GOP

[SeanyTheSailor]

No one could have predicted that the GOP would do this :roll:

 

Lol, and now Obama has adopted Republican talking points about the deficit. Everyone knows the real problem with the deficit is health care; fix the health care crisis, you solve the deficit problem. Of course, the GOP won't hop on board to solve this issue--although about 10 of the Democrats aren't much better because they're just as moronic and corporate--and the two ideas they do have, state-competition across state lines and tort reform, are both fail ideas. Even if you adopted those ideas, they still wouldn't support anything the Democrats want to do, and the Democrats continue to get rolled.

 

The GOP: the bat[cabbage] insane, far-right nationalist party, and the Democrats: the party with no spine. It's been this way since Ronald Reagan, except by now Ronald Reagan would probably be too liberal to be in the Republican party (he's against torture, after all, and he raised taxes).

 

Anyway, prediction of what will happen unless the Democrats grow a f***ing spine and call the conservatives out (this includes the conservatives like Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and the other blue dog corporate hacks in the House):

 

GOP blocks everything Obama wants to do

Democrats lose their majorities in 2010-2012 due to bad unemployment and nothing coming from Congress

Obama loses in 2012 to someone who is farther to the right than George Bush

Person that's farther to the right than George Bush increases the debt by another couple trillion to the point of doubling it

Person that's farther to the right than Bush gets ejected from office by 2016 or 2020, and we repeat the cycle again until Democrats stand by their principles and stop adopting Republican ones

 

Time and time again, Republicans only get into office because the Dem base's enthusiasm is deflated because our party lacks a spine to embrace liberal policy. Grow a back bone.

 

I'll be watching the SOTU, watching Obama become the best Republican president since Bill Clinton.

It is almost amusing that you say "further right than Bush" because I know plenty of people who don't think he was right enough, same with McCain. And you say nationalism like a curse word, I think a little pride in what you were given to from birth would do everyone some good, If you hate America so much I can think of plenty of places that would probably change your mind quick fast and in a hurry.

[champion]

^ You have to keep in mind that anyone who disagrees with how the government runs things hates America.

[magekillr]

It is almost amusing that you say "further right than Bush" because I know plenty of people who don't think he was right enough, same with McCain.

 

Yeah, you get farther to the right of Bush by listening to the people who NO ONE in the sixties and seventies listened to: the tea party crowd. You guys think this Tea Party movement is new? Original? Think again. These crazies have always been around, but they were always ignored as the fringe; William Buckley, as crazy as he was, worked his [wagon] off to make them irrelevant. Now they're given a microphone on FOX (which isn't a news station, it's a propaganda pusher), and people like Marco Rubio are pushing people like Charlie Crist out. You can't get much further right than Bush; you'd have to start more wars, take away Social Security, take away Welfare, privatize Medicare and Medicaid, and institute a flat tax.

 

And you say nationalism like a curse word, I think a little pride in what you were given to from birth would do everyone some good, If you hate America so much I can think of plenty of places that would probably change your mind quick fast and in a hurry.

 

Lol, nationalism IS a horrible thing. Sorry, I see no reason to be proud of where I was born. Nationalism breeds wars, hatred and division; sorry, I'd like no part in that. Typical that you'd say I hate America; it's obvious you're a far-right winger with your "if you hate America so much why don't you get out" sloganeering. I could say that you hate America, given that dissent is the most patriotic thing anyone can do, and that the right wing embraces torture and Guantanamo, two things that only serve as a recruitment tool to bring more attacks on our land. However, I won't, as saying someone "hates America" for being pissed off at how far-right wing it has become is not healthy for debate.

[Alg]

And you say nationalism like a curse word, I think a little pride in what you were given to from birth would do everyone some good, If you hate America so much I can think of plenty of places that would probably change your mind quick fast and in a hurry.

