A Change in the Tone of Politics? Doubtful.

Remember what President Obama said in the State of the Union speech about trying to fix the problems with how Washington works?

"Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.

So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern."

That change doesn't seem to be starting just yet.

Last week, Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) placed a blanket hold on at least 70 of President Obama's nominees awaiting confirmation by the Senate. A hold, you'll recall, is a method by which a senator asks to be informed before a particular motion (in this case, the President's nominees) is brought to the floor, thereby stopping the motion from reaching a vote until the hold is removed. After some pretty blunt criticism from the White House, which suggested that the blanket hold was just retaliation after not getting earmarks, the senator lifted some of the holds. The removal of some holds, according to this entry in the NYTimes blog, "may temper a threat by Democratic leaders in the Senate–and even the White House–that the administration would make recess appointments during next week's Presidents' Day break, bucking any notion of senators' approval."

Though Sen. Shelby's spokesperson later said that the senator wanted to draw attention to issues of national security and was unconcerned with earmarks, it turns out there has been a conflict between Boeing and Northrop Grumman over who will get the contract for an Air Force (an issue of national security?) aerial refueling tanker (giving it to Northrop would create jobs in Alabama, Sen. Shelby's state). Sounds like an earmark to me... But either way, the blanket hold (not just on nominees associated with the aforementioned conflict) just seems like a really disruptive bid for attention. Is preventing the government from functioning efficiently (appointing people to positions that need to be filled) really a good way to draw attention to a problem? The tactic does attract attention, but that attention probably isn't a good thing; Shelby and his blanket hold have been subject to ridicule over the last week. Do the holds give the White House more reason to make recess appointments so that Shelby doesn't win anything but a designation as a symbol of the unhelpful, inefficient game of American politics? After all, the government needs to govern.