And the hold is all about pork...imagine that. The President wants to stop funding a plane that the defense dept. doesn't want any more of. It's a stop the spending issue that one might think the Republicans would be all over and the media would be all over and the Dems would be all over.

There is more irony to this story than meets the eye.

chris, while I don't condone what Senator Shelby did, I also have to point out that the Democrats tried to block just about every nominee Bush put out there. It may not be the exact same thing but goes to prove that both the Republicans and Democrats are nothing more than obstructionists. The fact that the media sometines does print certain things while they ignore others doesn't prove one way or another that they have a right or left wing bias. Sometimes Fox New has covered things, including those favorable to Obama that others ignored, yet Obama continues to call Fox News biased against him and will not give them any interviews. That too is unheard of in this Country.

Shelby is an opportunist (and a Birther) interested only in lining his own wallet. He's in a snit because two Alabama-based federal programs worth about $45 billion are in jeopardy of being cut. We're not dealing with a firm ideological stand. Shelby is playing stick up. "Gimme my money and I'll give you the Senate back!"

This is typical of the entitlement attitude that pervades our politics and national discourse. If we don't get what we want, if we don't like what someone else is doing, we throw a temper tantrum completely at odds with common sense, the will of "the people," and the business of government itself. Why should a great nation of 300 million people even bother to maintain a republic if one lone senator can hold it hostage to advance his own interests?

Loomis, while there is always Politics as usual on both sides of the aisle, your dismissing this as "Politics as usual" ignores the fact, that the level of obstructism is, is way beyond typical Politics.

There is no comparison to the hold's put in place during Bush's terms, when you compare the holds put in place during Obama's first 13 months in office. It's a whole new ballgame. I'm not going to cite facts and figures, because it's easy enough to research.

That's not the point of the post though. The point is Media bias. You dismiss that too. If the "Media" as so making talking heads like to rail about, was truly "liberal", then "a blood in the sand" item like putting a hold on ALL nominees, would be dominating the airwaves. Yet, you hardly hear a peep.

Obama actually gave O'Reilly time, two segments to be exact when he was running for office. In all honesty, do you believe Fox provides balanced coverage of Obama, or is it biased? On the flip side, how many "exclusive" interviews did Fox grant Cheney and Bush? Too many to count. Again, this is not the point of the post. Yes, there are Media sources that are biased either way. However, to say the Media is largely Liberal biased is a giant Canard. It was always just a talking point. The gullible swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

" I admit it; the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures. ~ William Kristol

-

"Sure, I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage - all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we conservatives kid about the "Liberal Media," but every Republican on earth does that. " ~ Pat Buchanan

-

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, former CIA Director

-

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"If we don't get what we want, if we don't like what someone else is doing,

we throw a temper tantrum completely at odds with common sense......"---Skeptic

Of all people on the planet to be pointing this out as a character flaw....wow, pot & kettle!

Chrishamm: Fox news and several of their comentators have open invatations for Obama to come onto their shows. He choses not to. Good points though about the media only reporting what they want us to know base on their opinions of what they think we should know.

With all due respect this is 'tradition' is as anti-democratic as the idea of a 'super majority'. No matter which party is in power this violates the spirit of democracy and should be Unconstitutional!

Dr Bill Kirby

Auburn City Council

Get rid of the earmarks and Shelby won't have any bacon to bring home. As we all can see this is not just Shelby.

"While he is not done unpacking, California's newest congressman is more than ready to play a time-honored game: It's called Bring Home the Bacon.

"If there are earmarks, I'll make sure my district gets its share," said Garamendi, of Walnut Grove.

He has a message for purists who object to members of Congress fighting for money for their special projects.

"My task is to make sure that the money comes home," he said. "And if it comes in earmarks, it'll come in earmarks." Bee

chase2you -

FoxNews orchestrates, promotes and funds the Teabaggers, the anti-Obama wing of the GOP. FoxNews is the Ministry of Propaganda of the Republican Party (see "Vids"). CNN and MSNBC aired President Obama's address, and Fox instead aired Sarah Palin's speech to the Teabagger Party then aired the softball interviews following the speech. You betcha! Fox Nation hate mongers consistently rail against First Lady Michelle Obama. Because for FoxNews, no shot is too cheap.

So what's that you say? President Obama has snubbed Fox's invitations to appear? Who would have guessed?

(btw, "invitations" is not spelled "invatations.")

Chrishamm,

"Let's once and for all acknowledge that Media is a business. They tell the stories they want to tell, in order to boost ratings, and to sell advertising. The materiality of the story does not matter. All that matters is what sells newspapers, magazines, advertisements or commercials."

Fox news has the highest ratings in the visual media. They must be telling stories the public wants to hear.

JonGreen: Go to foxnews.com...there you'll find a tabloidish site that would put TMZ to shame...I guess that's what people like..otherwise The Star, National Enquirer et al wouldn't be located at the checkout stand.

he baaaddd!!!

Waaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!

Wow, it is hard not to laugh out loud at the hypocrisy.

For only a few years in the last 5 decades the Republicans held a majority in the Senate and were also held hostage by a minority of Democrats and a few RINOs like John McCain.

Now, the Democrats are in the majority and being held hostage by the Republicans and a few DINOs and look at the whining. LOL..seriously, LOL.

Dear Democrats.. we need more "Bi-Partisanship". Here is how to fix this problem. Cut the size of government, Cut taxes, Eliminate most of the unnecessary social departments within the federal government..that is how to be Bi-Partisan.

Bwaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

steely...FYI... FoxNews is barely more conservative than most of the other mainstream media outlets that are so far left of center its ridiculous.

Look at the crap they put on as "news".

The only difference between FN and the rest is that FN actually will have conservative commentators to balance their liberal commentators..and in fact, have more conservative than liberal.

But CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC... they do not have any conservatives at all. Maybe one who pretends to be conservative, but can be "convinced he is wrong" on a regular basis.

Steely: Why does CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC etc, never invite Palin or other conservatives on their shows? They only attack them... So much for fair and balanced reporting. In my honest opinion FOX is the only network that has both Conservative and Liberals on at the same time to talk about issues. So you get both sides of the story... and entertainment... not just the one sided liberal stuff on most media outlets. And that is precisely why Fox News is killing all the other media outlets with the highest viewer ratings of all televised news outlets.

Just maybe Fox is the nations number one news outlet is because more people watch it than any other. I bet that just really sticks in your craw does it not. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC are going down that liberal road of Air America...... A slow painful no viewers to watch us death.

JonGreen, what's your point? I think you reinforce my point.

GP, Chase. Do you guys actually read?

Why would the supposed liberal media virtually ignore a "Blood in the Water topic", like one Senator blocking all the nominations for a sitting Democratic President. I can understand why Fox wouldn't report on it, however, it doesn't explain why the majority of media ignored the story.

It gets back to the premise of my point. Media company's are run by business people, they tell stories that get attention, and get readers.

The liberal media myth has always been baloney.

The real answer is the facts don't match your own narrative so you ignore the facts.

chrishamm: Did you hear? Shelby got his pork, so now he's withdrawing the holds on Obama's nominations...

Real principled guy that Shelby...

Actually the US media is not just both liberal and conservative but actually statist in orientation. Washington journalists pander to powerful personalities of both liberal and conservative ideologies in the same manner that Hollywood journalists pander to the most powerful agents and studio execs hoping to get that "producer credit" so that they can segue into a real career and start pulling down some serious bucks. New York based media types engage in the same flattery of powerful financial types. The Washington media circus needs well defined characters to "sell" the drama. Thus you have the "liberal" & "conservative" labels to create definition and contrast. Anyone remember way back in the day when Dennis Kucinich was "pro-life"? Before he was able to run for the presidency as a "liberal" Democrat, he was forced to modify his position to "pro-choice". This was so his packaging would fit the narrative and be easier to sell. His personal ideology and/or integrity was way secondary to the marketing.

Anyway,Thos Payne, your post of 2:39 does not explain WHY the $45B programs were "in jeopardy". Any thoughts on that? Wonder if that scary moment during the Bernanke confirmation hearing set some pre-emptive moves into play? I think the real question here is how much real money did the Bernanke confirmation cost the taxpayers?

Actually Chris: Shelby's hold was a non-issue. That is why the media did not cover it.

Gold_Panner: So YOU say...I heard it reported last night...it was scuzzball politics at it's worst....Just because it was being practiced by a Repub doesn't make it a non-issue.

All of media is biased and lean toward their agenda a good example is GE and the money they will make by forcing the liberal agenda upon the American people, it is they who buy the Dems and Repubs as recent bank and auto bailouts reveal. There is not ten cents worth of difference between the corporations and the politicians they are in cahoots together and will remain so as long as the people do not move to correct the raping of our federal government or should I say what used to be a federal government which has been a government that is strangely different from anything experienced in this nation since it's founding. This threat that is before us now began in a subtle fashion with building of the railroads. Progressivism is a major threat that its supporters have been successful in making the American citizen comfortable with. If the principles of republicanism (not the party) was followed as they should be this nation it would still be proud and free. A super majority is essential for the protection of both the majority and the minority as is the electoral college system likewise is. They prevent to small a number or to large of a number from controlling all others.

GP, even you don't buy that.

steely, Chris got it.

momof11 -

No, none. I just scanned the highlights and don't know exactly what the defense earmarks were for. You certainly nailed it on the Left-Right label thing. Nowadays, when I now read some of Barry Goldwater's remarks - especially on homosexuality and the unholy alliance of religion and politics - they sound distinctly un-conservative. But he was active before the Christian Taliban invaded the GOP.

-

Steeleybob - Congress paid Shelby's ransom demand? Now everybody in Congress will be taking hostages. My New Jersey cousin would call Shelby's con job a "protection" tax.

Chrishamm - I thought it might not be over.

Today's Politico says Shelby plans to untie more than 70 of Obama's nominees now that he got the attention of the White House on his parochial concerns. But he still isn't satisfied.

Shelby still wants changes in the bidding process for an air-to-air refueling tanker so he can grab it, and he wants the FBI to build a counter-terrorism lab in Alabama. Despite withdrawing his holds on most nominees, he's blocking a handful of crucial Pentagon nominees until he's satisfied he got his way.

I was bemused by the excuse that "Republicans said Democrats did the same when George W. Bush was president."

Assuming that the claim has any validity, where's the logic in it? Republicans want to be like Democrats? The GOP intends to start a vendetta? Republicans detested being held up on nominations, so... they're sharing the love?

That kind of "but he did it first" reasoning wasn't even acceptable back in the third grade.

grinunbarrett - Yes, General Electric is a good example.

So far this season GE PAC has shelled out $8,454,484.00. Sixteen percent of that went to Democratic coffers because GE wants to hedge it's bets with the dominant party. GE manufactures jet aircraft engines for the military and it builds and operates nuclear reactors, while its consumer finance arm ranks as one of the biggest financial services companies in the nation. GE also owns NBC TV. So, naturally GE keeps close watch over everything Congress does, from defense appropriations to campaign finance reform, to legislation/regulation and its effects on broadcasters.

GE and its corporate ilk have transcended the ideology of Right/Left, conservative/liberal, Democrat/Republican. GE is only focused on what benefits GE and its subsidiaries.

I always knew Repubs were jealous of Dems....and rightfully so...I mean, look at 'em.

Shelby is a former Democrat who switched to Republican when they regained control of the senate in 94. As he is on the appropriations committee, it is just so obvious that these projects were promised to him during the Finance regulation negotiation that he "hammered out" with Dodd. He was allowed to vote against the confirmation of Bernanke because he is facing a reelection campaign. His hold on nominees probably forced many senators to come into his office where he was able to explain in person the broken promise (or threat of promise breakage) after each of these conversations, many calls were made by each of the visiting senators just to confirm that the promises made to each of then will be kept going forward with veiled threats oh so subtly flying around to warn off any further attempts at reneging promises. What is missing in all the reporting is the whole picture and the real news. Who caved? Why? What were the bargaining chips? We will never know the whole story.

Grin - I agree about the railroads as the beginning of the end. That is why the Feds worship Lincoln, the railroad attorney who made it all possible. His monument in DC is a temple to Federal Power. It is an awesome sight to behold.

momof - Makes sense; Shelby has the stench of opportunism about him. Thanks for the education. You are exceptionally well-informed.

momof11: Sounds like a whole lot of speculation on your part...or were you actually involved in these backroom deals as they were being "hammered out"?

steely- complete speculation based on the fact that the US senate is completely corrupt and this is exactly how they do business every single day. S.N.A.F.U.

steely, Shelby just did the same thing that Senator Nelson did with health care. Give me what I want and I'll give you what you want. Nothing but a bunch of dirty politicians that think they are royalty.

momof11, I totally agree

Loomis: Yes, in a thread that dealt with the subject, I berated Nelson for being an equally unprincipled hack...appearing to stand on principle in opposing the healthcare bill, then...what a shocker...gets his new & shiny things from the taxpayer & suddenly votes for the bill.

Just because it happens on both sides doesn't mean it's to be ignored.

Chris - were you referring to myth walters or myth couric?

When I googled the topic I found the following: "Surveys of journalists’ self-reported voting habits show them backing the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1964, including landslide losers George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. In 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Connecticut found journalists backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a greater than two-to-one margin. Compared to their audiences, journalists are far more likely to say they are Democrats or liberals, and they espouse liberal positions on a wide variety of issues. A 2004 poll by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press found five times more journalists described themselves as “liberal” as said they were “conservative.”

"In increasing numbers, the viewing audiences recognize the media’s liberal tilt. Gallup polls have consistently found that three times as many see the media as “too liberal” as see a media that is “too conservative.” A 2005 survey conducted for the American Journalism Review found nearly two-thirds of the public disagreed with the statement, “The news media try to report the news without bias,” and 42 percent of adults disagreed strongly. A number of journalists have admitted that the majority of their brethren approach the news from a liberal angle. During the 2004 presidential campaign, for example, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas predicted that sympathetic media coverage would boost Kerry’s vote by “maybe 15 points,” which he later revised to five points. In 2005, ex-CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter confessed he stopped watching his old network: “The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me.”"

lantbarney - Your cited polls admittedly reflect only opinions, perceptions or predictions. The objective truth may be quite different. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary facts.

"For heaven sakes, we conservatives kid about the 'Liberal Media,' but every Republican on earth does that. " ~ Pat Buchanan

"...the liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." ~ William Kristol

lant -

Former president of CBS, Van Gordon Sauter, has been on a kick about "liberal media bias" since he was shown the door at CBS for his "style-over-substance" format that CBS anchor Walter Cronkite described as "Infotainment."

Sauter responds, "Well, for one thing, it [CBS] has no credibility. And no audience - no morale - no long-term emblematic anchorperson and no cohesive management structure. Outside of those annoyances it shouldn't be that hard to fix. Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News, even though I was unceremoniously shown to the door there nearly 20 years ago in a tumultuous change of corporate management. But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC." Are those sour grapes that I smell?

Lant you define media as journalists. The Media are Corporations. Corporations decide what gets on the air, or what goes into print.

Nice try though.

those conservative citizens of buttheadistan!