Take that, traitor! Remember Benghazi!
QuoteRepublicans successfully block vote on Hagel nomination
WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans successfully moved Thursday to block the nomination of Chuck Hagel to lead the Pentagon, with Democrats falling just one vote shy of the 60 needed to end a rare filibuster for a Cabinet choice.
Four Republicans joined with all of the Senate Democrats in voting to proceed to a final vote on the former Nebraska senator's candidacy for Defense secretary. Another Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, voted "present" – ensuring that further consideration will be delayed until after a weeklong recess.
The final vote was 58-40, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) switching to a no vote just before it closed, which will allow him to bring the motion up for reconsideration.
A visibly angry Reid, speaking on the Senate floor afterward, said he was "not going to give up" on the effort to confirm Hagel and criticized the GOP for blocking him at a critical time.
"I hope, I really hope, that nothing happens in the next 10 days," he said.
The current Defense secretary, Leon E. Panetta, who was to fly from Washington to his home in California on Thursday as he ended his tenure, is expected to continue serving.
Republicans defended the delay as reasonable and blamed the Democrats for rushing to confirm Hagel, just two days after a party-line vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who served in the Cabinet of President George H. W. Bush as education secretary, rejected the idea that this was a filibuster.
"I think in the end you should vote up or down on Cabinet nominees. But I don't think you should prematurely cut off debate on a United States secretary of Defense nomination two days after it came out of the committee," he said.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said, "I think there are some legitimate questions that haven't been answered. And so I think people just want to give enough time for those answers to come back."
QuoteRepublicans relish extended Hagel confirmation fight
By: Tim Mak and Manu Raju
February 14, 2013 10:35 AM EST
Republicans have gained another 12 days in which to beat up on Chuck Hagel. And even though they may not ultimately stop him from taking over the Pentagon, they relished the opportunity to keep trying.
"The fight goes on," said conservative editor Bill Kristol, who marshaled opposition research, media buys and op-eds against Hagel. Kristol vowed that he would "continue to work to convince a majority of senators of the undeniable truth that we can do much, much better than Mr. Hagel."
And one Republican aide promised the long Presidents' Day recess would represent for Hagel "one more week of additional questions on top of the questions they refuse to answer."
Just the same, Democrats said they remained confident they would finally make Hagel secretary of Defense when they try again on Feb. 26. In that sense, Thursday's 58-40 vote to cut off Senate debate was as much an attempt to advance him as Potomac jiu-jitsu by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who moved it up from Friday knowing it would fail in a bid to get Republicans on the record blocking him. Sixty votes were needed to move the nomination forward.
Reid and the White House seized the opportunity to slam the GOP for what they called needless obstructionism that might prove dangerous given the appearance that the Defense Department would be headless. Its incumbent boss, Leon Panetta, was set to stay on until Hagel is finally confirmed, the Pentagon confirmed, but Panetta flew home to California on Thursday to help sell the narrative that Republicans were leaving his office in the E-Ring vacant.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney charged Republicans with putting "political posturing ahead of our nation's security."
"A clear majority in the United States Senate supports Senator Hagel's confirmation, so today's action runs against both the majority will of the Senate and our nation's interest," Carney said. "Allow this war hero an up or down vote, and let our troops have the Secretary of Defense they deserve."
Republicans weren't buying it – Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn said Reid had moved up the Hagel vote just "to get a story in the newspaper," and he defended the validity of the sticking points over which Republicans had chosen to make their stand: Hagel's financial disclosures and the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
Republicans said they needed to be confident Hagel hadn't taken payments from "foreign sources," and they said the White House owed them more detail about its actions in the immediate aftermath of the Benghazi attack. Democrats fumed, arguing the issues were unconnected and that Hagel had satisfied the Senate Armed Services Committee's disclosure requirements, but they could also not muster the 60 votes to break Republicans' barricade.
The White House attempted to mollify at least two key Republican opponents, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, with a letter that explained that President Barack Obama had called his Libyan counterpart on the day after the attack, but it wasn't enough.
A Hagel aide predicted before the vote that any delay would only be temporary.
"Senator Hagel is going to be confirmed, if not tomorrow, then when the Senate returns from recess," the aide said. "We have 66,000 troops in Afghanistan, and we are beginning a critical process of transition where we'll bring 34,000 more home by February. They need their secretary of Defense in place now and not more political games."
