Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama has managed to pull off a rare maneuver even by Washington standards, proving himself to be a hypocrite on two fronts simultaneously. Shelby has placed a "blanket hold" on all Obama nominees - an absolutely appalling practice that simply should not be allowed in the Senate but it is.
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."While holds are frequent," CongressDaily's Dan Friedman and Megan Scully report (sub. req.), "Senate aides said a blanket hold represents a far more aggressive use of the power than is normal."
As if that wasn't bad enough, he's doing it to make sure that earmarks for his home state get passed:
According to the report, Shelby is holding Obama's nominees hostage until a pair of lucrative programs that would send billions in taxpayer dollars to his home state get back on track. The two programs Shelby wants to move forward or else:- A $40 billion contract to build air-to-air refueling tankers. From CongressDaily: "Northrop/EADS team would build the planes in Mobile, Ala., but has threatened to pull out of the competition unless the Air Force makes changes to a draft request for proposals." Federal Times offers more details on the tanker deal, and also confirms its connection to the hold.
- An improvised explosive device testing lab for the FBI. From CongressDaily: "[Shelby] is frustrated that the Obama administration won't build" the center, which Shelby earmarked $45 million for in 2008. The center is due to be based "at the Army's Redstone Arsenal."
Though a Shelby spokesperson would not confirm that these programs were behind the blanket hold, the Senator expressed his frustration about the progress on both through a spokesperson to both CongressDaily and the Federal Times.
All of that Republican bitching about earmarks? Bullshit. All that Republican bitching about every nominee deserving an up or down vote? Bullshit. All that Republican bitching about Ben Nelson getting a special deal to bring federal money to Nebraska in exchange for his vote on healthcare? Bullshit.
Politics
Comments
I recommend a boycott of all things Alabaman. No tourism, no purchasing of Alabama-produced items. And let the big fat hypocrite know it's all because of him.
Posted by: Boudica | February 8, 2010 9:21 AM
Alabama doesn't produce anything anyway. Even when the Crimson Tide won the national championship, all the t-shirts were made overseas.
Posted by: Reginald Beasley | February 8, 2010 9:27 AM
"A far more aggressive use of power than is normal." -- yeah, that fits with how the Republican party has been acting with everything lately. Having Republicans not in charge has been almost as terrible as having them in charge.
Posted by: debaser | February 8, 2010 9:29 AM
How the fuck did our Senate become an elementary school playground? I want to go back in time, find the guy who invented the filibuster, and kick him in the nuts.
Posted by: Brandon | February 8, 2010 9:30 AM
But guys, it's Obama doesn't want to work with the Republicans! [/hypocritical pout]
Posted by: mercurianferret | February 8, 2010 9:33 AM
ISTM that the executive branch has a mixed record on exercising it's balance-of-powers mojo.
If Alabama wants to do without any federal money for a while, isn't it the executive branch that does the actual spending? I mean, suddenly it could take a very, very long time for the farm subsidy checks to clear. Federal government services could get really, really slow (slower than they already are, I mean).
Posted by: BaldApe | February 8, 2010 9:34 AM
The problem isn't just Shelby. The problem is the spineless Democrats who simply don't do whatever is necessary to eliminate the filibuster. Nuclear option, or whatever you want to call it.
And the argument that "we want to have it if we're in the minority" is nonsense. How about trusting that if you do a good job in getting stuff done that the voters will return you to DC and you won't be in minority.
Tools.
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | February 8, 2010 9:37 AM
It is time for the Obama administration to push back. Why not start moving production or programs from the Redstone Arsenal? Rahm Emanuel was supposed to be a hardnosed Chicago style politician. It is time for him to show he knows how to help friends and how to punish enemies. We have extortion politics going on with the Republicans. Why are there ANY military bases in the home areas of those obstructing the government? Move them to a blue state!
Posted by: Diana | February 8, 2010 9:40 AM
Possibly a triple backflip; seen via Fark.com, there's a Daily Kos piece reporting Airbus is one of the partners... meaning, he's doing this for the benefit of a foreign company.
Posted by: ab3w | February 8, 2010 9:47 AM
Shelby is a top 3 senate earmark porker every year.
/I refuse to capitalize senate
Posted by: Johnny Clamboat | February 8, 2010 9:49 AM
Woody Tanaka states:
I'm as a vocal a critic of the Democrats' spinelessness as anyone in this forum, but precisely how could the Democrats change the rules of the Senate that would restrict the powers of the minority in an institution that celebrates the power of the minority? Please elaborate, I see zero available mechanisms that could yield your desired result given the make-up of the Senate, even prior to Sen. Brown's win.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2010 10:00 AM
> The problem is the spineless Democrats
Dear god what does it take before President Obama (not someone in the Senate) to go on TV and flays these people?
"People of America. Today it saddens me to have to report on the status of the principles this country was founded upon..."
Let the GoP and their supporters scream and shout - it's not like they're not doing that _anyway_ - but the Dem base is being lost in droves as they see their side saying "hit me again".
Posted by: David Durant | February 8, 2010 10:14 AM
It pains me to believe that the business of our nation is entrusted to petulant brats like Shelby. It also pains me to believe that said petulant brat has such a powerful tool at his disposal.
It's like giving a chainsaw to a tantruming tween.
Posted by: barry | February 8, 2010 10:27 AM
If this were a rational world (hah) the leadership of the Senate would briefly delay overriding Shelby's holds in order to pass a motion censuring him for being an idiot.
Posted by: xebecs | February 8, 2010 10:41 AM
Why is Senator Shelby holding hands with a Moslem terrorist? Why did he switch political parties after that photo was taken? What is he trying to hide?
Do we really want a man who pals around with terrorists taking control of American defense contracts during a time of war?
Posted by: Dr X | February 8, 2010 11:20 AM
Perhaps I’m missing something... but Shelby is just one Senator, right, and 60 votes are needed to overcome this impasse? Then there must be at least 40 more hypocrites who won’t vote to break his hold.
At least has the argument that he’s supporting the interests of the folks who voted for him, the people of the State of Alabama. What are the others’ excuses?
Posted by: Coises | February 8, 2010 11:26 AM
General question. Since I'm a Brit I don't have a great view of American politics so tell me - are there any Democratic leaders out there with a spine or is it really case that all strength and passion is, as with the GoP, all actually in the media (Olbermann, Maddow, Stewart, etc)?
Posted by: David Durant | February 8, 2010 11:32 AM
To me, there is only one response to this. Simply hold a closure vote for every one of the nominees as soon as possible. If the Republicans want to get behind this idiot, let them do it over and over again for each non-controversal nominee. If not, government can start functioning again.
Posted by: Odie | February 8, 2010 11:33 AM
It may not be possible to remove the cloture rules (2/3 of sitting senators), however it is possible for the speaker to end the ridiculous "gentleman's filibuster". Force those who wish to filibuster to actually take the podium and speak with neither bathroom, rest, nor food breaks. Object to every attempt to pass the right to speak on until the current speaker has said he will no longer speak on the subject. And schedule every bill that's near and dear to the republican heart to be voted on AFTER all other bills/appointments have had their up and down votes.
Finally, let the USian people know who is obstructing their government.
Posted by: MartinDH | February 8, 2010 11:56 AM
David Durant @ 17 states:
It's difficult to answer empirically since different branches have different checks on power. I would argue that the GOP has a spine and has displayed it many times since Reagan was President.
I would argue that Speaker Pelosi and many of the Democratic House Committee Chairs also have spines and continually and successfully to whip the majority to pass legislation without a horrendous amount of dilution from their initial position. Rep. Henry Waxman is one example of a strong Committee Chairman. However we need to note that the House normally only requires simple majority to move legislation along.
The U.S. Senate requires 60 out of 100 votes to allow consideration and a vote of the entire Senate, 60 even if a few Senators are not voting at all or even MIA. Therefoer it's not entirely fair to hold Sen. Majority Leader Reid to the same standard as Speaker Pelosi. However he does appear to many, including me, as spineless given his apparent unwillingess to punish those caucusing with the Democrats to filibuster their own caucuses causes.
President Obama made good on his campaign promise to create an environment that provided no good reason for the GOP to not work with the Senate Democrats. I don't find that spineless as much as it was a strategic decision. Whether it was wise or not is a matter I don't think we can answer yet though it appears to be 'no' given the GOP is not generating any political damage from being the party of "no" while the country falsely believes the Dems have all the necessary political power to pass legislation.
However in order to accurately parse out blame fairly I think the Republicans in the House and in the Senate are distinguishing themselves from all other past Congresses in playing opposition politics, to the great detriment of the country's interests. We should not forget who deserves the blame here, whining about Reid yes, but assessing blame? Clearly we should pointing directly and exclusively at the Republican Party, especially given the results of their time in power and the results of the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2010 12:34 PM
#1 @Boudica:
Boycott the Muscle Shoals Rhythm Section?!!??! Boycott Jerry Reed!?!!?!? Noooooo, I don't think so.
Sen. Douchebag needs to be punched, in the face, with Fists of Righteousness.
Posted by: how | February 8, 2010 12:36 PM
Michael,
I think the only thing the Democrats could do within the current system would be to force actual filibusters, IE drop the procedural filibuster garbage and make the Republicans actually follow through with their threats. Otherwise I agree, they don't have the votes necessary to avoid a filibuster of an attempt to change the rules to reduce the power of the filibuster (Catch-22).
I've argued for some time that they need to stop allowing these bogus procedural filibusters and make the Republicans actually shut down the senate. If they really feel it is so important, stand up before the people, the media, etc., go ahead and read the phone book, read the Constitution (heck that should be a mandatory part of every filibuster). Make them actually do it.
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 8, 2010 12:46 PM
I agree with dogmeatib. Make the bastards be the party of no with the cameras rolling. For every damn vote. If they want to obstruct the country's ability to move forward, make them at least do the work, not just threaten. Make them stand up for their G_NO_P party flushing progress down the drain and see who gets elected in 2010 and 2012.
Posted by: MikeMa | February 8, 2010 1:56 PM
It's my opinion that an actual floor filibuster would harm the Democrats far more than the Republicans. Most Americans think the Democrats are in complete control of the Congress and if they yielded the floor to GOP filibusters, that would provide a monopoly of time to the GOP to demonize the Democrats and their agenda. The Democrats would look weak by losing control of "their Senate" in spite of being in the majority, and the Republicans could do the only thing they can now do - promote talking points that may be helpful electorally, but have nothing to do with good governance. Let's not forget who won the government shutdown stand-offs in the 90s, it was Clinton because he refused to yield.
MikeMa assumes the people want progress, I disagree. They want "poof" and things get better. Ms. Palin's speech Sat. night is indicative. She complained nothing's gotten done yet (which is false) while she represents the party insuring nothing's getting done, and its working.
The best thing the Democrats can do now is have very public promotion of what's in the bill they can get passed 50 - 55 Democratic Senators and make a great display of providing entree to the Republicans by way of open meetings with Obama. Reid must threaten his caucus members, no one will filibuster this bill from this caucus. Than work to get one or two Republicans by whatever means neccessary as long as the average Joe doesn't notice.
Another plan is for the House to sign the Senate bill as-is and work for improvements in future legislative sessions; I don't like this plan since I think the universal mandate is not affordable enough in the Senate plan for those without insurance that don't really care to have insurance relative to other expenses - that would be a killer for Democrats in future elections, i.e., forcing participants who can't afford it.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 8, 2010 5:27 PM
Ed,
Are you saying that Republicans all agree with this tactic?
Posted by: Buffoon | February 8, 2010 5:33 PM
Michael Heath,
I suspect you're right about that. The Democrats are supposed to have been in control, and the fact that they evidently weren't can't help them.
Posted by: BaldApe | February 8, 2010 5:56 PM
Sheez! Reid needs to grow a pair. Schedule one of most innocuous appointees for a full vote on a Friday or before a holiday - preferably someone that's up for something in a Repub controlled area. Let them have their little filibuster party for a few hours, then politely postpone the motion in the interest of getting home to their constituents.
By the time the planes land in the home districts, ads should be running in five of the weaker Repub's markets explaining that they thought a favor owed to some other senator was more important than making sure the court system works. Tell the voters to ask their senator why Shelby's pork trough is more important than the rest of the nation's business. Use the words obstructionist, cahoots, pork, old-boy network etc.
Pick up the debate on Monday, and schedule the other 39 appointees for confirmation stretching out to the mid-terms.
If the Republicans really want to be the Party of No, then make them work at it. And make it clear that it will cost the weaker members some pain and maybe their butts. Then we'll see how great the vaunted power of the filibuster is.
Posted by: Chris_B | February 8, 2010 6:56 PM
What are the senate rules on committee membership? Does the senate leader appoint all or does the minority leader appoint the minority's members? If the former, Reid could yank Shelby from every committee on which he is a member and then offer to let him back on one (and only one) of them if he withdraws his blanket hold.
Otherwise, blanket ads in Republican districts painting the candidates as anti-American obstructionist jerks would be appropriate.
Posted by: Chris Caprette | February 8, 2010 8:17 PM
Chris, that's a capital idea! Pun intended. Especially combined with a sudden drag on federal expenditures.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | February 8, 2010 9:22 PM
"I'm as a vocal a critic of the Democrats' spinelessness as anyone in this forum, but precisely how could the Democrats change the rules of the Senate that would restrict the powers of the minority in an institution that celebrates the power of the minority? Please elaborate, I see zero available mechanisms that could yield your desired result given the make-up of the Senate, even prior to Sen. Brown's win."
Michael, basically, the Dems would invoke a point of order declaring the filibuster to be unconstitutional. The point of order can then be decided upon by a simple majority. Get 51 Senators on board (or 50 Senators and Joe Biden) and the filibuster is done.
See, also, "nuclear option" in Wikipedia. It gives the general idea. (Insert usual Wiki-caveats here...)
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | February 9, 2010 10:51 AM
@Michael Heath: "the country falsely believes the Dems have all the necessary political power to pass legislation."
We don't think that they do, but nonetheless every seat the Democrats lose in 2010 will be explicitly because we want to make sure the Democrats don't have the political power necessary to pass legislation. (We don't want the Republicans to have the political power necessary to pass legislation either--I voted for the Democrats in every recent election for precisely this reason. Unfortunately "none of the above" has never appeared on my ballot.)
As the pundits have been saying, the United States is now ungovernable. What they haven't realized yet is that as long as we have a two-party system run by Corporatist Party A and Corporatist Party B, this is the best outcome available.
Posted by: Miko | February 9, 2010 3:29 PM