Stevens confirms he placed secret hold on bill.
By on Aug 30th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Stevens confirms he placed secret hold on bill.
A spokesman for Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) has “confirmed his boss was the man behind the secret hold on the Coburn/Obama spending database bill,” according to TPMmuckraker. Background on the story HERE.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
29 Responses to “Stevens confirms he placed secret hold on bill.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
No bridge for you!
August 30th, 2006 at 3:11 pmLet's just say it. Stevens is a whore. He gets filthy earmarks and budget graft and then trys to hide the money trail. Whore! Now if we had an actual "leftie" press they'd investigate every dollar going to Alaska. NOBODY fights this hard to prevent following the money UNLESS THEY ARE DIRTY.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:20 pmThe Senator to Nowhere strikes again.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:26 pmOK. I'll say it too. Stevens is a whore.
Are all ReichWingsNuts whores? Until proven otherwise, I'd say yes, they are. All of them.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:27 pmNice victory for the blogs.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:31 pmAs people in the earlier thread regarding this subject asked: exactly what was the mechanism utilized here? How is it that a lone senator can exert a unilateral covert filibuster on a bill???
Honestly, I'm asking. Does anyone know? And doesn't this seem like a bit of a problem?
August 30th, 2006 at 3:32 pmHe just wants to share his miserable, bitter existence with the rest of us.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:33 pmTripmaster, I'm wondering the same thing. And I'm wondering why nobody did it before Bush invaded Iraq.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:34 pmComment by bones — August 30, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
Every dime I make is from earmarks. Every state does it. The problem is, and we've seen it time and again with the Federal Katrina response, is the hypocrisy.
These asshole can't run from their disasters and hide behind small government ideas.
On Frontline lastnight, which I strongly suggest everyone watch, the repeated "conservative" theme was "Katrina was a State problem and the States would have been offended if we helped to much"...
August 30th, 2006 at 3:38 pmTrip,
I did some searching and got this.
hold - An informal practice by which a Senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The Majority Leader need not follow the Senator’s wishes, but is on notice that the opposing Senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure.
So he has to have the Majority Leader hold this from vote. So this is not just the crazy loon from the north but more Repugs are involved. And if only one senator doesn't want this bill to pass then there is no threat of a filibuster so the Majority Leader should put it to the floor. We'll see.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:38 pm#6 - ...How is it that a lone senator can exert a unilateral covert filibuster on a bill???
Honestly, I’m asking. Does anyone know? And doesn’t this seem like a bit of a problem?
Indeed. Excellent questions. What happened here? How is such a thing possible?
August 30th, 2006 at 3:38 pm#10 - Ah. I see.
What will WingNuts do next?
August 30th, 2006 at 3:39 pmplacing a hold is illegal and no one can explain why it is allowed by the senate. it is a "good ole boy" holdover one is lead to believe. Trent Lott did it whenever he knew he had something to hide, or would lose a vote.
our senators are criminals, line em up. we obviously have nothing to lose. As long as the executive branch is served first.
what the hell happend to my country?
August 30th, 2006 at 3:39 pmIsn't this like one of your junior managers denying your right to examine the company records? I know this is legal, but for God's sake, how and why is this legal? What better proof that the country belongs to elected officials and NOT to the people.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:43 pmFrist should be hammered on this by everyone for not putting this to the floor with an overwhelming majority behind it. A hold is only a request by a senator and the Majority Leader can choose to deny that request.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:44 pmIt's "our money," and I'd like to know how they are spending it. I don't think that's too much to ask.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:47 pmeven israel tape records their meetings for public scrutiny. wtf!? why doesn't the congress demand the same!
August 30th, 2006 at 3:53 pm6 and others asking: there's a good piece on TPMucraker that explains the secret hold option. the link is http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001435.php
August 30th, 2006 at 3:54 pmSnipped from Muckraker: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001435.php
read more at http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001435.php
August 30th, 2006 at 3:57 pmA "hold" was recently used by Hilary Clinton to block business on approving the new FDA appointee until Plan B was approved. Miraculously, and suddenly Plan B after being on hold for years was approved in less than 72 hours. I don't mind a hold but then you should have to defend it if called on it. Clinton has a reasonable defense I think most would understand, "Tubes" Stevens would be embarrased if called to defend his hold on the floor of the Senate.
August 30th, 2006 at 4:00 pmUsing the "hold" technique has been in Senate tradition for a very long time.
What's unusual is the other Senator's allowing the person who placed the hold to be identified. Ususally, it's kept secret.
It's an archane institution with many traditions dating back centuries. Thank god it isn't run like the House though.
August 30th, 2006 at 4:16 pmThis "hold" has one purpose and one purpose only, to protect the pigs at the trough. The Senators getting fat from the pork are trying to hide. In the case of Stevens, that would have to be some camoflage, since he is one of the worst of the porkbarrel politicians.
August 30th, 2006 at 4:42 pmStevens should be hung by his gahonas for this!
August 30th, 2006 at 4:53 pmHey Stevens...hold this...secretly though...
August 30th, 2006 at 4:55 pmStevens reminds me of rummy, screaming, spoiled, vindictive old white men that should not hold any office..Remember when he threw his little fit last spring on the senate floor..Had a tantrum because his Alaska drilling and bridge to no where except his wife's property was being blocked.....He told all the senators then he would never forget what and who voted against him and they could never count on him again....Bla,Bla, Bla...
After watching this entire mess for year's we definetly need to get rid of all these old men who only care about their own self intrests...They have been in bed with all the big corporations, lobbiests and big money so long they have forgotten the constitution, our country and her people...That goes for the left, right and center...If they aren't doing their job they need to be voted out.......Blessings....Peace
August 30th, 2006 at 7:25 pmSen. Stevens has taken that bridge to nowhere - he is looking for his brain. He knows he left it somewhere. Maybe it's clogging the "tubes" of the internet.
He is an old man, slipping into senility (which frequently means behaving like a child) and he should be sent home. He gets pork barrel funding for home state projects to the detriment of the nation as a whole.
In learning a bit about "holds" in the Senate, I think he had to have the cooperation of Frist and a few others of equal power.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:07 pmSelfish thinking, self-serving action.
Well I, for one, think a Ted Stevens filibuster would make for hilarious TV viewing. It would give Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert material to last a month. We've all seen how incoherent Stevens is when he (supposedly) has had his nap. Imagine how crantankerous he'll be when he's into his 9th hour of non-stop talking. I think the country could use the good laugh. And if it keeps the Senate from enabling anything else of Bush's agenda, then so much the better. I say, "Bring it on!" Stevens getting cranky on TV - Bush not getting his agenda - it's a win-win for the American people.
August 31st, 2006 at 7:55 amTed Stevens couldn't carry Lamont's water.
Ted Stevens can't hold his own water.
Bill Frist should be publicly ridiculed for even considering honoring
August 31st, 2006 at 9:39 amthis secret hold. My God, it sounds like a fricken' fraternity house,
allowing shit to happen & hoping the Dean doesn't find out.
Pathetic.
Dishonorable.
Unamerican.
Sadly, this describes those in power today.
Wake up, America, before they pull the curtain on freedom.
I understand the "secret hold" option better than I did last week... But why doesn't one Democratic senator do the same for Bush's assinine Republican bills? Why are we only hearing about this more now for something both parties agree is a good idea?
August 31st, 2006 at 2:02 pm