On second thought, Susan Collins to vote no on Hagel — but yes on cloture
posted at 6:01 pm on February 13, 2013 by Allahpundit
Remember when Major Garrett said yesterday that he had it on good authority Collins was a yes on Hagel? That would have put Democrats at 57 votes, assuming their caucus holds together, which means the chance of a filibuster was hanging by a thread.
Then I saw this tweet and got excited:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Susan Collins says she will oppose the confirmation of Chuck Hagel to become President Obama’s secretary of defense
— Michael LaRosa (@MichaelLaRosaDC) February 13, 2013
She switched! Or Garrett was wrong all along. Either way, they’re back to 56 votes with momentum against confirmation, especially now that McCain’s hinting that he’s switched too. Not only that, but Reid said shortly after the Collins news broke that he’ll move for cloture right away, which could mean that he’s worried about the defections snowballing and wants to try to push Hagel through before things turn critical.
But wait. Wait, wait, wait. Tucked away at the very end of Collins’s long statement explaining what a terrible SecDef Hagel would make is this not-so-minor footnote:
“Unfortunately, I am concerned that Senator Hagel’s nomination would send the wrong message at the wrong time to our allies and adversaries around the world about the resolve of the United States. It is telling and disturbing that when I asked Senator Hagel what he believed were the greatest threats facing our country, he identified the resource shortage that could result from the addition of two billion more people during the next couple decades as near the top of his list. While there no doubt will be tremendous challenges associated with this development, his response concerned me when I consider all of the enormous near-term threats facing our country…
“I am unable to support Senator Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense because I do not believe his past positions, votes, and statements match the challenges of our time, and his presentations at his hearing did nothing to ease my doubts. I regret having to reach that conclusion given our personal relationship and my admiration for Senator Hagel’s military service. But I have concluded that he is not well-suited for the tremendous challenges our country faces during this dangerous era in our history.
“As I announce my decision to cast my vote in opposition to Senator Hagel’s nomination, let me address one final question: Should this nomination, which causes me such great concern, be filibustered? As a general rule, I believe a President has the right to choose the members of his Cabinet, and only in extraordinary circumstances should such a nomination be filibustered. I oppose Senator Hagel’s nomination, but I cannot join in a filibuster to block each Senator’s right to vote for or against him.
She’s all but saying that the guy’s out of his depth for the most important position in the cabinet at an extremely precarious moment internationally. Pretty much everyone across the spectrum understands that he’s being nominated only so that a Republican will share blame when Obama starts cutting defense. If that’s not an “extraordinary circumstance” worthy of a filibuster, what is? How dangerously unqualified would this guy have to be before Collins decides that she can’t leave it to Democrats to do the right thing here?
Hagel’s *ceiling* as Defense Secretary is ineffectual bumbler disliked by Pentagon lifers. His *ceiling*, people.
— Daniel Foster (@DanFosterNRO) February 13, 2013
Obama himself had no qualms about filibustering a presidential nominee who was, unlike Hagel, eminently qualified for his position. Good lord.
That’s 57 votes for cloture. Exit question: Which three other Republicans will join Collins in pushing a rank incompetent nominated for cynical partisan reasons through?
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Leave the positions empty. The less politicians the better, and you know dog muncher will only nominate communists anyway.
VegasRick on May 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM
Who has broken the law by using his private email account to conduct DOJ business in an effort to skirt public disclosure laws, among other things.
Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 3:43 PM
Using procedural rules to block nominees is bad governance and bad strategy.
myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 3:43 PM
We seem to be getting along without them. That might mean something.
a capella on May 12, 2013 at 3:43 PM
That’s as cheap as when Democrats fled Wisconsin to try stopping a vote on that state’s labor bill a few years ago.
The reason this sort of thing happens with nominations is because we have a bunch of career degenerates running the show. The degenerate Obama sends up the worst people — yes men — expecting his Democrat derelicts will rubber-stamp him. The derelict Republicans, instead of asking hard questions of the nominees, play baby games. Then decrepit RINOs like McCain vote with the Dems.
On the flip side, the Dems will fight any qualified Republican nominee because he won’t advance the liberal agenda. So even under a Republican president, the country is still left stymied.
It’s the lowest common denominator with these people, and the country pays.
Liam on May 12, 2013 at 3:49 PM
If a future GOP President nominates a person who lies to Congress, breaks the law and refuses Congressional subpoenas, then his nominations should be blocked too.
What’s the problem?
Curtiss on May 12, 2013 at 3:51 PM
The question you need to ask yourself Jazz, is, “What would Harry Reid and the democrats do if this was a conservative nominee and George Bush was president?”
Judicial nominations anyone? How longer were Bush’s nominees filibustered, pilloried and lambasted until some of them just gave up?
“Advise and consent” doesn’t mean, “Whine and then capitulate because he is, after all, the president”. Remember,these are co-equal branches of government. If the enough members of the Senate believe that a nominee is too extreme, then blocking that nomination is what they are supposed to do. … and the Senate democrats would agree. …. if it wasn’t their guy in the White House.
/Nope, not going to criticize the republicans for actually showing some spine.
AZfederalist on May 12, 2013 at 3:51 PM
Pic of the Day: I Don’t This Is Gonna End Well…
Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 3:54 PM
Pic of the Day: I Don’t THINK This Is Gonna End Well…
Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 3:58 PM
IOW: Business as usual.
davidk on May 12, 2013 at 4:06 PM
Too late! Every argument you ever made and every fact you post is now suspect. So are all things in the future.
Love,
The Liberal Grammar/Spelling/Typing Nazi Party (LGSTNP)
Liam on May 12, 2013 at 4:07 PM
Chick claimed to be a lawyer the other day. :)
Snort.
Axe on May 12, 2013 at 4:09 PM
……future Democratic security counselor.
Rovin on May 12, 2013 at 4:10 PM
They need to let this rogue President do *nothing* short of resignation (and prison, if possible) at this point.
Midas on May 12, 2013 at 4:10 PM
After today’s MAJOR word omission, I’m not sure any more she’s British. :-P
Liam on May 12, 2013 at 4:13 PM
Snort, snort, snort.
Axe Don’t Need No Steekin’ Verbs
Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 4:16 PM
Judge Bork says yes.
No matter what R’s do now, it will happen.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 12, 2013 at 4:18 PM
Me neither. This is no tea party. Our liberty is at stake.
petefrt on May 12, 2013 at 4:18 PM
lol
Midas on May 12, 2013 at 4:21 PM
LOL! Excellent. — Well, “she”? — Let’s hope all the ground doesn’t give way, or I’m going to look like an idiot.
OK people! Let’s try to stay on topic.
Axe on May 12, 2013 at 4:25 PM
Isn’t the topic giving RWM a hard time?
Liam on May 12, 2013 at 4:32 PM
There’s a mountain of dirt out there on the REB’s honeypot Pritzker if you want to look: Did you know that in the early 1970s, the Internal Revenue Service investigated the Pritzker family, whose scion Penny Pritzker has just been tapped by President Obama to become Secretary of Commerce, because their Hyatt Corporation was paying no taxes? And that in the course of the inquiry, an IRS statement quoted an informant with access to the records of the offshore bank where they hid their assets that the family, “through their Hyatt Corporation, received their initial backing from organized crime”?
slickwillie2001 on May 12, 2013 at 4:42 PM
I say…screw em…let them have a taste of their own medicine…playing footsies with liberals never works
crosshugger on May 12, 2013 at 4:42 PM
Jazz “Pollyanna” Shaw. AKA, RINO.
Vince on May 12, 2013 at 5:10 PM
Reach across the aisles my friendzh, bipartisanship, compromise, blah-blah.
slickwillie2001 on May 12, 2013 at 5:21 PM
Advise AND Consent. Two words, Jazz, and both of them are equally important.
JimK on May 12, 2013 at 5:37 PM
There is only ONE person who has Media Bullhorn Privleges that is MORE worthless to the plight of hard-working Americans and do MORE to demonize those who acccept the burden of Doing The Right Thing than Jazz…..and THAT person ALSO posts on this blog.
Posts like this: Not Helping America or Liberty.
williamg on May 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM
…well…what happened?
KOOLAID2 on May 12, 2013 at 7:51 PM
Give him nothing.
How do you compromise with evil?
bofh on May 12, 2013 at 8:05 PM
Resist and Repel. Fight the Democrats. Jazz, why do you work here? You seem to want to capitulate to them all of the time. You are simply a RINO.
Theophile on May 12, 2013 at 8:32 PM
As said before, the democrats in power would do worse and we need to put any kind of brakes that we can on our decent into a third world banana republic.
jukin3 on May 12, 2013 at 9:20 PM
I agree, blocking nominees for the sake of politics is not good.
Bork, Thomas, and Estrada quickly come to mind.
Oh, wait…
Wanderlust on May 12, 2013 at 11:37 PM
Don’t think that Jazz is saying *not* to fight as much as he’s saying that the fight will change once the names have been swapped.
Unfortunately Jazz, you point out a very glaring Catch 22 here, the majority party won’t change the rules, and the minority party can’t. When the musical chairs song stops and the party switches places, it’ll be the same old problem…and frankly I don’t trust the electorate (at this time) to be willing to facilitate change for it either.
BlaxPac on May 13, 2013 at 2:10 AM
It’s difficult to blame mere partisanship when Barack Obama can’t be bothered to even attempt good faith nominations. It seems fairly obvious that HE WANTS gridlock, and that he chooses his nominees in order to maximize the potential of getting it. Branding his political opponents as “obstructionist” would appear to be his higher priority.
Murf76 on May 13, 2013 at 6:36 AM
The GOPe – the party of DERP.
Myron Falwell on May 13, 2013 at 7:36 AM
After voting in the Dog Eater TWICE I don’t trust the electorate, period.
HiJack on May 13, 2013 at 7:43 AM
Breaking Gridlock
Why don’t we give Van Jones a shot at EPA?
I know a candidate for EPA chief. He is young and has a wife and three kids. The last one they brought home and were just calling it “baby” as a nickname. It is a girl!
I started calling his other two kids “Drill” and “drill” With the smaller one getting the small “d”.
Anyway, Van is a former streetfighter from Oakland, California or I heard that, anyway.
We could have a Mixed Martial Arts fight between Van and my harmless little family man and conservative.
Think of the distraction this fight could be if we had a sluggish economy, scandals or lousy TV ratings for the warm months.
Given projections on future US electorate choices, I am working on this idea to settle all our future elections, too.
IlikedAUH2O on May 13, 2013 at 10:22 AM
While, from a point of view of respect for the institutions of our government, I can sympathize with Jazz’ desire to see things done “decently and in order”, I cannot in good conscience join his team on this topic.
When this administration, and the extreme Left components of the Legislature, refuse to even pretend to conscientious representation of the American people, and adherence to the Constitution, then it becomes the duty, by whatever means effective, for the dissenting patriots to act in opposition to those un-Constitutional and un-American goals and objectives.
The most easily defined ground for application of this conflict is the consideration of Executive nominations.
It is now incumbent upon all those in service in the nation’s Legislature, to bring every force to bear to uncover the tiniest speck of dirt residing in the closets of every nominee brought forth for the remainder of this administration. Let every nomination stagnate while intensive, public, detailed probing of personal lives seeks to ensure that all past history of misbehaviors on the part of the nominees is uncovered, for the sake of the nation’s welfare.
If they want to win the Chicago way, then it’s past time they suffer victory in the Chicago way.
Freelancer on May 13, 2013 at 11:57 AM
I wonder if this will happen give that the GOP will continue to nominate the most “electable” candidate…like Romney.
iwasbornwithit on May 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM