You know, I used to respect Shelby. He seemed like a conscientious man, even when I disagreed with him (which of course was often). Now he just seems like another logrolling politician.
Did you follow the links to read what the person announcing a hold is really threatening to do? You can’t just pass a rule outlawing “holds”. You’d have to change two centuries of parliamentary tradition of open debate including restricting the use of the filibuster. That’s not going to happen.
The only other option is to get the Minority Leader to keep his Senators from pulling this stunt unilaterally (or with only a small group) by threatening their committee seats or something. Since caucus leaders really aren’t that secure in their jobs, that doesn’t seem likely either.
[nitpick] The modern filibuster is a collection of different rules and traditions, some of which go back only a few decades. [/nitpick]
I have decided to put a hold on all President Obama’s nominees until the Senate revises the rule that lets me put a hold on all the nominations.
True enough. Not sure how it contradicts my point though.
The repubs cry about Obama not meeting them in the middle enough. How does that move fit into that concept?
The repubs are weeping about deficits that they really do not care about. How does shutting the process down to get earmarks will show fiscal restraint? Scorch and burn for earmarks, a new rallying call for the repubs.
It supports it completely. If Obama really wanted to meet them in the middle he’d give them everything they ask for.
Well, I labeled it nitpick for a reason. But it does undermine your argument a little if you replace “change two centuries of parliamentary tradition of open debate” with “change Senate rules created in the last few decades.” The former phrase implies that the rules are a tested a fundamental part of our democracy. The latter phrase leaves open the possibility that this wasn’t how the Senate was supposed to operate.
He damn near did and they still vote in bloc against everything he tried to do He caved on health care in an unseemly fashion. He may as well grow a pair and face them down. This Shelby move should be broadcast far and wide
That’s the problem, right there. “Damn near” is not good enough. He has to give them everything for there to be any hope of a compromise.
The problem was Obama believed the repubs would be reasonable. He reached out to them and tried to involve them in his programs. They smelled weakness and demanded in the spirit of compromise, we give them the right to write the bills. Bush just jammed through his horrible policies with no deference to the Dems. He declared his narrow and questionable wins as mandates for his policies. Obama was naive to think he could include the Repubs who see him and his party as enemies.
Like Ravenman said, while this is troublesome, it was equally troublesome that Patty Murray, who’s state has a major Boeing plant, used her influence to get the Northrup Gruimman deal canceled and the contract rebid. The difference is, since Murray is a member of the majority party, she didn’t have to resort to such drastic means to get her way.
I had to block all of Obama’s nominees because it’s the only way the party the voters disliked in the last election can get their way!
I don’t think that one will go over too well. What is the evidence that the contract was re-bid as a result of Murray’s desire for pork as opposed to legitimate changes in what was sought by the military or concerns about the process?
I wasn’t trying to imply that requiring a 3/5 majority for all questions was how the Senate was intended to operate. However the tradition of open debate is NOT a new creation nor should it be confused with the modern filibuster. Senators were long used to being able to have their say on all questions going back to Jefferson’s Manual (and even before I would assume). Only relatively recently has the Senate begun allowing consideration of other questions while another is held up for lack of a supermajority in favor of cloture. This is the essence of the modern filibuster. The stakes would be higher if it obstructed all Senate business so presumably it would be more rare.
The contract was ultimately rebid because of GAO discoveries of flaws in the bid contract, but the GAO review didn’t even come until after several months by complaints by legislators. Here’s an article from before the GAO decision, revealing that the if GAO didn’t side with Boeing, the pro-Boeing side would try to cancel the project altogether.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_54_238/ai_n29449249/
Here’s a post by Samuel Mahany, professor of law at Georgetown, where he gave his analysis that, regardless of the GAO finding, opponents of the Northrup Grumman bid would keep it from being built.
More to the point, the GAO concluded that if USAF hadn’t fucked up simple arithmetic, they’d have picked Boeing even under the previous rules.
Again, I understand and acknowledge that Alabamans will have a different perspective on this whole thing. It’s the national mood that I’ve been talking about.
Got a cite that GAO said that Boeing would have won the competition?
GAO generally doesn’t judge what party should have won a competition, they just analyze whether the rules of the competition were fairly applied.
The GAO agreed with Boeing’s objection(s) to the bidding process. Not quite the same but it does suggest the Air Force wasn’t financially prudent.
Obama should recess-appoint every pending nominee and leave the Air Force contract to be decided again.