Hagel: I’m not withdrawing despite filibuster

posted at 1:21 pm on February 14, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Hey, who knew that Chuck Hagel wasn’t a guy to go along with a Republican consensus?  Despite a full-fledged effort to filibuster Hagel, he insists he’s staying in the mix:

Chuck Hagel, known for his unswerving relentlessness both as a senator and as a soldier, plans to stand fast as President Obama’s nominee to head the Pentagon despite a growing GOP effort to defeat him with a rare filibuster, aides said. “He’s not withdrawing,” says Aaron Dowd, a spokesman for the former Nebraska senator. “He could be defeated, but he’s not withdrawing. It’s not something anyone is discussing.” White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, in a brief interview Thursday, endorsed that view. “He’s our guy,” Vietor said.

According to Michael Hirsh, Hagel is actually feeling a bit more buoyant about the change in the nature of the dispute:

Withdrawal at this stage, of course, would amount to a major political defeat for Obama, and so it remains unlikely. Nonetheless, Republicans who oppose Hagel – who alienated his fellow Republicans by taking a stand against the Iraq invasion a decade ago, among other maverick positions — seem to be newly confident that they can somehow derail his nomination with a filibuster that they’re not quite yet admitting is a filibuster. Senators such as Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., are claiming they are holding up the confirmation because they want more information from the White House on Obama’s actions related to the 9/11 Benghazi attacks, which have nothing to do with Hagel.

That heartens the Hagel camp, which notes that the opposition to him has mostly to do with a lot of old history—primarily, the inability of many Republican senators to admit they might have gotten Iraq wrong—as well as a new insecurity among Republicans who are desperate for a winning issue. “A lot of this has nothing to do with him,” Dowd says.

Hirsh acknowledges, though, that Hagel actually fueled the obstructionism with his own lack of preparation for the confirmation hearing:

Hagel only fed his opponents’ ambitions with a strikingly weak performance at his confirmation hearing, where he fumbled over several questions, including whether he supported “containment” against Iran.

Senate Republicans have now become publicly committed to obstructing the nomination, at least for now:

Fox News has confirmed that Senate Republicans told Democrats that they will formally filibuster the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.

The why is important in this case, though.  Most people have succumbed to the inevitability of having a mediocrity running the Department of Defense. Hagel, who was forced to admit that he knew little about current defense issues and then utterly fumbled a fundamental question about policy regarding Iran, also has no experience running large organizations and isn’t exactly known for his teamwork and leadership, either.

Until last week’s hearings on Benghazi and the revelation that the White House didn’t communicate with Leon Panetta after an initial briefing at the beginning of the attack on the consulate, there was no reason to block Hagel if Obama insisted on pursuing his confirmation — and probably good reason to let the President suffer the consequences of such a badly-handled nomination.  Now, though, Senate Republicans have no leverage to pursue answers on Benghazi without going through Hagel.

Either way, Hagel has no real reason to withdraw.  He will eventually get confirmed one way or the other; the only question will be whether the White House can continue to stonewall on Benghazi, or will have to start answering some of the embarrassing questions that arose from Panetta’s testimony.

Meanwhile, here’s today’s follow-up on Senator Rand Paul’s earlier threat to filibuster John Brennan over the possibility that the Obama administration will conduct its “targeted killing” policy inside the US.  This is a more firm commitment to blocking Brennan until Paul gets an answer from the White House.  Is this a silly question? Not exactly. As the New York Time’s Andrew Rosenthal wrote this morning, Attorney General Eric Holder put the “targeted killing” policy entirely in terms of overseas operations last March, and the memo leaked to NBC oddly didn’t restrict the authority for such actions to the American border.  Be sure to read Allahpundit’s excellent rundown from yesterday for the background on this question:

Shouldn’t this be an easy question to answer?  Here’s Rosenthal on that point:

(Attorney General Eric Holder, who outlined the “targeted killing” policy last March without acknowledging that anyone had actually been killed, framed it entirely in terms of Americans living overseas.  So the White House should be able to answer that one easily. Right?)

One would think — but why haven’t they answered it yet, even with Paul’s acknowledgment that government has always had the right to use force to stop an attack that truly imminent or in process?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Hagel only has to wait until the Pubs cave, which should be any day now.

Liam on February 14, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Hagel’s no Bagel!

