• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Republicans block Hagel nomination after Democrats force vote

rocket88 said:
I don't think that they necessarily should confirm him. I simply find it ironic that Republican Senators are filibustering a Republican former Senator.

If he does step aside, which I'm sure would make some people very happy, think about who Obama is going to nominate next. Think the TP's going to go for him?
Click to expand...

It's only ironic if you think a political party should always support those who claim to be a member of the party regardless of what they do - that would, ironically, make you a Democrat.

If Obama nominates someone else, equally unacceptible, I would expect a similar reaction.
 
Zyphlin said:
The republicans should stop putting their party desires over the good of the American people and confirm the nomination of a guy simply because he was a member of their party.

.....
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - Republicans did, in fact, put country over party by refusing to support a man who during his confirmation hearing looked like he was high on several drugs and couldn't put two coherent words together - the only one playing politics here is Obama.
 
Samhain said:
The State of the Union speech has been, and always will be, the Pro Bowl of politics.
Click to expand...

Now that's funnyrightthereIdon'tcarewhoyouare! Of course low information voters will need pictures and probably youtube vids to grasp the genius of this comment. Well done Sir!
 
Zyphlin said:
The republicans should stop putting their party desires over the good of the American people and confirm the nomination of a guy simply because he was a member of their party.

.....
Click to expand...

Actually, doesn't this indicate the "non democrat" party is putting the good of the American people above party? I mean if the candidate is NOT a good one why would you confirm them simply because of past party affiliation?

Oh wait, I keep forgetting, in this day and age you vote based on skin color and party affiliation not for actual competent candidates. My bad.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It's only ironic if you think a political party should always support those who claim to be a member of the party regardless of what they do - that would, ironically, make you a Democrat.

If Obama nominates someone else, equally unacceptible, I would expect a similar reaction.
Click to expand...

It's ironic because it's the sort of thing that usually happens in Washington. Right vs. Wrong is usually not as important as Republican vs. Democrat.

It's ironic because the very Liberal John Kerry breezed through to Secretary of State with no issue, and now the much less Liberal Chuck Hagel is a problem.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - Republicans did, in fact, put country over party by refusing to support a man who during his confirmation hearing looked like he was high on several drugs and couldn't put two coherent words together - the only one playing politics here is Obama.
Click to expand...
My guess is that Z was pointing out self-contradictory reasoning.
 
rocket88 said:
It's ironic because it's the sort of thing that usually happens in Washington. Right vs. Wrong is usually not as important as Republican vs. Democrat.

It's ironic because the very Liberal John Kerry breezed through to Secretary of State with no issue, and now the much less Liberal Chuck Hagel is a problem.
Click to expand...

But you claim the second move betrays a Republican party more interested in party than country - that makes no sense - what the two show is a Republican party prepared to accept the President's nominee when that person is competent and credible in the proposed job, regardless of party affiliation.
 
Hagel should be blocked until it is determined that he is absolutely forthcoming with his speeches, comments, and other indicators that to date have suggested that he is not only being dishonest with confirmation investigating committees, but also in that he would be competent in the job...So far that is not the case...

WASHINGTON – A Senate committee has postponed a vote on former Sen. Chuck Hagel's nomination to be defense secretary after Republicans accused him of withholding financial disclosure information from his time in the Senate.

Read more: Senate panel postpones vote on Hagel nomination as GOP demands more info | Fox News
Click to expand...


The Hearing Did Little To Alleviate Concerns Over Whether Hagel “Has The Conviction And Knowledge To Protect U.S. Security Amid Growing World Turmoil And With A White House Bent On Cutting U.S. Defenses.” “The biggest question hanging over Chuck Hagel’s nomination to lead the Pentagon is whether he has the conviction and knowledge to protect U.S. security amid growing world turmoil and with a White House bent on cutting U.S. defenses. His confirmation hearing on Thursday was hardly reassuring.” (Editorial, “The Hagelian Method,” The Wall Street Journal, 1/31/13)
New York Magazine‘s Jonathan Chait: “The Hearings Cemented A Buffoonish Image Hagel Will Probably Never Shake And Destroyed Whatever Value-Over-Replacement He Could Have Brought As An Advocate Of Obama’s Agenda.” (Jonathan Chait, “Whose Terrible Idea Was It to Nominate Hagel, Anyway?” New York Magazine, 2/1/13)
Chait: “The Hagel Nomination Has Been A Fiasco.” “As it turned out, the Hagel nomination has been a fiasco. (Clemons’s chins-up take that Hagel ‘met expectations’ is the most optimism any Hagel backers can muster.) It turns out there were reasons beyond the nefarious power of the Israel Lobby or the inexplicable timidity of the Democratic foreign-policy establishment not to nominate Chuck Hagel.” (Jonathan Chait, “Whose Terrible Idea Was It to Nominate Hagel, Anyway?” New York Magazine, 2/1/13)
Former Obama Adviser Robert Gibbs Called Hagel “Unimpressive And Unprepared.” ROBERT GIBBS: “Let’s split this into two buckets. So there were the totally superfluous questions that quite frankly, again, not gonna bear in big measure on what the next defense secretary does. The disconcerting thing obviously for anybody to watch, he seemed unimpressive and unprepared on the questions that quite frankly he knew was coming.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 2/3/13)

The Hagel Fiasco - GOP
Click to expand...

Why should the GOP vote to confirm anyone who is deceptive, or incompetent? Because libs think they should?
 
rocket88 said:
It's ironic because it's the sort of thing that usually happens in Washington. Right vs. Wrong is usually not as important as Republican vs. Democrat.

It's ironic because the very Liberal John Kerry breezed through to Secretary of State with no issue, and now the much less Liberal Chuck Hagel is a problem.
Click to expand...

Kerry is a big time lefty, all right, but he doesn't have Hagel's heavy baggage, he's not thought of as, um, volatile, and he didn't implode in his own hearing.
 
bubbabgone said:
Kerry is a big time lefty, all right, but he doesn't have Hagel's heavy baggage, he's not thought of as, um, volatile, and he didn't implode in his own hearing.
Click to expand...

Much as I disagree with Kerry's politics, he is at least qualified to be SoS.
 
Besides ... when you think about it, Panetta was confirmed easy for the same position, both Kerry & Hillary got well over 90 votes for SofS.
Instead of asking why Pubs are against Hagel, ask why Dems are for him despite what we've seen.
 
polgara said:
Good morning, Bubba.

Reference #33.

Excellent as usual!

Career ender? Rubio taking a sip of water is all they got to belittle him with? Looking good! :)

I have...gasp...seen BHO doing the same thing, but it's different somehow when he does? hmmmmm...
Click to expand...

Sure but with Obama it was different ... you see, given the ... I mean because of the ... when you consider that ... looking at the context ... aw hell.
 
polgara said:
Good morning, Bubba.

Reference #33.

Excellent as usual!

Career ender? Rubio taking a sip of water is all they got to belittle him with? Looking good! :)

I have...gasp...seen BHO doing the same thing, but it's different somehow when he does? hmmmmm...
Click to expand...


Morning polgara,

Well, Jon (Liebowitz) Stewart made jokes about it, so it must be funny.....When they can't attack substance, then mockery, and Alensky tactics are all they have....Sad really.
 
j-mac said:
Morning polgara,

Well, Jon (Liebowitz) Stewart made jokes about it, so it must be funny.....When they can't attack substance, then mockery, and Alensky tactics are all they have....Sad really.
Click to expand...

Good morning to you! Rubio's rebuttal speech was right on the money, and they know it. What else could we expect from them except what they did? I agree it's sad, but boringly consistent. :(
 
Joby said:
Sacrificing military readiness is OK if you're making a political point. First with the budget, now preventing the National Security team of the administration from assuming its duties. Good job GOP.

So were you asleep for the previous administration?
Click to expand...

I wasn't asleep, but then I wasn't watching MSNBC either.
 
American said:
Only a moron wouldn't see the politics that Obama is playing here, putting a phoney Republican in charge of DoD.
Click to expand...

True, but we are not short of morons. The results of the last election are exhibit A.
 
head of joaquin said:
No equivalency.
The GOP Senators are trying to block
an eminently qualified man. That's actually contrary to their power. They should be removed from office and new elections held to put in grown ups who follow the Constitution.
Click to expand...

no the GOP senators are on to Obamas petty childish games.

Hagels the "bipartisan" part of Obama's stripping of military funding.

Hagle qualified ? Well he's qualified like Obamas qualified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom