Mr. Bunning is merely asking the Senate to live by the rules that President Obama said it should when he signed an executive order requiring "pay-as-you-go" budgeting. "Now, Congress will have to pay for what it spends, just like everybody else," he said, only three weeks ago. But instead of backing Mr. Bunning's stand that new spending must be "paid for," the White House is attacking him.The real story here is that Mr. Bunning is exposing pay-go as a fraud. When Mr. Obama and Democrats want to spend money on their priorities, they waive the rule by declaring an emergency. They only enforce pay-go to block tax cuts. The Senate will soon follow with another $85 billion spending bill, and rest assured that too will violate pay-go rules.Another truth is that Mr. Bunning is making most Republicans as uncomfortable as he is Democrats. Bob Corker of Tennessee and Jim DeMint of South Carolina have stood up for him. But most Republicans were content to obey Mr. Reid's request to borrow $10 billion more, and they find Mr. Bunning embarrassing. As we went to press last night, the pressure on Mr. Bunning to give way was intense.
But he could stand up and take direct hits for only so long. You knew it had to end. The latest depressing news from The Hill:
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) appears set to release blanket hold he had placed Tuesday on all of President Obama's nominees, according to Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) office.Bunning agreed tonight to end his blockade on extending unemployment benefits, but his decision to block all of the President's nominees is independent of that deal, according to Reid's office.The Kentucky Republican, is the second senator this session to employ a blanket hold. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) used the same tactic earlier this year in hopes of securing a defense appropriation for his home state. Shelby eventually relented.Bunning's office was not available for comment.Any senator can prevent a vote on a nominee by placing a hold, but the procedure is often used to block specific nominees, not all of them.
I blame the rest of the Republicans that let 2006 and 2008 happen and who, apparently, have no friggin' idea what 2010 represents for them and the nation ... because they didn't stand with him.
The spending has to stop. Hard choices have to be made. It has to start with one party, the party (I thought) of the adults. And if it doesn't start with the Republicans?
Let the TEA Party movement seize the day.