And the new strategy is......

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

This is a new strategy?

I thought blaming the Party of No had been the strategy since 2008.

I prefer the "Party of Less". Less government, less taxes, less giveaways.

Vs.

The "Party of More"

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

I prefer the "Party of Less". Less government, less taxes, less giveaways.

Vs.

The "Party of More"

Oh really?

How about Sen. Richard Shelby's blanket hold on all of Obama's nominations. At first you might think this is me arguing the "Party of No" point, oh but that would be incorrect sir. This is me contradicting your "Party of Less" - specifically the less giveaways part.

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.

...

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."

Report: Shelby Blocks All Obama Nominations In The Senate Over AL Earmarks | TPMDC

$85billion - they are the "Party of Less" after all.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Oh really?

How about Sen. Richard Shelby's blanket hold on all of Obama's nominations. At first you might think this is me arguing the "Party of No" point, oh but that would be incorrect sir. This is me contradicting your "Party of Less" - specifically the less giveaways part.


Report: Shelby Blocks All Obama Nominations In The Senate Over AL Earmarks | TPMDC

$85billion - they are the "Party of Less" after all.

So Shelby is trying to improve his state by bringing money and jobs there. Isn't that why the people elected him? I thought every politician elected is supposed to fight for their constituents, whether they're Republican or Democrat.

If you want to get into all the earmarks proposed by the Dems, it would take you right up until I get my first keeper bass of 2010. It's all well and good that you can pick out one instance (I'm sure there are many more) by a Republican to support your argument, but the truth is that the Dems are much more about spending tax dollars on social welfare as opposed to creating jobs or growing industry in their states.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

So Shelby is trying to improve his state by bringing money and jobs there. Isn't that why the people elected him? I thought every politician elected is supposed to fight for their constituents, whether they're Republican or Democrat.

If you want to get into all the earmarks proposed by the Dems, it would take you right up until I get my first keeper bass of 2010. It's all well and good that you can pick out one instance (I'm sure there are many more) by a Republican to support your argument, but the truth is that the Dems are much more about spending tax dollars on social welfare as opposed to creating jobs or growing industry in their states.

Ah, but wasn't everyone in an rage about how the Dems are the ones playing politics? So, this single individual is going to lockout all discussions about every nomination because the pet projects in his state got cut - basically, a child throwing a hissy fit.

In a time when the Republicans are on the "we're trying to stop this frivolous spending of the Dems", he had to have known this would get national attention and make the entire party look bad.

You're right that this is certainly one instance out of probably dozens. But, the reason I posted this was because the timing was all too perfect. Dems have somewhat successfully labeled the GOP as the party of no and these actions re-enforce it. Then tack on how much the GOP complains about how Obama needs to cut back spending, and you have him throwing a temper tantrum because he wants $85billion in pet projects for his state.

We're in a current political state where everyone is guilty by association. If someone with an -R at the end of their name does something stupid, they are all found guilty of it.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Ah, but wasn't everyone in an rage about how the Dems are the ones playing politics? So, this single individual is going to lockout all discussions about every nomination because the pet projects in his state got cut - basically, a child throwing a hissy fit.

In a time when the Republicans are on the "we're trying to stop this frivolous spending of the Dems", he had to have known this would get national attention and make the entire party look bad.

You're right that this is certainly one instance out of probably dozens. But, the reason I posted this was because the timing was all too perfect. Dems have somewhat successfully labeled the GOP as the party of no and these actions re-enforce it. Then tack on how much the GOP complains about how Obama needs to cut back spending, and you have him throwing a temper tantrum because he wants $85billion in pet projects for his state.

We're in a current political state where everyone is guilty by association. If someone with an -R at the end of their name does something stupid, they are all found guilty of it.

First off, I think all politicians generally have been doing a lousy job. But, in this case, I don't blame Shelby. I don't see this as frivolous spending. The article said this money was already earmarked for the programs, so it's not some new stimulus money. He's pushing for something that he had already been promised for his constituents. He's trying to help his state by generating jobs and income. I would venture that many people would be for that. His job is to represent the people that elected him, just as Ted Kennedy's job was here in MA. If John Kerry or Scott Brown were fighting for money to help industry and create jobs in MA, I'd support it regardless of whether they were an R or a D. I guess it's easier to rip someone if you don't like their political party rather than laud them for doing what the people who elected them want them to do.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

First off, I think all politicians generally have been doing a lousy job. But, in this case, I don't blame Shelby. I don't see this as frivolous spending. The article said this money was already earmarked for the programs, so it's not some new stimulus money. He's pushing for something that he had already been promised for his constituents. He's trying to help his state by generating jobs and income. I would venture that many people would be for that. His job is to represent the people that elected him, just as Ted Kennedy's job was here in MA. If John Kerry or Scott Brown were fighting for money to help industry and create jobs in MA, I'd support it regardless of whether they were an R or a D. I guess it's easier to rip someone if you don't like their political party rather than laud them for doing what the people who elected them want them to do.

Ah, an attempt at the high road coupled with sly backhanded jabs. Like I said, the Republicans have been harping on how we need to cut spending as a whole - that the federal government overall needs to make cuts.

What he's doing is no different than if I was killing my limit of fish with a commercial permit and then stating that if we don't kill less fish, the results will be disastrous. He's part of a party that states very vocally and collectively that the Democrats are spending too much. If they think so, then they should set an example and start making sacrifices.

"The federal budget is too high, but I don't want *my* state to have to make sacrifices."

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Ah, an attempt at the high road coupled with sly backhanded jabs. Like I said, the Republicans have been harping on how we need to cut spending as a whole - that the federal government overall needs to make cuts.

What he's doing is no different than if I was killing my limit of fish with a commercial permit and then stating that if we don't kill less fish, the results will be disastrous. He's part of a party that states very vocally and collectively that the Democrats are spending too much. If they think so, then they should set an example and start making sacrifices.

"The federal budget is too high, but I don't want *my* state to have to make sacrifices."

I don't know JD. I htink he's trying to better his state, not keep it from making sacrifices. If he was looking to build a new sports stadium with public money or use the money in a manner in which it wouldn't help the economy, I'd agree with you. I look at it as Shelby trying to get money he was promised so that he can help the people in his state by creating jobs and revenue. Can't we agree that jobs need to be created and bringing new businesses to Alabama will do that. I'd rather that than put more money into the coffers to be spent on half-cocked health care plans.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Ah, an attempt at the high road coupled with sly backhanded jabs.

I wouldn't say it was an attempt at taking the high road. I decided to stay off the high road a long time ago. It's too crowded for me.