Ben Hur on February 14, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Better to be defeated and play victim of der LobbyJuden.

Ben Hur on February 14, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Most people have succumbed to the inevitability of having a mediocrity running the Department of Defense.

If only Hagel were a mediocrity. I worry that he’s actively hostile to our interests.

rbj on February 14, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Good for you Chuck!!

Hey, while you’re at it, get that great Senator from NJ to
stand up for you!

You know, the Pedophile.

ToddPA on February 14, 2013 at 1:30 PM

I wonder who is really controlling this filibuster?

forest on February 14, 2013 at 1:31 PM

They’re not even pretending it’s about Hagel.
It’s telling what the Repub actually admit to today.
They don’t want ‘answers’.
LG has an election coming up…and he wants to fend of a Tea Party threat.
McCain…he’s just after some personal vengeance.
But as Ed notes…Hagel will get confirmed.
And this will just be another ‘we really mean it!’ from the Repubs…when they don’t.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Andrea is beside herself that the gop would filibuster chuckie
Lib talking heads trying to defend dear leader with.’benghazi is old news…gop is stupid for harping on this’…..double standard run amok

cmsinaz on February 14, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Reid and the Gutless Ones are making a deal that will bring the threshold down to 51. Don’t know what we’re supposed to get out of this… Probably a really nice pat on the back for McConnell and a note saying “You da man!”

Gingotts on February 14, 2013 at 1:35 PM

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Maybe the actual reasons are that Hagel is a anti-semite nominated by Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Prime Pupil Bigot.

2007 Report: Hagel Said State Department Controlled by Israel

http://freebeacon.com/report-hagel-said-state-department-controlled-by-israel/

sentinelrules on February 14, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Blue Buddha!!! Good Man. Put Brennan on ice permanently. He is bad peeps.

Bmore on February 14, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Hagel, Brennan, and Lew, a veritable hat trick of poor Obama choices. The Luntz groups are confused.

Mr. Arrogant on February 14, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Maybe the actual reasons are that Hagel is a anti-semite nominated by Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Prime Pupil Bigot.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Ah…no, that’s not it.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Get ready Rand Paul…..you’re next after Rubio.

2016 Media Jihad underway.

Conservatives prepare for the destruction to come.

PappyD61 on February 14, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Ah…no, that’s not it.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Maybe it was Hagel’s hideous confirmation hearings where he acted stupider than the stupidest member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2013 at 1:42 PM

They’re not even pretending it’s about Hagel.
It’s telling what the Repub actually admit to today.
They don’t want ‘answers’.
LG has an election coming up…and he wants to fend of a Tea Party threat.
McCain…he’s just after some personal vengeance.
But as Ed notes…Hagel will get confirmed.
And this will just be another ‘we really mean it!’ from the Repubs…when they don’t.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Come on, verbie. Hagel is a complete idiot. Plenty of your side has conceded this. Even Gibbs admitted his hearing was awful.

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM

cmsinaz on February 14, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Wizened old drunkard Andrea would piss her Depends if Bark nominated the Blind Sheik to head the DHS and the GOP filibustered. There is no one too evil, stupid, retarded, ignorant or criminal for the media jacklickers to support if the Dog Eating Freak nominated them.

Bishop on February 14, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Just read on politico that Clinton talked with the Libyan president after the attack and dear leader talked to him the following night

He’s no Jed Barlet

Geez

cmsinaz on February 14, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Tru dat. Bishop

cmsinaz on February 14, 2013 at 1:46 PM

…where he acted stupider than the stupidest member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Dude, you have issues.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Dude, you have issues.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 1:47 PM

I forget, Dorner is a hero to you.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Come on, verbie. Hagel is a complete idiot. Plenty of your side has conceded this. Even Gibbs admitted his hearing was awful.

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM

I missed the part where they offered this as the reason for a filibuster.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 1:48 PM

They’re not even pretending it’s about Hagel.
It’s telling what the Repub actually admit to today.
They don’t want ‘answers’.
LG has an election coming up…and he wants to fend of a Tea Party threat.
McCain…he’s just after some personal vengeance.
But as Ed notes…Hagel will get confirmed.
And this will just be another ‘we really mean it!’ from the Repubs…when they don’t.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Yeah, not like the Good ol days when the Democrats
went after Miguel Estrada…he was a Wetback you know…

ToddPA on February 14, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Maybe it was Hagel’s hideous confirmation hearings where he acted stupider than the stupidest member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2013 at 1:42 PM

I don’t know…Guam tipping over is pretty damn stupid.

Bishop on February 14, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Blue Buddha!!! Good Man. Put Brennan on ice permanently. He is bad peeps.

Bmore on February 14, 2013 at 1:36 PM

I support him on this, among other stands he’s taken. Brennan is bad bad bad.

Another thot on this Drone thing. It is dangerous and there is no need of it. Since we are supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt along with Tanks and F-16′s, perhaps we’ll support them with Drones also? I think so and this policy about “Americans Overseas” is a cover. That’s my opinion. It’s not safe for our Military, seeing our Military are Overseas. I smell a rat.

bluefox on February 14, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Ah…no, that’s not it.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Um, yes, it is.

Remember when attending 5 colleges and maintaining a “C” average was proof that someone wasn’t fit for high office?

Well, Obama has nominated a man, who attended 5 colleges and had a “D” average.

Remember when being openly homophobic was a cause for scorn by the Left?

Well, Obama has nominated a man, who has been openly homophobic.

Remember when opposing abortion even in the case of rape was considered a disqualification for office by the Left, a bar to even addressing the Democratic National Convention, and proof of the “Republican’s War on Women”?

Well, Obama has nominated a man, who opposes abortion even in the case of rape.

Remember when making anti-Semitic statements, rightfully, drew comparisons to David Duke?

Well, Obama has nominated a man, who has made anti-Semitic statements on numerous occasions.

Remember when “smart power” was what the media and the Left called Obama’s foreign policy and his team?

Well, Obama has nominated a man, who has proven that he is anything but smart.

Remember when the Left spit on returning troops from Vietnam and your Secretary of State, falsely, testified under oath about how horrible American soldiers were behaving in Vietnam – much worse than the lie that Jack Murtha told?

Well, Obama has nominated a man, who the Left once accused of atrocities.

Remember when people, who voted for the Iraq War, were called warmongers and alleged to be supportive of “air-raiding villages and killing civilians”?

Well, Obama has nominated a man that the Left once called a “warmonger.”

Look, we know the deal here. Obama wants Hagel so that he has Republican cover to do what he wants to do to the military.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Hagel, Brennan, and Lew, a veritable hat trick of poor Obama choices. The Luntz groups are confused.

Mr. Arrogant on February 14, 2013 at 1:38 PM

LOL, where is Luntzie by the way? Hannity’s BFF:-) I never did figure out his points. We all could have gotten the same response talking to our neighbors.

bluefox on February 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM

From DrewM:

RT @danabashcnn Sources in both parties tell me compromise in the works to delay vote on Hagel, but make it a 51 vote threshold not 60.

— Brian Faughnan (@BrianFaughnan) February 14, 2013

besser tot als rot on February 14, 2013 at 1:56 PM

More kabuki theater amongst esteemed colleagues. Quick! They’re onto us…let’s start a fake fight to throw ‘em off.

And Rand? To play it safe, I’ll assume his pop’s kookiness is congenital. Unfair? You bet. So what? NEXT!

Christien on February 14, 2013 at 1:57 PM

If only Hagel were a mediocrity. I worry that he’s actively hostile to our interests.

rbj on February 14, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Handing over nuclear weapons to a guy who wants the United States to unilaterally disarm as an example to the other nuclear nations like Pakistan (and North Korea and Iran soon)…..

What could possibly go wrong?

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Ah, but Hagel has never taken a sip of water on national television–a guaranteed career-killer. None of that other stuff you cited makes a difference, they’re mere bumps in the road that he didn’t build. Hagel is good to go!

Liam on February 14, 2013 at 1:57 PM

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 1:38 PM

You just got the treatment by RWM, otherwise known as vaporized.

bluefox on February 14, 2013 at 1:59 PM

besser tot als rot on February 14, 2013 at 1:56 PM

That would be Reid and the Obama enabler McConnell I assume?

bluefox on February 14, 2013 at 2:00 PM

…where he acted stupider than the stupidest member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Dude, you have issues.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Yeah, ‘cuz everyone knows that Sheila Jackson-Lee*, Hank Johnson, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, etc, along with former CBC member, Cynthia McKinney**, are all Mensa members.

* A few of her greatest hits:

1.

“Did the Mars Rover take any images of the flag Neil Armstrong planted on Mars?”

- Sheila “Weapons Grade Stupid” Jackson-Lee, which caused her colleague, Vernon Ehlers, to sigh and state, “We don’t teach enough science in this country.”

2.

“Hurricane names are too ‘lily-white’. All racial groups should be represented and federal weather officials should try to be inclusive of African-American names.”

- Sheila “But, You’d Better Not Give Any Cat 4s or 5s African Names Because That Would Be Racist” Jackson-Lee

3.

“All those who wore sheets a long time ago have now lifted them off and started wearing [applause], uh, clothing, uh, with a name, say, I am part of the tea party.”

- Sheila “I See Racists Everywhere Except When They Are Robert Byrd Democrats” Jackson-Lee

4.

“I am so glad that we won the Vietnam War. Today, we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South, exchanging and working. We may not agree with all that North Vietnam is doing, but they are living in peace.”

- Sheila “Dora the Explorer” Jackson-Lee

5.

“I am a queen, and I demand to be treated like a queen.”

- Sheila “Queen of Racism” Jackson-Lee to a staffer

6.

“What am I a prostitute? Am I your prostitute? You can’t prostitute me.”

- Sheila “I Ain’t No ‘Ho” Jackson-Lee, according to her staff

7.

“Don’t you let them tell you that Congresswoman Jackson-Lee’s braids are too tight in her hair and that has something to do with justice and equality and empowerment of the American people. Don’t let them fool you on that [applause].”

** A few of her greatest hits:

1. Tried to pass a bill to release the government’s secret records on all of the Jews on House committees.

2. Assaulted the Capitol police.

3. Tried to get a new House Senate Select Committee On Assassinations formed to investigate the CIA’s involvement into the “assassinations” of Tupac Shakur, Soulja Slim, Biggie Smalls, Freakie Tay, Mac Dre, Yaki Kadafi, Scott La Rock, Big L, and Jam Master Jay.

4. Claimed that the government executed 5,000 males and dumped them in a swamp in Louisiana.

5. Claimed that the American Red Cross was a conspirator in the “genocide” in Louisiana. (Yeah, ‘cuz EVERYONE knows that the Red Cross is just a beard for the Fourth Reich, Illuminati, Council on Foreign Relations, CIA and Bilderbergs. That’s right! We ALL know that its charity work is just a cover for its real purpose: To steal and kill.)

6. 9/11 Truther (thermite…nano-thermite…nono-kryptonite)

TOTALLY BATSHIT CRAZY: THE SIX MOST INSANE PEOPLE TO EVER RUN FOR PRESIDENT

Are You Smarter Than A Politician? Probably.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Again…as I said before, Repubs are not hiding the ‘why’ here at all.
And it’s not any of the concerns that you offered.
They said they are doing this until they get ‘answers on Benghazi’.
I suppose as soon as the WH tells Lindsay Graham whether or not Obama spoke with Libyans – (and how many…for how long…at what time…and where was he…what was he wearing…phone on right or left ear…feet up or standing?) – well then he’ll just move right to a vote on all of this?
Sure.
Theater…plain and simple.
As is the demand for Benghazi ‘answers’.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:03 PM

I missed the part where they offered this as the reason for a filibuster.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Oh, is that some sort of rule?

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 2:05 PM

That would be Reid and the Obama enabler McConnell I assume?

bluefox on February 14, 2013 at 2:00 PM

This capitulation was faster than even I expected.

besser tot als rot on February 14, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Handing over nuclear weapons to a guy who wants the United States to unilaterally disarm as an example to the other nuclear nations like Pakistan (and North Korea and Iran soon)…..

What could possibly go wrong?

Happy Nomad on February 14, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Everyone will come together and sing Kumbaya. I hate that song.

rbj on February 14, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 2:02 PM

I think your better than this.
But maybe you’ll prove me wrong.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Say Verbaluce what was wrong with John Tower or John Bolton? What were the “reasosn” they got stopped by the Democrats in the Senate?

And as to your proffered reasons, can you give me the quote where McCain or Graham said those things?

JFKY on February 14, 2013 at 2:15 PM

I missed the part where they offered this as the reason for a filibuster.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Oh, is that some sort of rule?

