« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
More Evidence That Bunning Is GOP Senator Blocking Barofsky Nomination
It's looking more and more like -- as we suspected -- Kentucky GOP senator Jim Bunning is the guy who placed the anonymous hold on the nomination of Neil Barofsky to the crucial post of special inspector general for the bailout.
Bunning's spokesman, Mike Reynard, wouldn't return any of our several calls on the subject. But the Associated Press appears to have reached him. It reports:
Republican Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, a member of the Senate Banking Committee who opposed the bailout bill, has said he had "serious concerns" with Barofsky's nomination, though he has praised his experience. Bunning spokesman Mike Reynard would not comment on whether Bunning had placed the hold.
We'll let you draw your own conclusions...
Advertisement
Josh
Zachary
If just ONE senator can put a hold on a nominee, why didn't a Democratic Senator block Alito & Roberts from becoming Supreme Court Justices; and Gonzo from AG? Or is that a privilege reserved for Republicans only?
December 3, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I ask the same question!
December 3, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the Senate, there are no parties it's just one club.
December 3, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found a possible clue to why Bunning was picked to block oversight. He is unlikely to suffer any consequences from doing it:
(from electoral-vote.com)
"Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) will be 79 in 2010, has health issues and no money in the bank. He might retire."
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
December 3, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans have not retired with "no money" since the 1860's!
December 3, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't Bunning the one who was pretty much senile already even when he won reelection the last time? Somebody must be pulling the strings, using him to hide behind because they figure he will be gone anyway and is therefore expendable.
December 3, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually a huge issue. Somebody does not want accountability of the bailout funds, and will get away with blaming Bunning. The hypocrite who persuaded Bunning to place the hold is not necessarily a Senator.
My understanding is that the anonymous block rule doesn't apply to Supreme Court appointees; however, back when the Democrats threatened to filibuster Roberts, the Republicans invented their "Nucular Option" of declaring Supreme Court Appointees immune from filibuster.
There actually are Republican senators who are concerned about how the money is being spent, so the sooner the workaround for this one the better. Perhaps the anonymous block rule could be amended to be overridden the same way a filibuster can be overridden.
December 3, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink