Dean's World

Senator Byrd admits to placing the hold, and has now lifted it.

Now that's neat.

More here.

In Byrd's defense, he said he simply hadn't had time to review the bill and didn't want it rushed to the floor before everyone had a chance to read it. I will say he does not have a history of being technophobic either. Indeed, he was the Senator who was responsible for letting television cameras into the Senate with C-Span. So I can cut the old Byrd [pun intended] some slack. The bill looks like it's going to go through...

*Update*: Whoah, it was also Stevens! Stevens and Byrd *both* put on holds, and have *both* lifted them! Well well well, what are the odds that the two biggest pork kings in the Senate would *both* try to stall a bill that would increase transparency in congressional spending?

Related Posts (on one page):

(link)

Martin L. Shoemaker (www):

So which is it, Dean? Are you cutting Senator Byrd some slack? Or are you accusing him of trying to cover up his pork? (My vote is for the latter.)

Sorry, Arnold, but I couldn't be happier. (Well, I could, but only if an ice cream sundae appeared at my desk right now.) The government just became a tad more accountable. Now if a Senator pulls the "secret hold" game or any number of other privilege games, he or she must do so with an awareness that if another Senator doesn't like it, that Senator might take the case to the people. This will compel them to be a little more circumspect in their shenanigans. And that's a good thing.

8.31.2006 6:12pm

Understandable typo, and one I've had to struggle to avoid: you called the Senator "Bird" in your update.

8.31.2006 6:38pm

Dean Esmay:

Fixed.

And to answer your question: somehow, knowing it was both Byrd and Stevens makes them both look more guilty. Those two have both been in the Senate longer than most people have been alive, and both are notorious pork kings. One of them placing a hold simply because he felt that he and some others needed a little more time to read it? That seems like one thing. But the two of them? Porky and Petunia Pig? And both so old and so senior that normally no one in the Senate would want to argue with them? Nah. Guilty guilty guilty.

8.31.2006 6:46pm

I don't disagree, because I was never ready to cut Senator Byrd any slack in the first place. Then your plausible defense of him made me pause. So when you changed course, I got whiplash.

8.31.2006 6:58pm

Michael Demmons (mail) (www):

It was the TUBES!!! I tell ya!! The TUBES! Stevens just didn't want that big database clogging up the Tubes. He doesn't want to have to wait to get his Internets till Monday!

8.31.2006 7:07pm

Dishman (mail):

This revelation doesn't change my opinion of either of them.

Ptui.

8.31.2006 7:19pm

Kind of heartening to know that in a bipartisan effort to smoke out the bad guys, it turned out that the bad guys were bipartisan. Ha!

8.31.2006 7:52pm

Arnold Harris (mail):

So, counting the number of threads you put up about this topic, that makes eight mountains created out of a single molehill.

Or did I count wrong?

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

8.31.2006 9:38pm

Heh. You crotchety old b*stard.

We made the Senate listen to us, and not hold up a bill that increased spending transparency. We made them agree to go on record about what they spend money on. Shouldn't that warm the cockles of your cold Objectivist heart?

8.31.2006 9:43pm

JRogge:

I can't wait for the site to come up :). Since I can't vote for Senator Byrd nor Stevens I can't fret too much over them. However, it would be nice to see what my senators are doing.

9.8.2006 2:56am