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Nope.
Rules allow them to filibuster just because they have a hair across their a$s.
Wait…nevermind.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:15 PM

You just got the treatment by RWM, otherwise known as vaporized.

bluefox on February 14, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Sadly…more of a reveal than anything to do with me.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Nope.
Rules allow them to filibuster just because they have a hair across their a$s.
Wait…nevermind.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Obama’s loyal kneepad brigade whining about the GOP playing politics. Let me just add that to my list of concerns.

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 2:17 PM

I think your better than this.
But maybe you’ll prove me wrong.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Posting actual quotes from CBC members are now offensive to you.

Good grief.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2013 at 2:17 PM

sentinelrules on February 14, 2013 at 2:17 PM

How are you enjoying your CBC thread?
Seems you have so much to offer on the, um…topic.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Maxine Waters w/b so much better.

Schadenfreude on February 14, 2013 at 2:26 PM

How are you enjoying your CBC thread?
Seems you have so much to offer on the, um…topic.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Dorner is not a member of the Congressional Black Caucus – he’s too moderate.
Maybe all black people look alike for you.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Again…as I said before, Repubs are not hiding the ‘why’ here at all.
And it’s not any of the concerns that you offered.
They said they are doing this until they get ‘answers on Benghazi’.
I suppose as soon as the WH tells Lindsay Graham whether or not Obama spoke with Libyans – (and how many…for how long…at what time…and where was he…what was he wearing…phone on right or left ear…feet up or standing?) – well then he’ll just move right to a vote on all of this?
Sure.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Er, you might wish to go back and educate yourself. There has been talk of filibustering Hagan for months – and the bases for which have included many of the things that I wrote.

In fact, if you want, I’ll provide you with some examples.

Theater…plain and simple.

As is the demand for Benghazi ‘answers’.

Er, I think that the American people have a RIGHT TO KNOW that their Commander-in-Chief was AWOL and went to bed after being told that Ambassador Stevens was missing and there was an ongoing assault.

That’s FAR worse than Bush finishing “My Pet Goat” to a class of kindergarteners.

We also deserve the truth on the gun-running and, yes, it is happening. I wrote about it on numerous occasions some time back, including this:

Obama sent for the Seals that killed Osama. They did their job. We know what happened to them.

When Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith and 2 former Seals, Tyrone Woods and Glenn Dougherty, called for help, Obama did NOTHING.

Chris Stevens was meeting with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin in Benghazi on the night of his death. Turkey was not pleased that both Qaddafi and American-made weapons, including Stingers, were making their way to the al Qaeda-affiliated rebels in Syria. Neither were the Russians and Iranians, who are on the side of the Assad regime.

5 days before the attack, a Libyan ship, the Entisa, linked with Al-Qaeda jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj had Stingers and other weapons onboard. The purpose was to get weapons into the hands of Syrian jihadists, known to be dominated by Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

This ship was stopped at the Turkish port of Iskanderun, 35 miles from the Syrian border. They did not want the weapons going forward into Syria, but high-ranking US officials pleaded. The transport was released under duress.

The following week, Stevens was assassinated. There are 4 groups that do not want a Fast & Furious for Syria: The Turks, The Syrians, The Iranians, and The Russians.

Mr Obama may wish to watch his own back considering the Frankenstein he created.

Karma is such a vengeful bytch.

8 November 2011

Yes, we definitely deserve the truth and demanding such is not theater. I remember when there was an entire commission set up to investigate the first 9/11.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 2:29 PM

OT – who needs enemies with idiots like these?

Schadenfreude on February 14, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Rules allow them to filibuster just because they have a hair across their a$s.
Wait…nevermind.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Are you referring to John Bolton’s nomination to be Ambassador to the United Nations?

The Senate yesterday failed to break a Democrat-led filibuster against President Bush’s nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, leaving John R. Bolton at an impasse and setting up the possibility of a recess appointment.

The vote was 54-38, six votes shy of the total needed to end a filibuster and force an up-or-down vote on Mr. Bolton, and both sides said they do not see an end to the impasse.

Democrats said the issue is no longer Mr. Bolton, but an institutional fight with the administration over access to names from foreign communications intercepts.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 2:32 PM

That would be Reid and the Obama enabler McConnell I assume?

bluefox on February 14, 2013 at 2:00 PM

This capitulation was faster than even I expected.

besser tot als rot on February 14, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Did this have to do with the Filibuster Reform that Reid & McConnell agreed on? I think it passed the Senate. Would have to check on it to be sure. Too bad there are no bills in the House or Senate that are GOOD for the American people.

