Chuck Hagel; the first Secretary of Defense to have served as an Enlisted Man

[hbgator]

Hagel has not answered all of the questions asked of him, plus his history in the senate has raised questions.

Futhermore; After listening to him he seems to be close to senile on some issues.

Maybe in real life too?

[Row6]

Originally Posted by oaklandroadie

So if it is according to the rules, why does it matter how often it is done? Ohh yeah, the bitching is due to it being done by the other team.

The will of the people and the intent of the constitution is being subverted by Senate rules which are not in the constitution and which were themselves intended, and historically used only on a very limited basis but which are now part of almost every action. If you have no problem with the will of the people being stymied by gimmicks I guess we don't have much common ground on which to discuss this. When the tables are turned you will have no reason to complain.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

That's all it is. Just petulant children throwing tantrums when they don't get their way. Mommy said they could have another cookie but mean old Daddy vetoed her and took it away. Waaaaaaaahhhhh!!!

Typical of your level of posting. Very impressive.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by hbgator

Hagel has not answered all of the questions asked of him, plus his history in the senate has raised questions.

Futhermore; After listening to him he seems to be close to senile on some issues.

Maybe in real life too?

I was home sick the day of the hearing and he was obviously coached to keep his head down, and in fact typically was not given an opportunity to respond to the mostly ridiculous grandstanding "questions" of his inquisitors. Perhaps you can give an example of an unanswered question?

Of course the senators who oppose him are free to vote against his nomination, but not allowing that vote , which they will lose, is a parlor trick unprecedented in American history for a secretary of defense.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

He wants to get the truth out about Benghazi and what 0 was or was not doing and why help wasn't sent. Just using Hagel for leverage.

Of course as you note, Hagel had nothing to do with Benghazi, and the administration answered McCain's query before yesterdays vote. McCain went on the air during the vote and explained his anger about Hagel backing off on Iraq 6 years ago, without mentioning how 7 years ago he said how much he liked him and would put him on his cabinet if he ever became president. The guy is holding a grudge about being on the wrong side of history. Hagel was smart and honest enough to admit a mistake and McCain's lacking one or both of those qualities and now has the irresponsible belief that a vote should not be held that he will lose.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Row6

Mad at him for abandoning neo-con orthodoxy when he was still a senator, one of the several reasons to be excited about his appointment by those (most Americans) not trying to pretend Iraq was a good move. McCain was among those predicting welcoming parades in Baghdad for American troops after an easy victory - and he's the one demanding accountability from Hagel for voting against the surge (which cost another 1000 US troops).

Maybe so.

I sensed that it was Hagel's transformed views on the war of our youth - differing from John's - that may have caused the obvious rancor. John did spend many years in the Hanoi Hilton, and I would think it would be hard for him for his view of that particular history to come as far as Hagel's. But I have never researched McCain's statements / views on Nam, so that could be totally off.

But that's just what it seemed to me in my gut; it could all be about the politics in Congress.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Maybe so.

I sensed that it was Hagel's transformed views on the war of our youth - differing from John's - that may have caused the obvious rancor. John did spend many years in the Hanoi Hilton, and I would think it would be hard for him for his view of that particular history to come as far as Hagel's. But I have never researched McCain's statements / views on Nam, so that could be totally off.

But that's just what it seemed to me in my gut; it could all be about the politics in Congress.

It may go back to Viet Nam, but as recently as 2006, and Hagel's pivot on Iraq, McCain praised him as a potential cabinet member in his future administration.

[oaklandroadie]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

Funny, because when pubs ran the Senate we heard whining about giving everything and everyone an up and down vote, and that was when the filibuster was rarely used.

Harry Reid should have reconstituted the old rules.

Good to see you only hold yourself to the standards set by Bush era pubs. Low bar.

[oaklandroadie]

Originally Posted by Row6

The will of the people and the intent of the constitution is being subverted by Senate rules which are not in the constitution and which were themselves intended, and historically used only on a very limited basis but which are now part of almost every action. If you have no problem with the will of the people being stymied by gimmicks I guess we don't have much common ground on which to discuss this. When the tables are turned you will have no reason to complain.

Must have missed your complaining when it was the Dems subverting the will of the people! Your complaints now ring hollow.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by oaklandroadie

Must have missed your complaining when it was the Dems subverting the will of the people! Your complaints now ring hollow.

1 I wasn't on TH before 2007.

2 The democrats have NEVER used the filibuster as regularly as republicans have, and the numbers are not even close. See chart up thread.

3 You can probably expect to see them do so if they lose control of the Senate in the future, having seen the success of this new corruption of Senate rules. Hope you enjoy it.

4 On the other hand, well intentioned citizens of both parties can advocate a permanent change in Senate rules to end this nonsense, which diminishes the will of us all. I'm in.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by Row6

2 The democrats have NEVER used the filibuster as regularly as republicans have, and the numbers are not even close. See chart up thread.

3 You can probably expect to see them do so if they lose control of the Senate in the future, having seen the success of this new corruption of Senate rules. Hope you enjoy it.

4 On the other hand, well intentioned citizens of both parties can advocate a permanent change in Senate rules to end this nonsense, which diminishes the will of us all. I'm in.

The Democrats haven't needed to use it as much because there's never been a Republican president so eager to subvert the Constitution.

re: this comment: "You can probably expect to see them do so if they lose control of the Senate in the future, having seen the success of this new corruption of Senate rules. Hope you enjoy it."

We all know that you and your friends on the Left will be cheering them on when they do. So spare us the faux outrage at Republican tactics that you can't wait for Democrats to have the opportunity to copy.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

The Democrats haven't needed to use it as much because there's never been a Republican president so eager to subvert the Constitution.

re: this comment: "You can probably expect to see them do so if they lose control of the Senate in the future, having seen the success of this new corruption of Senate rules. Hope you enjoy it."

We all know that you and your friends on the Left will be cheering them on when they do. So spare us the faux outrage at Republican tactics that you can't wait for Democrats to have the opportunity to copy.

Your inability to respond to points without relying on ad hominem attacks is once again noted and another clear reminder of why you yourself don't deserve a response.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by Row6

Your inability to respond to points without relying on ad hominem attacks is once again noted and another clear reminder of why you yourself don't deserve a response.

Your inability to distinguish criticism of a dumb or disingenuous you made from an ad hominem attack is once again noted as well. It's a common trait over on that thin-skinned, intellectually insecure Left side of the Too Hot posting aisle. Also for future reference the best way to demonstrate that a post doesn't deserve a response is...to not respond. In fact it's not just the best way - it's the only way.

Fact: With the possible exception of FDR there's never been a U.S. president before our current one who so regarded the Constitution and its designated processes as inconvenient hindrances standing in the way of his agenda for "progress." Hence the well-deserved obstructive tactics from Republicans, which thankfully are not going to stop whether 0bama and his supporters like it or not.

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Your inability to distinguish criticism of a dumb or disingenuous you made from an ad hominem attack is once again noted as well. It's a common trait over on that thin-skinned, intellectually insecure Left side of the Too Hot posting aisle. Also for future reference the best way to demonstrate that a post doesn't deserve a response is...to not respond. In fact it's not just the best way - it's the only way.

Fact: With the possible exception of FDR there's never been a U.S. president before our current one who so regarded the Constitution and its designated processes as inconvenient hindrances standing in the way of his agenda for "progress." Hence the well-deserved obstructive tactics from Republicans, which thankfully are not going to stop whether 0bama and his supporters like it or not.

It's always groundbreaking but ok when pubs skirt the rules, and always terrible when Dems do it.

The very definition of partisan hackery.

[fairfaxgator]

That Ted Cruz...a chickenhawk...

[Row6]

Obama was not the president during the 2007/2008 Senate term, George Bush was. A look at the chart up thread confirms that as the beginning of the all time high record breaking misuse of the filibuster by Senate republicans in an effort not to protect the constitution, but to subvert it. After losing so many elections the party has become the party of trying to maintain significance through loser tricks like parliamentary gimmicks, supreme court rulings by justices who have been around for almost 30 years, and gerrymandering.

[JerseyGator01]

I am quite amused by Hagel's struggles with the nomination and how Kerry breezed through the same process recently. It just shows how much bigger the tent of thought diversity exists within the Pub Party than that of the sheep in the Dems' tent. It's not even close.

But the media brainwashed masses think the opposite situation exists.

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

I am quite amused by Hagel's struggles with the nomination and how Kerry breezed through the same process recently. It just shows how much bigger the tent of thought diversity exists within the Pub Party than that of the sheep in the Dems' tent. It's not even close.

But the media brainwashed masses think the opposite situation exists.

Kerry breezed through because the pubs wanted a shot at his Senate seat.

Get real.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

Kerry breezed through because the pubs wanted a shot at his Senate seat.

Get real.

Personally, I don't think he should have skated through, because he is a pretty awful man -- a gigolo and political opportunist who has such grand JFK delusions as to make Dan Quayle uncomfortable, and whose "big break" came in a post war spectacle that in another day and time absolutely would have been deemed treasonous.

The Republicans were saving their political capital (lest someone whine about the ammunition metaphor) for Hagel... but apparently are just making a token display that will stop nothing.

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Personally, I don't think he should have skated through, because he is a pretty awful man -- a gigolo and political opportunist who has such grand JFK delusions as to make Dan Quayle uncomfortable, and whose "big break" came in a post war spectacle that in another day and time absolutely would have been deemed treasonous.

The Republicans were saving their political capital (lest someone whine about the ammunition metaphor) for Hagel... but apparently are just making a token display that will stop nothing.

The pubs were laying in wait because they hate nothing more than a party member who will work with Obama.