|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why do Republicans hate Hagel?
|
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Why do Republicans hate him? Obama. Nominated him.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
True enough. They need no other reason.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I don't get it. He's a Republican, after all. Why has his nomination triggered so much angst and so much spending to block his approval?
That's pretty much it. On the major issue that Republicans are holding against him, ie. insufficient support for Israel, Republicans are just as "bad", and probably "worse", than Democrats.
Hagel refused to sign a letter asking the EU to condemn Hamas. If that makes Hagel a bad guy, it also makes about twenty percent of the Republican senate caucus bad guys, since that's the percentage of THEIR caucus that refused to sign the letter. Whereas only two Democrats didn't sign, and one of them only failed to do so because he was sick.
Oh, and Hagel said some nasty stuff about gays, which as we all know, really offends Republicans. Or at least it offends certain pro-gay lobby groups with ties to Republican strategists and mysterious financial backing.
Seriously. Obama could have nominated Mitt Romney for Defense Secretary, and the Republicans would say he was a threat to American security.
[ 27. January 2013, 19:34: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Pick your battles.
Took down Rice.
Couldn't take down Kerry.
Try to take down Hagel.
They seem in it to win it. Unfortunately, its increasingly looking like that a Charlie Sheen version of "winning".
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Why do Republicans hate him? Obama. Nominated him.
But the President has to nominate someone (or have I got that wrong?). Would they really object to ANYONE Obama chose?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
But the President has to nominate someone (or have I got that wrong?). Would they really object to ANYONE Obama chose?
You've got it right. The reality is that the Republicans have fallen under the sway of the same neocons who wanted us to invade Iraq to create a new American order in the mideast. These wingnuts have not been chastened by the mess that they created -- just the opposite. They are doubling down on crazy, and Hagel just doesn't fit their freaky mold. I doubt that Obama would be willing to nominate anyone that these psychos would support for Secretary of Defense, but I have high hopes that their opposition will not determine the choice. Obama was right to oppose these whackos, and right to not expend a lot of political capital trying to get Susan Rice as Secretary of State.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
Hate Hagel? Sounds like hyperbole to me.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Hate Hagel? Sounds like hyperbole to me.
Well, in politics, people often feign sentiments that they don't really hold, in order to score points. That being said...
When you call someone who is not an anti-semite an anti-semite, we can only conclude that you are making stuff up in order to trash his reputation unfairly. So, even if the people calling Hagel an anti-semite don't personally hate him, they're pretty obviously trying to encourage others to hate him, or at least hold him in extremely low regard.
Long and the short, the thread title might be hyperbolic, but not incredibly so.
[ 28. January 2013, 13:19: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Why do Republicans hate him? Obama. Nominated him.
But the President has to nominate someone (or have I got that wrong?). Would they really object to ANYONE Obama chose?
Yes. All you have to do is Google "obama nomination blocked" and you'll see lots more than just Chuck Hagel. Here's just one random example:
quote:
In April 2010, President Obama nominated Peter Diamond, a Nobel Prize–winning economist and MIT professor, to a seat on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. On three different occasions the Senate Banking Committee approved his nomination. Yet Republicans in the Senate, led by Alabama’s Richard Shelby, blocked his confirmation because they disagreed with his economic policy views. “Dr. Diamond is an old-fashioned, big government Keynesian,” Shelby said. Diamond, who finally had enough of the endless delay and partisan attacks, withdrew his nomination today, explaining why in a New York Times op-ed. “Last October, I won the Nobel Prize in economics for my work on unemployment and the labor market,” he wrote. “But I am unqualified to serve on the board of the Federal Reserve—at least according to the Republican senators who have blocked my nomination.”
Senate Republicans Block Yet Another Well-Qualified Obama Nominee
The've blocked jucidial appointments, which slows the justice system down for everybody. There hasn't been a director of the ATFE for 6 years, and one of Obama's "dictatorial" executive orders was to ASK for the Senate to confirm an appointment. State Department posts like the Ambassador to Russia are also blocked.
It sucks, and it's not just political, it's racist.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
it's racist.
I don't follow much of the politics that goes on in the colonies ( ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) ) but I would be interested to know how the recent decisions to block Obama's plans etc. are racist...
The blocking of legislation in America seems to be the national recreation of politicians of all shapes and colours, everyone seems willing to play at politics with each other until the cows come home.
Just some examples of how what has been going on recently is racist for your uneducated audience would be useful.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
it's racist.
I don't follow much of the politics that goes on in the colonies ( ) but I would be interested to know how the recent decisions to block Obama's plans etc. are racist...
Racists are bad. [major premise]
Republicans are bad. [minor premise]
Republicans are racists. [Undistributed middle -- close enough to logic in political circles]
--Tom Clune
[Edited to more accurately identify the fallacy.]
[ 28. January 2013, 13:41: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Why do Republicans hate him? Obama. Nominated him.
But the President has to nominate someone (or have I got that wrong?). Would they really object to ANYONE Obama chose?
I think that if they all got together, chose the candidate for a position that they believe to be best..and then Obama nominated that person...they would object. I think that while it may be racist for some, for most it's just that he is a Democrat.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I don't follow much of the politics that goes on in the colonies ( )
Two drinks, everyone!
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
The Reps hate him because he isn't tied to the NeoCons and he has been critical of the Israel Lobby. At this point I still think he gets confirmed.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Neo-cons, and McCain/Graham in particular, hate him because he dared to say that the war in Iraq was a mistake.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
In fairness to the Republicans' sense of political gamesmanship, Hagel in 2007 sorta kinda maybe floated the possibility of impeaching George W. Bush.
I had forgotten about this, if indeed I ever knew it. Perhaps I should revise my original view that GOP opposition to Hagel is just a case of Republicans going after any nominee that Obama proposes. From a purely political standpoint, it's understandable that Republicans would have little affection to one of their own senators who did that to a sitting GOP president.
Though it surely must be testimony to the unpopularity of Bush and his legacy that Hagel's criticism of Bush and the Iraq War has not figured more prominently in the Republican campaign against him.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... Just some examples of how what has been going on recently is racist for your uneducated audience would be useful.
Colin Powell: GOP Holds 'Dark Vein Of Intolerance'
However, I'm pretty sure that won't satisfy Sergius-Melli or tclune, because I've seen this movie before. No matter how many examples of GOP racist language and policies I list, the response will always "Well, that's just some individuals". People who don't want to see racism will claim that talking about the "food stamp army / food stamp President" is fair comment on SNAP and its beneficiaries. And that calling a black person "uppity" isn't any different from calling a white person a snob or an elitist. And that pointing out that W was a C+ student is equivalent to John Sununu calling President Obama "lazy and not too bright."
"Look, do you wanna play blindman? Go walk with the shepherd. But me, my eyes are wide fucking open." - Pulp Fiction
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
I think it's because he has expressed some reservations about spending the taxpayers' money like drunken sailors buying everything that the military-industrial complex tries to sell.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I think it's because he has expressed some reservations about spending the taxpayers' money like drunken sailors buying everything that the military-industrial complex tries to sell.
Don't forget the senators and congressmen bound and determined to have such spending come to their state or district.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rogue
Shipmate
# 2275
|
Posted
Please excuse my ignorance and/or naivety but if campaign groups are running ads alleging someone to be anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-Israel (from the link in the OP) which aren't true, aren't they breaking some kind of law? If the allegations are true then should he be allowed in public office?
--------------------
If everyone starts thinking outside the box does outside the box come back inside?
Posts: 2507 | From: Toton | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Please excuse my ignorance and/or naivety but if campaign groups are running ads alleging someone to be anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-Israel (from the link in the OP) which aren't true, aren't they breaking some kind of law? If the allegations are true then should he be allowed in public office?
I don't think there would be a legal problem, since the terminology is vague enough, and doesn't make explicit allegations. It's not like saying "Chuck Hagel painted swastikas on a Nebraska synagogue" It's closer to something like "So-and-so doesn't care about the American people" or what have you.
And, by some reckonings, Chuck Hagel WOULD be considered anti-woman and anti-gay. He has a "pro-life" voting record, and came out against a particular diplomatic nominee in the 90s because the guy was "too openly gay" or something. And "anti-Israel" is a relative term; if you're someone who thinks being pro-Israel means doing every single thing the Likud party wants, well, you could logically consider Hagel to be anti-Israel.
What's funny for me is seeing Republican front groups pretending to care about abortion and gay-rights, plus ignoring the "anti-Israel" voting record of Hagel's GOP senate colleagues.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... Just some examples of how what has been going on recently is racist for your uneducated audience would be useful.
Colin Powell: GOP Holds 'Dark Vein Of Intolerance'
However, I'm pretty sure that won't satisfy Sergius-Melli or tclune, because I've seen this movie before. No matter how many examples of GOP racist language and policies I list, the response will always "Well, that's just some individuals". People who don't want to see racism will claim that talking about the "food stamp army / food stamp President" is fair comment on SNAP and its beneficiaries. And that calling a black person "uppity" isn't any different from calling a white person a snob or an elitist. And that pointing out that W was a C+ student is equivalent to John Sununu calling President Obama "lazy and not too bright."
"Look, do you wanna play blindman? Go walk with the shepherd. But me, my eyes are wide fucking open." - Pulp Fiction
Well yes, and no. There are individual members in the Republican party that are racist, and have expressed racist views (I am only working of the write up underneath as I can't listen to the audio on that video atm, work computer doesn't allow it) and therefore there is a certain part of the Republican party (not just one or two individuals I grasp, but a small group) that is racist and might well be acting in a racist manner towards Obama but you can not tar the entire party as racist because of some members (in the same way that I can't class all of the Labour party as Communists despite some of its members who express particularly Communist views.)
