Remember the uber-tantrum that Sen. Richard Shelby threw five weeks ago? The one that guarantees him first-round induction into the Obstructionism Glory-Hole of Shame when his playing days are over?

The fuss was mostly over a $35 billion Air Force contract for refueling tankers:

Sen. Richard Shelby’s (R-Ala.) decision to place a “blanket hold” on all presidential nominations until a pair of billion-dollar earmarks for his home state are fast-tracked has reignited the debate over the parliamentary tactics being deployed by the Republican Party. It also has thrust into the spotlight the clout that major defense contractors often wield on the political process.

On Thursday evening, news broke that the Alabama Republican has taken the extraordinary measure of holding up at least 70 “nominations on the Senate calendar” — essentially threatening to filibuster the confirmation processes if they came to a vote. The move has spurred a series of recriminations from Democratic officials who see it as yet another instance of over-the-top obstructionism of the president’s agenda.

It also has turned inquisitive eyes towards Shelby himself.

The Senator confirmed that he launched the hold, in part, because he is upset with a tanker contract worth $35 billion that remains unresolved between Northrop Grumman/EADs and Boeing. Shelby favors the Northrop Grummann-EADS bid largely because it would result in tankers being assembled in his home state. The two contractors, in turn, have donated to Shelby’s campaign committees, hoping ostensibly to secure favor or at least an audience with the Alabama Republican.

According to a review of campaign finance records, Shelby’s political action committee received $7,500 in donations from EADS’s PAC during the past two election cycles and an additional $21,500 from Northrop’s PAC since 2000.

[UPDATE: The investigative journalism group Center for Public Integrity looked at all political action committees associated with Northrop Grumman and concluded that Shelby has received at least $108,233 in contributions since his first Senate election in 1986.]

Shelby wanted the Air Force to rewrite the contract specifications for the new refueling tanker, to make them more favorable to the Northrop Grumman-EADS bid.

Shelby wants the Air Force to rewrite the request for proposals it is getting ready to issue for a new refueling tanker.
[...]
As the Air Force prepares to rerun the contest, Northrop warned it might not bid because a draft request for proposals shows a “clear preference” for Boeing.
[...]
When he imposed the hold in early February, Shelby said “we still do not have a transparent and fair acquisition process to move forward” on the tanker contract. The RFP “needs to be significantly and substantively changed.”

Yesterday, we learned that Northrop Grumman has withdrawn from the bidding (just like it had threatened to do):

Boeing now has the inside track on a $35 billion contract to start replacing the Air Force’s aging fleet of aerial refueling tanks after Northrop Grumman announced Monday that it wouldn’t bid.
[...]
Northrop’s decision was the latest development in the nearly nine-year effort to replace the tankers. Northrop-EADS won an earlier competition, but government auditors overturned the award after Boeing protested.

The initial contract is for 179 tankers, but the deal eventually could be worth $100 billion as the Air Force replaces about 600 tankers in what could be one of the largest Pentagon purchases ever.

In announcing that it wouldn’t bid, Northrop said the competition “clearly favors” Boeing’s tanker and denied the larger Northrop-EADS tanker any “competitive opportunity.”

It would be deliciously ironic, wouldn’t it, if Northrop Grumman’s decision to surrender in its 9-year battle for the contract was precipitated by all the negative publicity Shelby’s tantrum brought to the contract? Before the Shelby tantrum, there might have been some hope of getting the Air Force to quietly skew the specifications a bit towards Northrop Grumman. After the glare of publicity resulting from the Shelby tantrum, such shenanigans probably became impossible.