for the Party of NO - Forget National Security...
wesmorgan1
From the Birmingham Press-Register:
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, is blocking Senate action on executive branch nominations, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said this afternoon in an e-mail.
In response to a question from the Press-Register, Reid spokeswoman Regan Lachapelle confirmed that Shelby has placed a "blanket hold" on most pending nominations.
Talking Points Memo fleshes out the details:
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.
Later, the Senator's office confirmed the fact of the matter, if not the exact count:
Sen. Richard Shelby's (R-AL) office has confirmed to TPMDC the reports that Shelby has placed a hold on President Obama's nominees over a pair of government programs set to be based in Alabama. He did not confirm that Shelby has taken the rare step of blocking all of Obama's nominees, as was reported yesterday.
"Sen. Shelby has placed holds on several pending nominees due to unaddressed national security concerns," Shelby spokesperson Jonathan Graffeo said in a statement. "Among his concerns" are the progress on multi-billion dollar defense contract that would see planes built in Mobile, AL and Obama's decision to scrap a $45 million FBI improvised explosive device lab Shelby secured an earmark for in 2008.
So, just to get this straight...a senior member of the party arguing for greater fiscal responsibility is shutting down numerous nominations--possibly all pending nominations--because he didn't get his earmark and a USAF contract might go to Boeing instead of Airbus/Northrup Grumman?
Let's just stop and think about that. More to the point, let's be sure to ignore anything Shelby (or the Republican leadership, which now refuses to comment after initially questioning the story) has to say about the merits of nominees (since they'll block them for any reason), fiscal responsibility (since he's blocking them for an earmark), American business (favoring a subsidized Airbus/Grumman bid over a 100% American Boeing bid), national security (included among the holds are nominees for top intel posts at the State Department and DHS, as well as the #3 civilian spot in DoD)...need I go on?
Oh, and did I mention that no one can seem to find a historical example of such a "blanket hold?" Yep, we may be breaking new ground in obstructionism.
wesmorgan1
Shelby has now reduced the number of his holds from 70 to 3, all civilian nominations in the Department of the Air Force.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (11)
To be fair, TPM has found an example of a large hold--from Harry Reid, of all people, back during the Yucca Mountain policy dispute--but notes that Reid's hold did not include judges or defense appointees, which Shelby's does. As far as I can tell, Shelby's is still the first blanket hold in Senate history.
I happen to agree with the advice given in the linked article. Bring every one of them up for a vote and force Shelby to actively filibuster them. Make his colleagues go on the record in blocking intelligence and defense nominations to get an earmark for Alabama. Call the bluff.
How can they be the party of,"no" when the democults had a filibuster proof majority up until yesterday? The republicans couldn't have stopped their statist agenda ...the dems just seemed to implode from within.
Excuse me, Gray, but you know as well as I that cloture votes set a record in the last Congress, and that this Congress is poised to shatter even that horrendous total. In fact, I posted the Republican playbook on this very blog; they're intent on using every parliamentary trick at their disposal to avoid votes, and they're doing it more than has any minority party in our Congress' history. That's how they can be the Party of NO.
But, of course, you're fine with that, because the Senate rules allow it, right? *snort*
Oh, and while we're at it, I assume that you oppose the hold against intelligence and defense appointees while we're at war, right? You can't really support this maneuver AND complain that positions aren't being filled.
Shelby is taking a hammer where a scalpel will do. Personally I understand his frustration with such a feckless administration when it comes to national security but I'm hoping McConnell talks him into reducing the holds to JD appointees or Labor. The ones who can seriously screw-up this country.
So, TM, you support giving the tanker contract to a Euro-subsidized Airbus instead of Boeing? You support earmarks?
Oh, that's right - anything goes as long as it attacks/hurts Obama, right?
No Wes; did I say that?? I think Shelby should try to have his concerns addressed differently than putting a hold on all of Obama's nominee's. I don't agree with his tactics. Don't be so reflexively sensitive. I know life is tough right now for you dems.
Heh...not particularly tougher for me than anyone else right now, TM...
I was referring to your support for holding up judicial or labor nominees for the sake of completely unrelated matters.
I don't have a problem putting a hold on a nominee if you have concerns about that nominee's ability to do the job in question, but putting roadblocks in front of Nominee A because you have a problem in unrelated Area B just reeks. Doing so across the board is hyperskank.
To end the cries of agony from the left I see Shelby has reduced the holds by 67 and focused on three people he feels will get the WH attention on the tanker project and FBI center in Alabama. I did not agree with Shelby on these holds but I'm glad he at least modified his position for the other 67 people to get there hearing or be placed.
After this episode corrupt shitbirds like Shelby should be made irrelevant. Obama should start using his power to place his key people using recess appointments. Remember those? Bush 43 did it 171 times.
I oppose filibusters of executive branch nominations.