"It'll happen," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said after the vote. "I'm concerned about it because I don't like to see it. It opens a bad precedent, but I think we'll get over it."
Still, Republican senators themselves left them ample leeway to continue delaying Hagel's confirmation once the Senate returned from recess.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who emerged as a chief negotiator for the GOP, said there was no need to rush, but there were also no guarantees.
"Senators have questions that they want answered," he said. "Now, after the recess, I think, would be sufficient time to give senators the chance to consider their questions and I would vote for cloture because I believe Cabinet members deserve an up-or-down vote." But Alexander said he could not guarantee a Republican wouldn't use her or his privilege to object when the Senate tries again.
For his part, McCain said he would support ending debate after the recess.
"I will vote in favor of cloture on the day we get back, and I believe... enough of my colleagues would do the same," McCain said. He argued that despite his prediction of a future vote in support of ending debate on Hagel's nomination, it has only been two days since Hagel was approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee in a party line vote.
"Ask [Democrats] why they held up [former secretary of Defense nominee] John Tower for three months," added McCain, referring to Tower's 1989 rejection by the Senate.
Graham struck a similar tone. "After the break, we can have a cloture vote, and I feel pretty comfortable I'd vote to move on — unless there's some bombshell," said Graham.
Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, who has been herding the nomination through the Senate, was frustrated with the Republican position.
"There's a suggestion there be a delay of eight days for something where people know how they're going to vote now?" he said. The U.S. needs a new secretary of defense as soon as possible, Levin said."[Panetta] wants to go home. He says he's going home... You need somebody who is locked into the issues, not someone whose mind is on a walnut farm [in California]."
But the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jim Inhofe, did not follow Graham and McCain's lead. He declined to predict what might happen.
"I'm not talking about anything in the future," he said.
John Tower? Really? You're going to use that documented drunk and known sexual harasser as an example?
Republicans also questioned Jack Lew, Treasury Secretary nominee, on Benghazi :bleeding:
Well he would be in charge of the secret service.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2013, 02:40:22 AM
Well he would be in charge of the secret service.
No, he wouldn't. Secret Service hasn't been under the Treasury for almost a decade.
I'm old enough to remember when the Republicans used to rage about Democratic filibusters, and even threatened to eliminate the filibuster. Now, not only do the Republicans love to filibuster Democratic proposals, they love the filibuster so much they filibuster themselves!
I wonder if there are any Republicans left in the Senate who were in office when the Republicans were moaning about the filibuster and, if so, whether they feel any shame.
I also wonder if the anti-democratic concept of the filibuster will ever finally be expunged from the rule books of the Senate. It is perfectly clear that it is an impediment to both the effectiveness and the reputation of the US government.
Odd Seedy, why didn't you highlight this sentence?
Thursday's 58-40 vote to cut off Senate debate was as much an attempt to advance him as Potomac jiu-jitsu by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who moved it up from Friday knowing it would fail in a bid to get Republicans on the record blocking him.
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2013, 07:19:47 AM
Odd Seedy, why didn't you highlight this sentence?
Thursday's 58-40 vote to cut off Senate debate was as much an attempt to advance him as Potomac jiu-jitsu by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who moved it up from Friday knowing it would fail in a bid to get Republicans on the record blocking him.
Because I didn't feel compelled to?
Well it seems a little odd to get sanctimonious over what the Dems purposefully engineered.
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2013, 08:00:26 AM
Well it seems a little odd to get sanctimonious over what the Dems purposefully engineered.
What, forcing the Republicans to filibuster when they could have voted?
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2013, 08:00:26 AM
Well it seems a little odd to get sanctimonious over what the Dems purposefully engineered.
Who's getting sactimonious? Reid?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2013, 08:07:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2013, 08:00:26 AM
Well it seems a little odd to get sanctimonious over what the Dems purposefully engineered.
Who's getting sactimonious? Reid?
Well yes his outrage is a bit over the top given that he apparently hoped this would happen.
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2013, 08:12:38 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2013, 08:07:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2013, 08:00:26 AM
Well it seems a little odd to get sanctimonious over what the Dems purposefully engineered.
Who's getting sactimonious? Reid?
Well yes his outrage is a bit over the top given that he apparently hoped this would happen.
If the only alternative was to allow it to lapse into the recess without a vote, what's wrong with trying to get a vote in before the recess? All it did was prove what the Republicans have wanted to do all along: hold up the nomination. At least he got it on the record.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 15, 2013, 01:26:52 AM
Republicans also questioned Jack Lew, Treasury Secretary nominee, on Benghazi :bleeding:
He was White House chief of staff. Not exactly out of the loop.
Man, it's funny how bereft of principle and honour the Republicans are. Richard Nixon would roll over in his grave to see how far his party has fallen.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2013, 08:04:58 PM
John Tower?
Long time to carry a grudge. But the 21st century has not been kind to poor John McCain, no wonder he prefers to live in the last one.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 15, 2013, 09:25:42 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2013, 08:04:58 PM
John Tower?
Long time to carry a grudge. But the 21st century has not been kind to poor John McCain, no wonder he prefers to live in the last one.
Maybe he has become 21st century schizoid man:
http://www.last.fm/music/King+Crimson/_/21st+Century+Schizoid+Man (http://www.last.fm/music/King+Crimson/_/21st+Century+Schizoid+Man) :whistle:
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2013, 08:12:38 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2013, 08:07:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2013, 08:00:26 AM
Well it seems a little odd to get sanctimonious over what the Dems purposefully engineered.
Who's getting sactimonious? Reid?
Well yes his outrage is a bit over the top given that he apparently hoped this would happen.
On the other hand I'm puzzled why the GOP is picking this battle. They can badmouth Hagel as much as they want, but otherwise let it go. Defense policy is going to flow from the White House, for better or worse.
Dump Hagel, pick Bob Kerrey.
Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2013, 10:00:24 AM
On the other hand I'm puzzled why the GOP is picking this battle. They can badmouth Hagel as much as they want, but otherwise let it go. Defense policy is going to flow from the White House, for better or worse.
I don't get it, either. It's not like they don't have any other targets around if they want to take shots at the President with the foreign policy mantle and defense sequestration.
All it does is make them look like it's personal, which is pretty much what John McCain wound up saying yesterday. And quite frankly, Lindsay Graham has officially wandered into stalker conspiracy territory over all this.
And Rand Paul said he's going to block John Brennan for CIA. What the hell.
Or Sam Nunn, if he could be de-aged a bit.
Bob Kerrey used to be my favorite Democrat but he got Borked pretty hard by the press during his presidential run over all his Vietnam wet jobs.
Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2013, 10:00:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2013, 08:12:38 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 15, 2013, 08:07:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2013, 08:00:26 AM
Well it seems a little odd to get sanctimonious over what the Dems purposefully engineered.
Who's getting sactimonious? Reid?
Well yes his outrage is a bit over the top given that he apparently hoped this would happen.
On the other hand I'm puzzled why the GOP is picking this battle. They can badmouth Hagel as much as they want, but otherwise let it go. Defense policy is going to flow from the White House, for better or worse.
Two reason: He is a raging anti-semite (which seems to be ok with Democrats nowadays) who sees conspiracies by :Joos everywhere, and he has demonstrated that he is a clueless, bumbling fool who lack even a basic understanding of the job.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2013, 03:27:06 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2013, 02:40:22 AM
Well he would be in charge of the secret service.
No, he wouldn't. Secret Service hasn't been under the Treasury for almost a decade.
:blush:
Ok, I guess Yi's explanation works though.
HANSBOMB!
You know how some turds just refuse to permanently get flushed down the toilet? Just some random thought, not sure why it occurred to me just now.
We can and should have a better DefSec than Hagel, but it's Obama's choice, and he should get who he wants.
Quote from: Kleves on February 15, 2013, 10:57:51 AM
We can and should have a better DefSec than Hagel, but it's Obama's choice, and he should get who he wants.
And if he complied with a pretty standard request to release his financials and ties to foreign government he would be. But given that he is refusing to do so it is perfectly reasonable that he should not be confirmed.
He came back for a second pass! RUN!
Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2013, 10:53:10 AM
You know how some turds just refuse to permanently get flushed down the toilet? Just some random thought, not sure why it occurred to me just now.
Ed's scat fetish is rubbing off on you?
Quote from: derspiess on February 15, 2013, 10:00:24 AM
On the other hand I'm puzzled why the GOP is picking this battle. They can badmouth Hagel as much as they want, but otherwise let it go. Defense policy is going to flow from the White House, for better or worse.
I haven't been following things all that closely, but aren't the Republicans picking pretty much ever fight they can? Having lunatics like Rand Paul in there can't be good for the collective sanity of Republican senators.
Jeez guys. I know that the Democrats used pretty much every dirty trick in the book to hinder honourable Republican presidents like Nixon and Bush 41, but they've lost their way in retaliating. It's that old quote about when you look into the the abyss, the abyss is also looking into you.
Quote from: PDH on February 15, 2013, 11:04:34 AM
He came back for a second pass! RUN!
I was absolutely neutral on the Hagel nomination, but if Hans is coming in to make up shit to smear him with, there must be something good about Hagel that I just can't see.
Hagel has met all the standard requests to release his financials and ties to foreign government, but the Republicans keep moving the goalposts. It is noteworthy that only Hans and one or two Republicans are actually arguing that Hagel has not submitted all the required paperwork.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2013, 12:40:09 PM
I was absolutely neutral on the Hagel nomination, but if Hans is coming in to make up shit to smear him with, there must be something good about Hagel that I just can't see.
Hagel has met all the standard requests to release his financials and ties to foreign government, but the Republicans keep moving the goalposts. It is noteworthy that only Hans and one or two Republicans are actually arguing that Hagel has not submitted all the required paperwork.
And Hans's pro-democratic party propaganda machine rumbles on.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2013, 12:40:09 PM
Quote from: PDH on February 15, 2013, 11:04:34 AM
He came back for a second pass! RUN!
I was absolutely neutral on the Hagel nomination, but if Hans is coming in to make up shit to smear him with, there must be something good about Hagel that I just can't see.
Hagel has met all the standard requests to release his financials and ties to foreign government, but the Republicans keep moving the goalposts. It is noteworthy that only Hans and one or two Republicans are actually arguing that Hagel has not submitted all the required paperwork.
Actually he hasn't. Heck, Kissinger was booted off the 9-11 Commission for refusing to reveal foreign clients, yet Hagel believes he doesn't have to reveal his foreign clients.
Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2013, 09:04:43 AM
Man, it's funny how bereft of principle and honour the Republicans are. Richard Nixon would roll over in his grave to see how far his party has fallen.
Richard Nixon: paragon of principle and honor!
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2013, 12:40:09 PM
Quote from: PDH on February 15, 2013, 11:04:34 AM
He came back for a second pass! RUN!
I was absolutely neutral on the Hagel nomination, but if Hans is coming in to make up shit to smear him with, there must be something good about Hagel that I just can't see.
Hagel has met all the standard requests to release his financials and ties to foreign government, but the Republicans keep moving the goalposts. It is noteworthy that only Hans and one or two Republicans are actually arguing that Hagel has not submitted all the required paperwork.
But how do we know he didn't bully other kids for their lunch money in 3rd grade ?
Quote from: mongers on February 15, 2013, 02:33:47 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2013, 12:40:09 PM
Quote from: PDH on February 15, 2013, 11:04:34 AM
He came back for a second pass! RUN!
I was absolutely neutral on the Hagel nomination, but if Hans is coming in to make up shit to smear him with, there must be something good about Hagel that I just can't see.
Hagel has met all the standard requests to release his financials and ties to foreign government, but the Republicans keep moving the goalposts. It is noteworthy that only Hans and one or two Republicans are actually arguing that Hagel has not submitted all the required paperwork.
But how do we know he didn't bully other kids for their lunch money in 3rd grade ?
True only presidential candidates should be subjected to that level of scrutiny.
Quote from: Hansmeister on February 15, 2013, 01:10:01 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2013, 12:40:09 PM
Quote from: PDH on February 15, 2013, 11:04:34 AM
He came back for a second pass! RUN!
I was absolutely neutral on the Hagel nomination, but if Hans is coming in to make up shit to smear him with, there must be something good about Hagel that I just can't see.
Hagel has met all the standard requests to release his financials and ties to foreign government, but the Republicans keep moving the goalposts. It is noteworthy that only Hans and one or two Republicans are actually arguing that Hagel has not submitted all the required paperwork.
Actually he hasn't. Heck, Kissinger was booted off the 9-11 Commission for refusing to reveal foreign clients, yet Hagel believes he doesn't have to reveal his foreign clients.
I see to recall a recent defeated Presidential canidate who was rather reluctant to release all of his financial dealings.