Posted by dinglehoser at 12/21/07 4:16 p.m.

Okay, I have to ask. Why? Did he even give a reason? And why do we have a bloody clottersnoot from Oklahoma blocking a proposal that has to do with the state of Washington?

Perhaps he's taking revenge on us for trying to block the Sonics from moving there. *guffaw*

Posted by P Scott at 12/21/07 8:04 p.m.

"Sen. Coburn's whole goal in life is stopping everything that is anything in the Senate," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said...

Joel, would you please arrange for a séance with Warren Magnuson - and get this woman some basic knowledge of political horsetrading? Failing that, how 'bout handing her an old copy of Eric Redman's book "The Dance of Legislation" - it defies me that as the fourth highest ranking Democrat in the Senate, and after thirteen years in the job, she still can't deliver with results when it counts. From where she sits on Appropriations, there would have been plenty of bills of interest to Coburn for his district back in Oklahoma. Patty's problem is that she is by nature a grassroots party activist type, either that or after all these years she is still lacking in confidence and intellect to understand the role of Senator.

Murray gets the "F" and flunks this one (again). Look, back during the Reagan (!) administration - working with people like James Watt and William Clark - we still managed to get a wilderness bill through the House AND Senate. We did so because of GOOD relationships Scoop and Maggie had with guys with names like Packwood and Hatfield.

Why can't Murry catch a clue? And why can't we start grading her like we would a male or a Republican? Effectiveness is the issue, and once again Murray comes up WAY short.

Posted by unregistered user at 12/22/07 12:05 a.m.

Coburn is using a long standing Senate custom that allows any Senator to place a personal hold on any piece of legislation for any reason. Coburn is holding up over 70 bills - Wild Sky being just one. As far as I can tell, Coburn doesn't want anything that could be traded for. He is simply staging an ideological protest against ANY AND ALL new federal spending - and he is ticking off a lot of people.

Sen. Murray has been a strong, effective champion for the Wild Sky. She knows how to deal with people like Coburn and she will when Congress returns in January. Congress has only a limited amount of time and it had to get a federal budget passed before wasting time dealing with the pathetic antics of Sen. Coburn.

Posted by GGross at 12/22/07 9:50 a.m.

Okay, I have to ask. Why? Did he even give a reason? And why do we have a bloody clottersnoot from Oklahoma blocking a proposal that has to do with the state of Washington?

Perhaps it's because it's being done with FEDERAL tax $$$ & because Sen. Coburn thinks that it's a waste of money.

Posted by whole_truth at 12/22/07 7:40 p.m.

"Perhaps it's because it's being done with FEDERAL tax $$$ & because Sen. Coburn thinks that it's a waste of money."

I see. So he's a self-righteous know-it-all who understands what's good for us better than we do. In other words, a typical nanny-state big-government loving conservative.

Posted by evergreen_senator at 12/23/07 11:28 a.m.

Although the environmentally-conscious Party of Commons has no objections to the Wild Sky Wilderness Area, and could even support it outright once we learn the details of this legislation, it seems the Pelosi-crat Congress could learn something from Mr. Coburn, who at least has the guts to block something that he disagrees with, or, perhaps, does not know what the fine print says. It's no secret that members of Congress have passed bills in the past without knowing entirely what's in them, simply because they didn't read them. The authoritarian, so-called PATRIOT Act comes to mind as well as recently allowing the Attorney General to replace U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation. Many Congress persons who voted for both of these laws changed their mind and wanted to make revisions after learning about facts in them that they were unaware of at first. If only the Pelosi-crats (before and after the ascension of Nancy Pelosi to being Speaker of the House, and who has become a symbol of all the Democrats in Congress), who acquiesced in passing both of the aforementioned examples, were as thoughtful, deliberative and gutsy as their supporters hoped for them to be.

www.PartyofCommons.com

Posted by parfait4congress08 at 12/25/07 7:47 p.m.

Would someone please telly Patty Murray that the Democrats LONG blocked Civil Rights legislation from being brought to a vote. Thank God the Republicans forced them to move on.

http://parfait4congress.googlepages.com

I need signatures. Since I'm doing this while refusing to taking donations, I need YOU to sign and get signatures. Write.

Posted by unregistered user at 12/26/07 3:58 a.m.

Pombo was (is) a Republican. Hence his chairmanship in the 05-06 Congress.

Posted by Lord Sauron at 12/26/07 1:31 p.m.

Why can't Murry catch a clue?

Do the words "incompetent", "does not play well with others", "arrogant", and "really not all that bright" offer any clues?