 

Lol, nationalism IS a horrible thing. Sorry, I see no reason to be proud of where I was born. Nationalism breeds wars, hatred and division; sorry, I'd like no part in that. Typical that you'd say I hate America; it's obvious you're a far-right winger with your "if you hate America so much why don't you get out" sloganeering. I could say that you hate America, given that dissent is the most patriotic thing anyone can do, and that the right wing embraces torture and Guantanamo, two things that only serve as a recruitment tool to bring more attacks on our land. However, I won't, as saying someone "hates America" for being pissed off at how far-right wing it has become is not healthy for debate.

Couple of things:

1) You seem to have completely missed the point of the quote. What s/he meant was that there are many places that are worse.

2) Not healthy for debate. In spite of your black/white view of nationalism and politics and the way you assume that anyone that disagrees with you must be far right is probably worse than saying that you're taking your country for granted. Let's be honest here, as bad as you say it is, you still have the luxury to post about it on the internet without being punished.

 

I say this as a left winger who thinks both sides need to grow up...

[SeanyTheSailor]

It is almost amusing that you say "further right than Bush" because I know plenty of people who don't think he was right enough, same with McCain.

 

Yeah, you get farther to the right of Bush by listening to the people who NO ONE in the sixties and seventies listened to: the tea party crowd. You guys think this Tea Party movement is new? Original? Think again. These crazies have always been around, but they were always ignored as the fringe; William Buckley, as crazy as he was, worked his [wagon] off to make them irrelevant. Now they're given a microphone on FOX (which isn't a news station, it's a propaganda pusher), and people like Marco Rubio are pushing people like Charlie Crist out. You can't get much further right than Bush; you'd have to start more wars, take away Social Security, take away Welfare, privatize Medicare and Medicaid, and institute a flat tax.

 

And you say nationalism like a curse word, I think a little pride in what you were given to from birth would do everyone some good, If you hate America so much I can think of plenty of places that would probably change your mind quick fast and in a hurry.

 

Lol, nationalism IS a horrible thing. Sorry, I see no reason to be proud of where I was born. Nationalism breeds wars, hatred and division; sorry, I'd like no part in that. Typical that you'd say I hate America; it's obvious you're a far-right winger with your "if you hate America so much why don't you get out" sloganeering. I could say that you hate America, given that dissent is the most patriotic thing anyone can do, and that the right wing embraces torture and Guantanamo, two things that only serve as a recruitment tool to bring more attacks on our land. However, I won't, as saying someone "hates America" for being pissed off at how far-right wing it is not healthy for debate.

Perhaps I heard wrong but in the 60's they protested accepted culture. Tea parties protest an idea which they oppose much like the Democrats which you can always find waving a sign about something, and these groups always have a camera ready. They have had their microphone now its our turn.

 

Also yeah if you don't like it leave, we take for granted a lot that we have. Also on torture the only one that I could consider torture is waterboarding, and before you scream "WELL IF YOU SUPPORT IT WHY DON'T YOU DO IT!" Give me a professional and I will.

 

Look I have a lot more that I want to say, but I'm not going to because as i continue to realize as I get in more arguments, I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me. I think you are wrong and quite possibly just stupid and I have no doubt you feel the same, so in a sense I am agreeing to disagree so that cooler headed and less "radical" people can have civilized conversation.

[Zierro]

Lol, nationalism IS a horrible thing. Sorry, I see no reason to be proud of where I was born. Nationalism breeds wars, hatred and division; sorry, I'd like no part in that.

 

Well, it also makes friends. When people see someone who likes the same football team as them, they usually engage in a friendly conversation. I'm sure it's true for nationalities too.

[Dupin]

To the best of my knowledge the founding fathers (at least in america) did not design it to be a two party system. While I may be wrong there is no mention of the number of parties (aside from I think there has to be more than one) in the constitution or any other legal documents. My guess is that this system sort of happened off of two parties getting large amounts of funding and telling people what they want to hear.

 

As a matter of fact many of them explicitly warned against "factions," i.e. political parties. Probably because they figured something like what we have now would happen. Smart dudes.

 

This is correct. First of all, two of the things George Washington warned America not to do in his last speech were form political parties and get involved in other nations' business. Oops :?

 

Also, we haven't always had these specific two political parties. The democratic party has always existed in the US (it was called Republican in its early days, strangely), but Republicans were preceded by all sorts of strange things. Like Whigs or something.

 

Edit: Oops. Somehow there was only one page the first time I saw this. Post may be a bit late.

[magekillr]

And you say nationalism like a curse word, I think a little pride in what you were given to from birth would do everyone some good, If you hate America so much I can think of plenty of places that would probably change your mind quick fast and in a hurry.

 

Lol, nationalism IS a horrible thing. Sorry, I see no reason to be proud of where I was born. Nationalism breeds wars, hatred and division; sorry, I'd like no part in that. Typical that you'd say I hate America; it's obvious you're a far-right winger with your "if you hate America so much why don't you get out" sloganeering. I could say that you hate America, given that dissent is the most patriotic thing anyone can do, and that the right wing embraces torture and Guantanamo, two things that only serve as a recruitment tool to bring more attacks on our land. However, I won't, as saying someone "hates America" for being pissed off at how far-right wing it has become is not healthy for debate.

Couple of things:

1) You seem to have completely missed the point of the quote. What s/he meant was that there are many places that are worse.

2) Not healthy for debate. In spite of your black/white view of nationalism and politics and the way you assume that anyone that disagrees with you must be far right is probably worse than saying that you're taking your country for granted. Let's be honest here, as bad as you say it is, you still have the luxury to post about it on the internet without being punished.

 

I say this as a left winger who thinks both sides need to grow up...

 

I understand perfectly well what he meant. It's why people say, "If America sucks so bad, why don't you leave and go live in Mexico?" It's annoying as hell. I live, breathe, and work in politics every day of my life, and have for the past 5 years. I've heard every talking point.

 

I'm not assuming anyone who disagrees with me is a far-right winger, but I've been involved for far too long to pick up the dog whistles. You can tell when someone is far-right based on how they talk, what they say, and where their talking points are coming from. I listen to Rush Limbaugh everyday, I listen to Beck everyday, I hear what they tell their drones to peddle out. I hear someone say "Obama is dithering on his Afghanistan decision," I know exactly who they got their talking point from: [bleep] Cheney. It's common trends that you pick up as you move along and are in the process. Kind of like a guitarist who hears a bad note, when to the untrained ear, you wouldn't hear a difference.

 

I'm fully aware of my own luxuries compared to other countries, but I live here, so I work to make things for the better here. I don't wallow in my possessions, telling people who work for progress in this country to get a life because others have it worse; it's a given others have it worse, just look at Haiti (which is also in the state that they're in because of American/French/Spanish imperialism and overthrow). It does us no good to say "Look at the other countries!" That doesn't get progress here, where I live, where I fight for change.

 

Both sides need to grow up, hmmm, yeah, that'd be nice; it's not going to happen, though. Obama tried that, look what it's gotten him. He's living in a fantasy land, just as every supposed "independent" is. Giving in to right wing memes in this country only fuels it, they grow hungry for more. It's been seen time and time again.

 

"Single payer!" "No no, that's too far to the left. Let's offer a public option!"

 

Conservatives say no.

 

"Public option with a trigger!"

 

Conservatives say no.

 

"Medicare buy-in!"

 

Conservatives say no.

 

"Uh...national based exchange forcing people to buy private insurance?"

 

Conservatives say no.

 

"Ok, state-based exchanges, force people to buy private insurance, no government plan, no government negotiating of drugs, no drug reimportation...good?"

 

Conservatives say no.

 

This video is relevant:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtKkyrZtUaM

[fakeitormakeit2]

Lol, nationalism IS a horrible thing. Sorry, I see no reason to be proud of where I was born. Nationalism breeds wars, hatred and division; sorry, I'd like no part in that.

 

Well, it also makes friends. When people see someone who likes the same football team as them, they usually engage in a friendly conversation. I'm sure it's true for nationalities too.

Nationalism is a strong and common tool for the building of links of friendship in places of work and fun.

 

I have also thought it is better to focus on nationalism to better one's own country as a whole rather then have people run around trying to be a superhero to all getting nothing done, and then having people rather in love with their country in love with their money so everything shifts from loyalty of culture to loyalty to money.

 

Although I do agree with the person above. I rather get tired of the cliche line if you do not like it, leave, because constructive criticism should be a sign of such love of one's country that you love it enough to want it to better itself.

 

The lack of bipartisanship is disgusting. But is of the problem that one says oh it's those stupid extreme right wing hick republicans or those communist bastard democrats, because how cooperative is a bias verbal bashing?

[Lenticular_J]

Right now we need some nationalism to get [cabbage] done. More isolationism, but you can't really have one without the other. But seriously, some [cabbage] needs to go down. Mainly looking at our infrastructure - it's kind of not great.

 

Just thought I'd change the subject. Looks like it worked!

[SeanyTheSailor]

Right now we need some nationalism to get [cabbage] done. More isolationism, but you can't really have one without the other. But seriously, some [cabbage] needs to go down. Mainly looking at our infrastructure - it's kind of not great.

 

Just thought I'd change the subject. Looks like it worked!

Every time I read one of your posts I like you more and more.

[Lenticular_J]

I change my views every single day, though. So there's that. Plus, most of my ideas make no sense whatsoever. Lucky me!

[magekillr]

Adding more, I'll quote Andrew Sullivan, a conservative I LOVE and who I would be willing to work with if I were a member of Congress. Andrew is sensible, he sometimes accepts failed conservative positions, but I can respect differences when they're not completely out of whack. I disagree with Andrew plenty, but I read his blog religiously; he is someone I disagree with, and he's certainly not "far right." He understands where government is necessary, even if he disagrees ideologically, and wants to solve the problems we have without repeating right-wing talking points (tax cuts while balancing the budget, for example, is something that he detests, and he understands the need for fiscal stimulus). Needless to say, I disagree with his opening line about the spending freeze (it is NOT something to be giddy over, from a political standpoint or an economic standpoint). Anyway, without further ado, Andrew Sullivan:

 

Unlike many liberal blogs, I'm encouraged by the spending freeze and thrilled by the debt commission idea. But to my mind, none of this makes any sense unless Obama passes a core political test.

 

Does he have the courage to insist that healthcare reform is not dead? Does he use his clout to pressure the Senate to give the House some signs that the reconciliation strategy can work? Does he use every ounce of political capital to pass this bill, the cornerstone of his reform agenda, the failure of which will mean the end to any grappling with the health insurance crisis for another generation.

 

If he cannot do that, if he punts on this bill, or if he is passive and uncommitted, then those of us who placed hope in his leadership skills will have to acknowledge we hoped too much. The test of leadership is sometimes staying a course even when all the polls and pols have turned against it on a dime. There are times when a president should preside; but there are also times when he must lead.

 

I have one simple test: if the health bill dies from neglect and irresolution, Obama is no leader.

 

He is a follower. He cannot vote present on this one. He has majorities in both Houses and a landslide victory and he is unable to deliver on a core priority in his first year. That's a definition of a failed presidency and it is why the GOP - with nothing to offer the country - decided to make it his Waterloo. They knew and know how gutting this bill and killing reform and suffocating any serious change in this country is their way to a nihilist victory. And such a victory would not be a vindication of Republican policy right now. It would be a perfectly reasonable response to a Democratic party palpably incapable of governing and a president clearly unable to deliver.

 

If he cannot do this, he does not have the fortitude to be a successful president. And his weakness on this will be rightly interpreted as weakness everywhere else. That applies to foreign policy as well, with Netanyahu and Khamenei and Chavez and Sarkozy all watching to see what this guy is made of.

 

These are dark times as the forces of reaction and resistance redouble their efforts to prevent any reform on any issue. Obama was elected to break through that impasse. If he cannot deliver, he must cede to someone who can.

 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/obamas-test-tonight.html

 

Preach it, brother Andrew. If Obama fails on this issue, he's a failure as a leader.

[Azvareth]

I really don't see how FOX is any different from any other news station, if you would like to show proof of the fact that they suck;(mind you, that's a subjective opinion so it really can't be verified to begin with) please, elucidate,

 

Didn't Fox News win an appeal and later counter-sued a former employee who sued the network for firing her after refusing to lie in a news report.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

[Lenticular_J]

America's news stations are all incredibly biased - they simply aren't there for telling news anymore. They're there to entertain a particular audience.

 

I don't really keep up with the news, so.

[RexMilotic]

I'm honestly curious about this. Did these Founding Misters really design a two-party system where politics would be bound to be polarised?

 

George Washington actually warned against having multiple party systems, and currently both our major ones fail.

 

I do agree with Fox News sucking though, I refuse to watch them. I don't watch other stations either, but it's only Fox that gets brought up so often with its crap.

[magekillr]

Ok, so I saw the State of the Union, and I was pretty impressed with it; he didn't run from his policies, he embraced them. This was good.

 

The highlight of the week, however, was certainly NOT the SOTU, but it was his question and answering session with House GOP members. There was lone Obama, entering the cage of 170 or so angry, feisty lions, armed with nothing but his wits, intellect, and yes, without the fabled teleprompter, and he tamed them. This was an absolute decimation of every Republican talking point, without note cards, without anything but his own head. No self-respecting observer will ever again say that Obama cannot operate without a teleprompter. This was the Obama I voted for, great show, Mr. President.

 

Oh, and if you want to see how much hackery and [cabbage] that Fox is peddling, they cut away from the Q&A 20 minutes before it was over; no one talked about it for the rest of the news day. There was no attempt to spin it, dice it, or make it look good for Republicans; they just eliminated it from their memory as if it never happened. That's when you know you dominated every POS Republican talking point out there.

 

And now, The Guardian:

 

"When the Republicans invited President Obama to address their congressional House delegation in Baltimore today, they had no idea how badly it would turn out for them.

 

Presumably the Republicans thought they'd get a high-profile chance to grill the president on live television. But instead, Obama following on from his state of the union address on Wednesday night turned the tables by highlighting the Republicans who opposed his policies and refused to bend, yet were prepared to "turn up and cut ribbons" when their constituents reaped the rewards.

 

Obama also displayed a rare grasp of policy and legislation, wrong-footing his questioners to their face with some stern rebuttal and in some instances quoting their own positions back to them to highlight the contradictions. He mocked the GOP for presenting healthcare reforms as a "Bolshevik plot" and got a laugh, even from the Republican audience and suggested that their approach was counterproductive:

I think we can confidently predict this is the last time the Republicans invite the president to a similar format. Indeed, because the hall the Republicans are holding their event seemed to have just a single TV camera, Obama literally took the spotlight away. Republican questioners showed up as shadowy figures, and when caucus leader Mike Pence kicked off the Republican questions at first he couldn't be heard at all.

 

At the end, shaking hands with the president, Pence's face looked as if he'd sucked a lemon for an hour and in a way he had.

A sign of how compelling the footage was: the US cable networks, always so trigger-happy and ready to move on if an event is looking boring, stuck with the live feed, although Fox did cut away first for analysis.

 

The net effect is that Obama looked serious, reasonable and intelligent. The Republicans got to sound like whiners, complaining about various pet peeves and chewing over their old laundry list of tax cuts and opposition".

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/jan/29/barack-obama-republicans

[SeanyTheSailor]

Ok, so I saw the State of the Union, and I was pretty impressed with it; he didn't run from his policies, he embraced them. This was good.

 

The highlight of the week, however, was certainly NOT the SOTU, but it was his question and answering session with House GOP members. There was lone Obama, entering the cage of 170 or so angry, feisty lions, armed with nothing but his wits, intellect, and yes, without the fabled teleprompter, and he tamed them. This was an absolute decimation of every Republican talking point, without note cards, without anything but his own head. No self-respecting observer will ever again say that Obama cannot operate without a teleprompter. This was the Obama I voted for, great show, Mr. President.

 

Oh, and if you want to see how much hackery and [cabbage] that Fox is peddling, they cut away from the Q&A 20 minutes before it was over; no one talked about it for the rest of the news day. There was no attempt to spin it, dice it, or make it look good for Republicans; they just eliminated it from their memory as if it never happened. That's when you know you dominated every POS Republican talking point out there.

 

And now, The Guardian:

 

"When the Republicans invited President Obama to address their congressional House delegation in Baltimore today, they had no idea how badly it would turn out for them.

 

Presumably the Republicans thought they'd get a high-profile chance to grill the president on live television. But instead, Obama – following on from his state of the union address on Wednesday night – turned the tables by highlighting the Republicans who opposed his policies and refused to bend, yet were prepared to "turn up and cut ribbons" when their constituents reaped the rewards.

 

Obama also displayed a rare grasp of policy and legislation, wrong-footing his questioners to their face with some stern rebuttal and in some instances quoting their own positions back to them to highlight the contradictions. He mocked the GOP for presenting healthcare reforms as a "Bolshevik plot" – and got a laugh, even from the Republican audience – and suggested that their approach was counterproductive:

I think we can confidently predict this is the last time the Republicans invite the president to a similar format. Indeed, because the hall the Republicans are holding their event seemed to have just a single TV camera, Obama literally took the spotlight away. Republican questioners showed up as shadowy figures, and when caucus leader Mike Pence kicked off the Republican questions at first he couldn't be heard at all.

 

At the end, shaking hands with the president, Pence's face looked as if he'd sucked a lemon for an hour – and in a way he had.

A sign of how compelling the footage was: the US cable networks, always so trigger-happy and ready to move on if an event is looking boring, stuck with the live feed, although Fox did cut away first for analysis.

 

The net effect is that Obama looked serious, reasonable and intelligent. The Republicans got to sound like whiners, complaining about various pet peeves and chewing over their old laundry list of tax cuts and opposition".

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/jan/29/barack-obama-republicans

 

I find it amusing that this comes right after he preached about unity between parties. And though what is said may be true i don't think you could have found a much more left-leaning article on the matter.

 

Also why doesn't he stand up to world leaders like this. "Oh we're going to impose tougher sanctions." why not "Iran quit [bleep]ing about or we will [bleep] you up." (obviously not those words but something to that order)

[magekillr]

I find it amusing that this comes right after he preached about unity between parties. And though what is said may be true i don't think you could have found a much more left-leaning article on the matter.

 

Lol, dude, get real and own up. The GOP got their [wagon] spanked like little children who had done something wrong, and even the people over at Free Republic will tell you so. He did talk about unity; he showed just how far he's willing to go, and how much the GOP is uninterested. That was the purpose of this exercise.

 

What we had was an adult in the room, willing to talk honestly about policy, while little children GOPers tried playing gotcha; they invited him, and Obama invited the cameras. They accepted, he accepted. The GOP seriously thought they could outsmart him, they seriously thought he needed a teleprompter. Make no mistake, they only did this because they thought they'd make him look foolish; they will not make this mistake again (they're never going to invite him again).

 

Also why doesn't he stand up to world leaders like this. "Oh we're going to impose tougher sanctions." why not "Iran quit [bleep]ing about or we will [bleep] you up." (obviously not those words but something to that order)

 

Because sabre rattling doesn't get you anywhere, and sabre rattling isn't standing up to anyone; it makes an appearance that you are big and strong to make up for areas that you're weak, while accomplishing nothing. It's kind of like macho [wagon] with small penises.

 

Oh, and just like I predicted, you're a far-right loon. It's so easy to spot ;)

[SeanyTheSailor]

I find it amusing that this comes right after he preached about unity between parties. And though what is said may be true i don't think you could have found a much more left-leaning article on the matter.

 

Lol, dude, get real and own up. The GOP got their [wagon] spanked like little children who had done something wrong, and even the people over at Free Republic will tell you so. He did talk about unity; he showed just how far he's willing to go, and how much the GOP is uninterested. That was the purpose of this exercise.

 

What we had was an adult in the room, willing to talk honestly about policy, while little children GOPers tried playing gotcha; they invited him, and Obama invited the cameras. They accepted, he accepted. The GOP seriously thought they could outsmart him, they seriously thought he needed a teleprompter. Make no mistake, they only did this because they thought they'd make him look foolish; they will not make this mistake again (they're never going to invite him again).

 

Also why doesn't he stand up to world leaders like this. "Oh we're going to impose tougher sanctions." why not "Iran quit [bleep]ing about or we will [bleep] you up." (obviously not those words but something to that order)

 

Because sabre rattling doesn't get you anywhere, and sabre rattling isn't standing up to anyone; it makes an appearance that you are big and strong to make up for areas that you're weak, while accomplishing nothing. It's kind of like macho [wagon] with small penises.

 

Oh, and just like I predicted, you're a far-right loon. It's so easy to spot ;)

 

Ok they got spanked, i didn't watch it, that doesn't mean that the article wasn't left leaning...

 

And as for sword rattling if the world had stood up to Hitler when he took the Rhineland WWII probably never would of happened, but no WE [bleep]ed about and he [bleep]ed up Europe. Also you're saying we shouldn't play to our strengths because... And if you wanna talk about accomplishing nothing how 'bout those sanctions, last time I checked Iran didn't give a [cabbage].

 

I'd also like to point out that nowhere did i insult you or your beliefs and i think it speaks volumes when you go straight to insults against me.

[magekillr]

More GOP hypocrisy and grinding the Senate to a halt over something that they attacked on the campaign left and right? Say it isn't so.

 

The Senate has, as John Marshall says, jumped the shark. Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama has now threatened the Senate with extortion: "give Alabama earmarks, or I will put a hold on every appointment." I thought Republicans HATED earmarks:

 

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." The magazine reported aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were the source of the news about Shelby's blanket hold.

 

The Mobile Press-Register picked up the story early this afternoon. The paper confirmed Reid's account of the hold, and reported that a Shelby spokesperson "did not immediately respond to phone and e-mail messages seeking confirmation of the senator's action or his reason for doing so."

Shelby has been tight-lipped about the holds, offering only an unnamed spokesperson to reporters today to explain them. Aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid broke the news of the blanket hold this afternoon. Reid aides told CongressDaily the hold extends to "all executive nominations on the Senate calendar."

 

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.

 

A San Diego State University professor and Congressional expert told the Mobile paper "he knew of no previous use of a blanket hold" in recent history.

 

Updates From TPM Coverage Today:

 

- Shelby confirmed the holds, and lashed out at Obama over the Alabama programs.

 

- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office first doubted the story was true. Later, after Shelby confirmed it, McConnell's office refused to talk about the holds.

 

- White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called the Shelby holds "silliness" in this morning's gaggle with reporters.

 

- An interview Shelby gave to a TV station in Alabama earlier this week offers some more insight into why Shelby is holding up Obama's nominees -- he thinks the White House is biased against Alabama.

 

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/report-shelby-blocks-all-obama-nominations-in-the-senate-over-al-earmarks.php

[1230abcz]

Lol, I saw Obama kick GOP's [wagon], too. FOX was covering it until they realized GOP was being hulk-smashed, then they cut it off. When they were asked why they cut off the news, they said, "Because we're a fair news network." I lol'd. Lol.

[Asmodeous4]

Reading about some of these American news stations is quite worrying and I have to say I'm glad to live in Britain, at least some of the press here isn't ridiculously biased.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Reading about some of these American news stations is quite worrying and I have to say I'm glad to live in Britain, at least some of the press here isn't ridiculously biased.

Yes, I rather enjoy the BBC.

[dangeresque]

Just reading the first post.

 

I thought that the point of politics was to stand up for what you believe, atleast the GOP is doing that.