Repub Senator Releases Some Holds

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. is releasing most of the 80 holds he placed blocking Senate action on Obama appointees to federal posts, a move he undertook to compel passage of a $40 billion tanker refueling project for Northrup Grumman and a $45 million earmark for a Terrorist Explosives Devices Analytical Center, both in his state. He declined a CBS News interview request to explain his actions.

Posted by rcade at 11:10 AM | 28 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry

Amazon.com Widgets

Front Page
News Weblog
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

RSS Feed

Author Info

rcade

Private E-mail
Visit Home Page

Joined 2003/04/04
Visited 2010/03/21

Status: editor

MORE STORIES

Health Reform Passes House (406 comments) ...

Gay Couple Turned Away from B&B (10 comments) ...

Breitbart Lied to Pimp ACORN Story (13 comments) ...

Repubs Denounce Racial, Gay Slurs (21 comments) ...

US Missiles Kill 8 Militants in Pakistan (7 comments) ...

Stupak Will Vote Yes on Health Reform (85 comments) ...

Retort: The Sunday Nooner (36 comments) ...

Northern Iowa Knocks Off No. 1 Kansas (19 comments) ...

Taking Your Home Off the Grid (30 comments) ...

Shapiro: Mission Accomplished in Iraq (17 comments) ...

Retort: The Saturday Nooner (35 comments) ...

Pope Linked to Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal (27 comments) ...

Retort: The Friday Nooner (59 comments) ...

Netanyahu's Bro-in-Law: Obama Hates Jews (65 comments) ...

Orly Taitz Runs for Calif. Secretary of State (20 comments) ...

Special Features

Daily Nooner

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

How nice of him to release some of them. Keeping the rest until he gets the Alabama form of the Cornhusker kickback is lousy politics.

#1 | Posted by rcade at 2010-02-09 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Our wallets are safer now that this asshole King of Pork is dead. He did enought damage already. I agree with Wisgod!"

Four More Years!

Posted by member2586

#2 | Posted by Redneckville at 2010-02-09 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

the contract is worth up to $40 billion...Northrup has contributed more than $100,000 to Shelby over the years.

I'm impressed that for only $100,000, you can convince your Senator to funnel $40,000,000,000 of pork to your business. That's a 400,000:1 return on investment. With potential payouts like that you'd be foolish not to buy both Senators...

Oh wait.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2010-02-09 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It's not pork because it creates jobs." --Buffalo Bob

#4 | Posted by TylerDurden at 2010-02-09 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

If Sen Shelby keeled over dead today would it be appropraite to state that he is another example of why we need term limits in DC?

or would that be too mean?

LOL

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2010-02-09 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2010-02-09 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag: Didn't Protect My Premium Percentages made off the Suffering of Others.

#6 | Posted by Redneckville at 2010-02-09 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

"or would that be too mean?"

You would have to ask the Murtha bashers about that.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-09 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

You would have to ask the Murtha bashers about that.

bullshit. you would have to ask the Murtha shills about that. Their outrage is what drove the issue.

Certainly, many right wing comments were way over the line and I am not including those for discussion.

#8 | Posted by eberly at 2010-02-09 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

6 | Posted by Redneckville at 2010-02-09 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag: Eberly always gets paid for making others suffer.

#9 | Posted by eberly at 2010-02-09 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

"6 | Posted by Redneckville at 2010-02-09 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag: Eberly always gets paid for making others suffer. "

You forgot the "Praise Jesus" salutation

#10 | Posted by Redneckville at 2010-02-09 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Good Grief douchneck, I was patronizing you and you don't even get it.

I guess I have to ask WTF "minimum percentages" meant in the first place.

#11 | Posted by eberly at 2010-02-09 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Air Force prefers the Airbus airframe over the Boeing model. Boeing believed they had the $300 billion contract in the bag and (from what I've read) ignored or discounted the Air Forces' concerns over Boeing's proposed airframe, and have been throwing big $$$ around the beltway to keep Airbus from getting the contract. As much as I think Senator Pork is a obstructionist prick, the tanker would be ultimately be built in this country by American workers and is (by most accounts) the right system for the job.

I'm just bone-weary tired of politics getting in the way of our national security. If the top brass of the Air Force prefers the Airbus tanker because they believe it is superior to Boeing's, then it's good enough for me.

#12 | Posted by dutch46 at 2010-02-09 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why should we buy military equipment from foreign companies?

#13 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-02-09 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why should we buy military equipment from foreign companies?

Because that's how the free market works?

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2010-02-09 12:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

The airframe would be built in Alabama by Americans, you knuckle-dragging twit and it's the system the United States Air Force prefers over Boeing. Northrup/Grumman isn't exactly a "foreign" company.

Here's some light reading for you (providing you can actually read in the first place...there are occasions that I have my doubts).

www.defensereview.com

#15 | Posted by dutch46 at 2010-02-09 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Because that's how the free market works?"

As in most things oversimplifying just doesn't work. Airbus is and always has been subsidized by the EU government so it competes unfairly with Boeing.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-09 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

The airframe would be built in Alabama by Americans, you knuckle-dragging twit and it's the system the United States Air Force prefers over Boeing. Northrup/Grumman isn't exactly a "foreign" company.

Yea, take that, and they will be be burning 5,000 gallons a minute of good old fashioned Arab oil to make low altitude practice runs over my house 10 times a day.

#17 | Posted by RingMaster at 2010-02-09 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Shelby is a perfect example of an arrogant, condescending Conservative and the way they behave. Extortionist at work, following the example of blue dog "Conservative" Democrats.

#18 | Posted by nutcase at 2010-02-09 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

5000 gallons of Jet-A a minute? Please...hyperbole does not help your argument. I doubt the gas you're burning in whatever two or four wheel conveyance you're tooling around Oahu in was made from pinapple husks. And air-refuel tankers do not usually attempt low altitude refueling. If Boeing had offered a superior system to begin with, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You must live close to Hickam or Barbers Point. If so, you'll complain about the noise no matter who gets the contract.

#19 | Posted by dutch46 at 2010-02-09 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Airbus is and always has been subsidized by the EU government so it competes unfairly with Boeing.

Yeah, but Boeing was only allowed to purchase McDonnell-Douglas because regulators argued, well, that will give Boeing a monopoly in the USA, but Airbus will provide competition globally, so that's "close enough."

Also, you know, if the EU subsidizes Airbus, and Airbus builds our new planes, then don't we indirectly benefit from the EU subsidy?

I can see the argument for giving the contract to an American company on principle but then Airbus would (rightly) point out that the USA is guilty of the very same subsidy for an American company that we look unfavorably upon when it happens in the EU.

Thanks for the Defense Review link Dutch46. That was succint.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2010-02-09 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Also, you know, if the EU subsidizes Airbus, and Airbus builds our new planes, then don't we indirectly benefit from the EU subsidy?"

good point, I don't have a position on this one way or the other. I would if it were China bidding to build US military planes because they are our economic enemy IMHO and will be a more real enemy in the forseeable future IMHO. Europe is and will continue to be our ally and they buying from them does not drive down wages here because they pay comparable wages.

#21 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-09 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't have a position on this one way or the other.

I believe that innovation/invention and manufacturing are "joined at the hip". If you control the manufacturing process, you have an opportunity to influence the course of future technology.

There is going to be a significant amount of engineering required to manufacture these planes. Where will the engineering be done: here or in Europe? Who's going to be doing the engineering: Americans or Europeans? Who will own the patents that will surely come from such a massive undertaking: an American company or a European one?

Although manufacturing jobs are critical to our economy, engineering jobs and control of the technology is just as important.

#22 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2010-02-09 04:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Why should we buy military equipment from foreign companies?

#13 | Posted by Sniper"

Hey "Sniper" you seem to know so much about guns in the US military. Care to guess where Heckler & Koch originates?

#23 | Posted by furio at 2010-02-09 05:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

snipe,

so we can depend on China providing us our weapons of mass destruction when we attack them, right?

#24 | Posted by nutcase at 2010-02-09 05:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

China could do more damage to the world economy by simply closing their borders for a year than any previous war ever did.

The US military would not be able to purchase 95% of their stuff because of Chinese components or tooling needed to produce it. Most of these things are only produced in China and the production capability for anyone else to make them would take many months or possibly years to build.

China owns the world already. They have no need to ever think of military action.

#25 | Posted by axe at 2010-02-09 05:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why should we buy military equipment from foreign companies?

#13 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-02-09 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe because the Air Force doesn't want the Boeing version and says the Northrop Grumman version is much better.

#26 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-02-10 03:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

*Airbus, not NG.

#27 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-02-10 03:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

no comment needed for this

www.redstate.com

#28 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2010-02-10 12:12 PM | Reply | Flag: