Single Senator holds up jobless benefits extension.

[Chazwozel]

He fucked Philadelphia over in '64, and now he's going out by doing it to the rest of us.

Bunning and Short was a recipe for disaster then, and it is now (minus the Short).

Philadelphia's been fucking itself for 40 years now. Where have you been?

 

[Chibibar]

I just find it interesting that this particular issue Bunning decides to "stand his ground" what happen to all the billions (more than 10 billions) of spending and bail out that he could have voice over that?

I wouldn't be surprised if he did raise his voice over that, but nobody paid attention because those issues actually went to vote.

Because this is an odd situation where one guy can somehow hold up the rest of congress, him speaking out is actually gaining our attention.[/QUOTE]

You might be right

 

[Tinwhistler]

All they need to do is say, "Oh, no unanimous consent. Let's just vote on it..." and go down the list of senators. IF it's taking a bit longer, it's the fault of the senate.

That's not exactly right.

The requst was for unanimous consent to pass the bill without a full hearing and debate. Without Bunning's consent, the bill would require a full hearing and debate on the senate floor. When Bunning objected, they COULDN'T just say "ok, well, then lets take a vote, right now, you curmudgeonly old fucker." Senate rules would then dictate that the measure be scheduled, debated, and then voted on, which could have taken weeks.

I don't see the timing as Bunning's fault. You were right,they certainly could have scheduled the bill for full debate on the floor, earlier. I imagine they didn't think they had to, though, and so they got caught out by the short hairs on a procedural point.