As for your link between calling someone 'uppity' or 'snob' etc. (or rather your implied point that there is a difference) there is no difference, especially when those two terms can be, and frequently are, attached to people of all ethnicities. It is no more racist to call Obama uppity than it is to call Cameron a posh-boy. The use of language does not suddenly become racist because it is applied to someone of colour as opposed to someone who is anglo-saxon in origin, it is demeaning to both, and no greater or lesser crime in either situation. Similarly to ascribe the view that someone is 'lazy and not too bright' is racist because it is direct at someone who is black, but it would be ok if they were white is wide of the mark as well adn selective application of the rules.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
Please excuse my ignorance and/or naivety but if campaign groups are running ads alleging someone to be anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-Israel (from the link in the OP) which aren't true, aren't they breaking some kind of law?
Ya'all ain't from around heah, are ya boy?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
Please excuse my ignorance and/or naivety but if campaign groups are running ads alleging someone to be anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-Israel (from the link in the OP) which aren't true, aren't they breaking some kind of law?
Ya'all ain't from around heah, are ya boy?
--Tom Clune
I don't think is really a case of cultural differences. I can't imagine there are too many western democracies where it would be illegal to say those sorta things about a politician.
Stephen Harper: anti-woman
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
As for your link between calling someone 'uppity' or 'snob' etc. (or rather your implied point that there is a difference) there is no difference, especially when those two terms can be, and frequently are, attached to people of all ethnicities.
In the United States, calling a black person "uppity" does have a specifically racist meaning.
Congress opposing or delaying presidents' judicial nominations just out of spite, though, was getting more and more common even before Obama was elected. Clinton and Bush both went through it too. So I think it's more likely a symptom of polarized politics in general than racism in particular.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I found this today. It suggests that it's not really Republicans who hate Hagel, but neocons and other supporters of the military-industrial complex. A Venn diagram would show a large overlap between the groups, but they're not the same.
Thing is though, I think it's still Republicans qua Republicans who have the most at stake in this nomination battle.
The neo-cons want a foreign-policy that's gonna be conducted along neo-con lines. Ultimately, foreign-policy depends on the president, not on the Secretary Of Defense. If Obama decides not to back an attack on Iran(or does decide to back one, as the case may be), that will be the administration's policy, regardless of who's running Defense. Same thing with military-speending cuts. The SOD is going to carry out the orders of the president in that regard.
Republicans, on the other hand, have an interst in making Obama look bad, by defeating one of his most prominent nominees. And they probably don't really care if he gets brought down because he's ticked off the neo-cons, or because enough gays and gay-allies have been duped into thinking that the anti-Hagel movement is Stonewall II, or whatever. At the end of the day, they just wanna be able to say "Ha ha! We blocked your nominee Barry!!"
That said, I don't doubt that neo-cons(as opposed to Republicans) are behind a lot of the attacks on Hagel. At the end of the day, though, they're probably not the ones with the most riding on this.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The GOP is against just about anything that Obama does because O. is a Democrat, in the same way that Clinton had to put up with a huge load of crap because he was in the WRONG Party.
ButO. has na extra "problem", because he is "black" and that fires up the racists. And the racists were attracted to the GOP by the Southern Strategy, after the Civil Rights laws came in. But being in the WRONG Party is a godsend for the racists, because they don't actually have to say "n****r", but they can still attack on just about any grounds. Something called "fair and balanced".
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
It's actually somewhat unusual for cabinet nominees not to be confirmed. If this is indeed an extension of the oppose-Obama-in-everything movement, we may be seeing a genuine decline in the functionality of American government.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
... The writer likes a lot of Hagel's subsequent poitions and statements, but thinks he should have to account for his vote in 2003.
I'm confused. Hagel is supposed to account for realizing invading Iraq was a mistake? Or is he supposed to account for initially supporting the mistake?
Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but is Colin Powell really the only person who has accepted any responsibility for Iraq?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
My prediction: Hagel will get at least 55 votes. You only need 51 to be confirmed.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
My prediction: Hagel will get at least 55 votes. You only need 51 to be confirmed.
The real question is whether he'll be filibustered. I would be surprised if the Republicans would create that much animosity for such a meaningless gesture, but you never know with those guys...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
My prediction: Hagel will get at least 55 votes. You only need 51 to be confirmed.
The real question is whether he'll be filibustered. I would be surprised if the Republicans would create that much animosity for such a meaningless gesture, but you never know with those guys...
--Tom Clune
You never know, and according to most of the Talking Heads on the teevee, Hagel apparently didn't acquit himself well in the hearing. (I didn't see the grilling, so have no opinion, but assume the panel raised all the usual pointless queries meant to make the questioners look re-electable).
Did anyone actually see the process? Did Hagel flub?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I misread that as Hegel, the philosopher! They wouldn't like him either because he advocated change and republicans like things to stay the same.
I thought that, too, leo. In fact, right wing Republicans do seem to hate Hegel, the philosopher, also. I'm not sure why -- because Marx capitalized on his ideas? Ignoring the Right Hegelians like Charles Taylor, of course.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
Please excuse my ignorance and/or naivety but if campaign groups are running ads alleging someone to be anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-Israel (from the link in the OP) which aren't true, aren't they breaking some kind of law? If the allegations are true then should he be allowed in public office?
No they maybe defaming someone but they have the right under the 1st amendmant to the Constitution st free speech. Now IF you can prove defamation or libel maybe there is a xase, if you have the money to fight it. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Well, Hagel committed the ultimate sin by saying what everyone knows but can't say: Israel has a powerful lobby which influences (and often complicates) U.S. Middle Eastern policy. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) exists and does have a lot of power, but you're not supposed to talk about it.
Nothing Israel does should ever be criticized; doing so makes one a raving anti-Semite (in a way that criticizing PRChinese policy vis-à-vis Tibet doesn't make one anti-Sino, evidently.)
It's bad enough when a Commie-pinko-Muslim-loving Democrat does it. It's worse when one of their own does it.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
I didn't think Hagel did particularly well, but a big part of it was the Senators asking a lot of "have you stopped beating your wife" questions and demanding "yes" or "no" answers. Some observers have said he was poorly prepared, but I do think it is really hard to prepare for STUPID question.
I also think John McCain is losing it. It was really obvious that he has a serious grudge against his old friend and campaign advisor over Iraq (and possibly also Vietnam) and was just being an asshole. Once a fierce opponent of torture, he's now making jokes about waterboarding John Kerry. Not funny, and not the way he used to be.
ETA Hagel did correct himself over the "Jewish" lobby comment, acknowledging that he should have said Israeli.
[ 04. February 2013, 21:18: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
ETA Hagel did correct himself over the "Jewish" lobby comment, acknowledging that he should have said Israeli.
What's ironic about that whole canard is that, in Israel itself, where people would presumably know anti-semitism when they see it, there does not seem to be a tabbo against referring to a "Jewish lobby" as having influence over American mideast policy.
Haaretz
quote:
Some observers have said he was poorly prepared, but I do think it is really hard to prepare for STUPID question.
I'm sure a lot of the questions were idiotic, and designed for purposes of political pandering(see the word cloud I posted earlier). Nevertheless, Hagel is, I believe, a former member of that very committee, so he shoulda had some idea about what to expect.
[ 04. February 2013, 22:18: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
If we assume that none of the Senate Dems would support a filibuster against Hagel, enough Senate Reps have stated that they, too, would not support a filibuster so that possibility seems unlikely at best and Hagel will be confirmed.
I must wonder if Harry Reid is questioning the wisdom of his deal with the Senate Reps regarding the filibuster. Harry should have used the Nuclear Option when he had the chance. He'll have to wait at least another two years to try again. He should never have trusted McConnell & Co. to honor any sort of deal especially with McConnell coming up for reelection is a state that elected Rand Paul.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Well, if anyone is still watching, history has been made. For the first time in the history of the USA, a Cabinet appointment has been filibustered.
Let me say that again: For the first time in the history of the USA, a Cabinet appointment has been filibustered.
The Republicans, of course, are filibustering because Hagel is anti-Israel. And because he insulted a gay nominee. And because he figured out what was really happening in Iraq. And because Obama is a Democrat. It couldn't possibly be racist bullying when there's all those other possibilities to explain something that has never happened before.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
Certainly the filibuster move was OTT! But I wonder why Sen. McCain is still sounding his victory about asking "Were you right or wrong about the Surge in Iraq being the biggest blunder since Vietnam?"
ISTM that he was wrong because the BIGGEST blunder since Vietnam was the vote to go into Iraq; a vote endorsed by Sen. McCain. Sen. McCain were you right or wrong?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Well, if anyone is still watching, history has been made. For the first time in the history of the USA, a Cabinet appointment has been filibustered.
Let me say that again: For the first time in the history of the USA, a Cabinet appointment has been filibustered.
If I understand the rules, you need to say it thrice before it must be so. In reality, there have been two other filibusters of cabinet nominees, C. William Verity for Commerce Secretary and Dirk Kempthorne for Interior Secretary. A little less heavy breathing and a little more fact-checking is perhaps in order here.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
And let's not forget that a filibuster is small potatoes in the category of "Senate interfering with Presidential cabinet appointments" when compared with the Tenure of Office Act. So yes, the current Senate is being ridiculously obstructive, but not unprecedentedly so.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
