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

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Why since 2007? Why not go back further ? Want to stack things in your favor perhaps.

I said US history. that means all of it. go ahead and look it up and tell us what you find.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Why since 2007? Why not go back further ? Want to stack things in your favor perhaps.

no, and we've been thru this before. the Senate has never seen the number of filibusters the Republicans have been using lately. Nothing ever close to this.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Do you want a tissue? This is absurd

that makes no sense whatsoever. You were complaining that he didn't go back before 2007. If you knew anything about the history of the filibuster, you'd know what records Republicans have been setting.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by rivergator

that makes no sense whatsoever. You were complaining that he didn't go back before 2007. If you knew anything about the history of the filibuster, you'd know what records Republicans have been setting.

I didn't complain so that is your first mistake. I was simply pointing out his rationality.

[Row6]

These losers, who love to crow about defending the constitution, couldn't care less about it if it serves their purpose of subverting the popular will, which they keep losing in election after election

Meanwhile, chicken hawk debate team captains like Cruz - still wet behind the ears - lead the charge on the patriotism of a guy who left blood on foreign soil for the US and has spent most of his adult life in the interests of other veterans and the wise use of American defense capabilities. Cruz is lucky Hagel was told to keep his head down during his hearing or the debating champion would have had a new one ripped in public. Even I quickly thought up the one liners Hagel left unsaid.

[David Shepherd]

I think the president should get his cabinet unless there is something in the background that is illegal or highly unethical.

I also think the president should get his court appointees unless unqualified or criminal.

This stuff in this era started with Bork, it was wrong then, it is wrong now.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by David Shepherd

This stuff in this era started with Bork, it was wrong then, it is wrong now.

Yeap, when someone draws first blood this is what happens in the real world.

[VAg8r1]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Why since 2007? Why not go back further ? Want to stack things in your favor perhaps.

Maybe this will help. A little further back than 2007.


By the way, the current practice of "filibuster by proclamation" began in 1971. Prior to 1971, if the minority party wanted to block legislation through a filibuster their members had to hold the floor of the Senate and actually debate. Time to return to the "talking filibuster". If legislation is so egregious that it must be blocked the opposition party should be willing to actually come out in public. Besides we haven't had an actual talking filibuster in decades. It would be quite a show a CSPAN.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by VAg8r1

Maybe this will help. A little further back than 2007.


By the way, the current practice of "filibuster by proclamation" began in 1971. Prior to 1971, if the minority party wanted to block legislation through a filibuster their members had to hold the floor of the Senate and actually debate. Time to return to the "talking filibuster". If legislation is so egregious that it must be blocked the opposition party should be willing to actually come out in public. Besides we haven't had an actual talking filibuster in decades. It would be quite a show a CSPAN.

It's a hack piece, notice the gabs in time unaccounted. As far as the Obama years he is ruling by fiat anyway.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

It's a hack piece, notice the gabs in time unaccounted. As far as the Obama years he is ruling by fiat anyway.

that really is the only way you guys can keep your belief system going, isn't it? every bit of news that you don't like is simply rejected.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

river and Row


Please respond to the posts about the time the Democrats used this process. All against a GOP president.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by rivergator

that really is the only way you guys can keep your belief system going, isn't it? every bit of news that you don't like is simply rejected.

What I reject is your claim that somehow one side has had a monopoly on using a tactic that is permitted within the guidelines, rules and laws of the Senate. It just boggles the mind.

It is a matter of historical record that beginning in 2001, Senate Democrats dramatically changed the confirmation process. Throughout the Bush administration, Democrats actively sought to block numerous judicial nominees, forcing more than 30 cloture votes as Republicans tried to end persistent Democratic filibuster efforts.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), voted against cloture a record-setting 27 times. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), cast 26 votes to filibuster Bush nominees and, in 2003, defiantly declared: “Yes, we are blocking judges by filibuster. That is part of the hallowed process around here.”

Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who now claims to have been “respectful of President Bush’s appointments,” repeatedly joined with Democratic colleagues in attempting to filibuster judicial confirmations, including seven separate votes against cloture for the nomination of Miguel Estrada—one of the nation’s leading appellate lawyers—to the D.C. Circuit.

Not to be outdone, Reid took virtually every opportunity to block Bush nominees, voting against cloture on 26 separate occasions. In his view there was no amount of time—“not a number in the universe”—that would be adequate for debate on the filibustered nominees.

During his brief time in the Senate, President Obama himself played a key role in the Democratic filibuster campaign, helping lead the effort to block the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit. Then-Senator Obama also joined Democrat colleagues in voting to filibuster the judicial nominations of Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Samuel Alito.

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/ind...0-19c2894530a5

[Lawdog88]

So what is McCain's beef with Hagel ?

[Row6]

For the "they all do it" zombies:



Even if they all did do it at the dysfunctional rate that modern republicans have (and they demonstrably haven't), it still doesn't justify the senate employing a-constitutional rules which disenfranchise voters and subvert the will of the people expressed in their vote. Why bother even electing a senate if the minority controls it's action? Everyone should care about this because whenever your team gets a majority, expect the other to have learned the effectiveness of these anti-democratic tactics.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

So what is McCain's beef with Hagel ?

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).

[Row6]

Beyond the fact that Senate Republicans are leaving the military and Dept of Defense rudderless during a period of transition in Afghanistan and at home with sequestration, their filibuster means that we will not have our future Sec of Defense at a long planned NATO summit this coming week in Brussels. No doubt Afghanistan and other areas of common interest will be on the agenda. The republicans have lost the last two presidential elections, and among the larger issues were foreign policy and their sorry ass performance when they ran it. They aren't getting some neo-con retread in any position in this administration. If they want one, they better earn it at the polls.

[G8trGr8t]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

So what is McCain's beef with Hagel ?

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.

[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.

[MastaG8r]

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.

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!!!

[fredsanford]

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.

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.