• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senator's Projects Stall Obama Appointees

the makeout hobo

Rockin' In The Free World
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
7,102
Reaction score
1,504
Location
Sacramento, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
t is business as it's done only in Washington. In this case, Senate Democrats try to approve President Obama's appointees.

"These people are dealing with the safety and security of our country," said Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid.

But a single Republican senator stops the whole works. The objection is from Sen. Richard Shelby, who wasn't even there, but is using a Senate tactic to stall confirmation of scores of Obama appointees. It's all to try to get his way on major spending issues in his home state.

This tactic is called a "hold," reports CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. It means that instead of the usual 51 votes to be confirmed, nominees have to get 60 votes. Getting to 60 isn't always easy with Democrats in control of just 57 seats. There are 41 Republicans and two Independents.

Holds aren't unusual. But Shelby has flexed his Senatorial muscle to issue a rarer "blanket hold" of all nominees on the calendar. That's more than 80, including high ranking military, intelligence and national security officials, like Clifford Stanley to oversee Defense Personnel and Readiness.

"This man would be the third-highest ranking person at the Pentagon," Reid said.

Sen. Shelby wouldn't agree to an interview but his office says the holds are "due to unaddressed national security concerns."

Specifically, he wants changes in the process to contract for Air Force re-fuelers - the contract is worth up to $40 billion.

What he really wants is to get that contract to Northrup Grumman, which would build the re-fuelers in Shelby's home state of Alabama. Northrup has contributed more than $100,000 to Shelby over the years.

Shelby also wants the administration to release $45 million from an earmark he got in 2008 for a "Terrorist Explosives Devices Analytical Center" at an Army base in - you guessed it - Shelby's home state.

So you have a senator blocking crucial appointments, many related to national security, to bring a pork project home. On top of that, the GOP leadership is going along with it and helping him. There's something very wrong with this.
 
So you have a senator blocking crucial appointments, many related to national security, to bring a pork project home. On top of that, the GOP leadership is going along with it and helping him. There's something very wrong with this.

I have seen Democrats do this during the Bush years. They had best give Shelby what he wants, especially on the earmark.
 
I have seen Democrats do this during the Bush years. They had best give Shelby what he wants, especially on the earmark.

Whom stalled appointments like this for a few earmarks?
 
I don't know. It was done, though. I am not sure it was done for earmarks.


I found a little bit with brief searching:

Hell, out of the 270 political appointee positions at the Pentagon, almost every single one was held by a holdover for the first five years of Bush’s presidency.

The Democrat Burrowers Inside The Bush Presidency[/QUOTE]

and this:

Levin and other top Democrats in the U.S. Senate were determined to prevent George W. Bush from getting the people he wanted into positions of power. Since all top nominees had to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, that gave the Democrats – who held a 50-49-1 majority once Vermont Republican James Jeffords quit the Republican party unexpectedly in May 2001 – powerful tools.

Senate confirmation has always been a contentious process. Since the Nixon years, Senators Edward Kennedy and Joseph Biden have held conservative judges hostage to a litmus test on abortion and other left-wing causes. But at the start of the Bush administration, the Democrats took aim not at judges (that would come later) but at the president’s counter-terrorism and national security team.

For nearly seven months, Levin and this Democratic teammates prevented confirmation hearings of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s top advisor’s – Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, Assistant Secretary of Defense fo International Security Programs J.D. Crouch, and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Peter W. Rodman. “While Levin was holding up their appointments, the incoming Pentagon policy team had no legal or political authority to do their vital jobs – a fact that helps explain why it took eight months for the Bush administration to draw up a strategic operational plan to destroy al-Qaeda,” wrote J. Michale Waller, a defense and intelligence policy specialist at the Institute of World Politics.


[ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307352099?ie=UTF8&tag=floppingaces-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0307352099"]Amazon.com: Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender (9780307352095): Kenneth R. Timmerman: Books[/ame]
 
I have seen Democrats do this during the Bush years. They had best give Shelby what he wants, especially on the earmark.
If this is truly all about earmarks, it needs to be shut down.
 

Interesting!

But regardless who does it, it is pathetic.

And in this case it is one person holding up all appointees which is kinda wtf. And as the above quote said, Bush appointees were held up for 8 months.. we are going on what.. 13 months now with these?

Seems more like politics as usual and the never ending grab for money... just think once politicians actually tried to govern!
 
Last edited:
Interesting!

But regardless who does it, it is pathetic.

And in this case it is one person holding up all appointees which is kinda wtf. And as the above quote said, Bush appointees were held up for 8 months.. we are going on what.. 13 months now with these?

Seems more like politics as usual and the never ending grab for money... just think once politicians actually tried to govern!

No, Bush appointees were held up for 5 years!
 
What I'm wondering is why the hell does an individual senator even have the ABILITY to hold up an appointment, let alone ALL appointments?
 
Just more proof that we need to kick all these losers out of office and start over. And I mean all not all that have D or R after thier name.
 
So you have a senator blocking crucial appointments, many related to national security, to bring a pork project home. On top of that, the GOP leadership is going along with it and helping him. There's something very wrong with this.

If they're all going along with him then there must be more here than there seems to be. If it was as ridiculous as it appears, then there would certainly be many detractors, not the least of them pork-critics like McCain.
 
If they're all going along with him then there must be more here than there seems to be. If it was as ridiculous as it appears, then there would certainly be many detractors, not the least of them pork-critics like McCain.

I haven't been able to find out any more about it, have you?
 
Its funny how once upon a time Republicans in the Senate were calling for an up or down vote on Bush appointees. Now only a few years later you have Shelby blocking multiple nominees.

Just to give you an idea. Only 3 nominees in the Bush administration had to wait 3 months. In Obama's first year you have:

46 nominees waited to be confirmed for at least 3 months
45 of Obama's nominees lingered for at least 4 months
9 waited for at least 6 months.

Some examples of those who had been delayed

General Stanley McChrystal, commander of the forces in Afghanistan
Secretary of the Army, John McHugh

Chris Hill Ambassador to Iraq

Thus far Shelby has put a blanket hold on at least 70 of Obama's nominees.

One year into the Bush administration there was a backlog of 70 appointments.

With Obama it is now 177.

Funny what a few years does.
 
So you have a senator blocking crucial appointments, many related to national security, to bring a pork project home. On top of that, the GOP leadership is going along with it and helping him. There's something very wrong with this.

No worse then the blocking of judicial appointee's by Bush.

Welcome to partisan poulticing.
 
No worse then the blocking of judicial appointee's by Bush.

Welcome to partisan poulticing.

Blocking a judicial appointee who you think might be a bad choice is understandable. Blocking an entire list of appointees because you're not getting the earmark you want to let you get a bid for a foreign company's business is just disgusting.
 
What I'm wondering is why the hell does an individual senator even have the ABILITY to hold up an appointment, let alone ALL appointments?

I'm guessing it's due to the filibuster.

Just more proof that we need to kick all these losers out of office and start over. And I mean all not all that have D or R after thier name.

Why? No matter who we get, they'll still have the ability to hold an appointment because of Senate procedures. It would be better to change the Senate procedures.
 
So you have a senator blocking crucial appointments, many related to national security, to bring a pork project home. On top of that, the GOP leadership is going along with it and helping him. There's something very wrong with this.

Military expenditures, such as re-fueling and ED analysis, is now considered "pork"?!!?
 
Whom stalled appointments like this for a few earmarks?

Actually, during Bush's 2 terms, Harry Reid personally stalled about 48 appointments. Right now, Shelby is stalling about 70 appointments. He and Reid should get together for a beer. They have something in common. They are both douche bags.
 
No worse then the blocking of judicial appointee's by Bush.

Welcome to partisan poulticing.
Compared to the amount of judicial blocking the republicans did to Clinton what happened to Bush pales in comparison.
 
Our Constituency in full support and growing, the Party of No says exactly that. The whining going on concerning judicial appointments...is just that. More selective outrage, perhaps the Republicans will submit a letter to Obama "telling" him who we think is an adequate nominee and who isn't. Who would be a tough fight, who would be filibustered immediately, who would be considered, who wouldn't have any trouble whatsoever.

Democrats.com Archive: Judicial appointments

William H. Pryor Jr., William Haynes, Thomas B. Griffith, Paul Crotty, Brett Kavanaugh, William Myers, Charles Pickering, the list goes on not mentioning UN ambassador John Bolton, World Bank rep, and we won't even go to Supreme Court Justices where Democrats have set a new bar in childlike behavior and obstinence.

You refs let the boys and girls play it out on the field, and, don't mind the fickle crowd noise that is selective and kneejerk defensive concerning the current home team.
 
Last edited:
Blocking a judicial appointee who you think might be a bad choice is understandable. Blocking an entire list of appointees because you're not getting the earmark you want to let you get a bid for a foreign company's business is just disgusting.

They tried to block every nominee, it did not matter. It was just as disgusting.
 
Back
Top Bottom