Boomtown!!

bluefox on February 14, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Democrats said the issue is no longer Mr. Bolton, but an institutional fight with the administration over access to names from foreign communications intercepts.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 2:32 PM

But that’s different.

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Useful idiot insists on remaining a useful idiot.

kim roy on February 14, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Democrats said the issue is no longer Mr. Bolton, but an institutional fight with the administration over access to names from foreign communications intercepts.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 2:32 PM

But that’s different.

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 2:34 PM

BUT, OF COURSE…

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Why were they were filibustering? Was it because they were ‘demanding answers’ on an issue that did not involve John Bolton?
RWM – I’m not saying they can’t do this.
My point is that they remain the party of perpetual outrage and obstruction.
In fact, their ‘outrage’ is just another device to obstruct.
And they admit that…and Ed acknowledges it.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Why were they were filibustering? Was it because they were ‘demanding answers’ on an issue that did not involve John Bolton?

Yes…“but an institutional fight with the administration over access to names from foreign communications intercepts.”

My point is that they remain the party of perpetual outrage and obstruction.
In fact, their ‘outrage’ is just another device to obstruct.
And they admit that…and Ed acknowledges it.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Outrage and obstruction worked very well for Obama and his fellow Democrats when Bush was president.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Why were they were filibustering? Was it because they were ‘demanding answers’ on an issue that did not involve John Bolton?
RWM – I’m not saying they can’t do this.
My point is that they remain the party of perpetual outrage and obstruction.
In fact, their ‘outrage’ is just another device to obstruct.
And they admit that…and Ed acknowledges it.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:42 PM

I love that you have a set of rules you demand everyone follow.

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Democrats said the issue is no longer Mr. Bolton, but an institutional fight with the administration over access to names from foreign communications intercepts.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Ah…not really accurate –
(You put a period where there should be a comma…simple error…yes?)

Democrats said the issue is no longer Mr. Bolton, but an institutional fight with the administration over access to names from foreign communications intercepts, which Democrats want to see to determine whether Mr. Bolton was trying to bully analysts.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM

I love that you have a set of rules you demand everyone follow.

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Wha?
What ‘rules’?
What ‘demands’?

Also…

But that’s different.
Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 2:34 PM

You see above?
It is different…isn’t it?

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:50 PM

You see above?
It is different…isn’t it?

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Nope. Both sides rationalizing how they play politics with whatever way they want. “Bullying” is a particularly funny excuse, though.

You should be happy the GOP is doing this. It distracts from the fact Hagel would be a total embarasment to Obama.

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Well, not a different angle.
But RWM offered a false ‘same behavior’ example…and you high fived her for it.
So…Match point for me on that one!
Repubs are behaving differently here than the Dems did with Bolton.
Dang facts.
It’s not ‘both sides’.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Filibuster Reform Package that passed:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/279237-liberals-irate-as-senate-passes-watered-down-filibuster-reform

Following the votes, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Senate Democrats had succeeded in “seriously weakening the greatest deliberative legislative body in the world.

“The rules change limits the ability of Senators to offer amendments, stifles debate, and greases the skids for Democrats to implement more of their tax-and-spend agenda,” he said.

bluefox on February 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM

It’s not ‘both sides’.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:03 PM

John Tower.

/End your argument

sentinelrules on February 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Well, not a different angle.
But RWM offered a false ‘same behavior’ example…and you high fived her for it.
So…Match point for me on that one!
Repubs are behaving differently here than the Dems did with Bolton.
Dang facts.
It’s not ‘both sides’.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:03 PM

I think we just found the highlight of your year!

The Democrats went on a silly fishing expedition to find something incriminating on Bush in the wiretaps on the pretense of “bullying”. I guess the Democrats couldn’t get the goods on Bolton swiping office supplies?

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 3:12 PM

I think we just found the highlight of your year!

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Fortunately, not the highlight of my year.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Ah…not really accurate –
(You put a period where there should be a comma…simple error…yes?)

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Yes

Democrats said the issue is no longer Mr. Bolton, but an institutional fight with the administration over access to names from foreign communications intercepts, which Democrats want to see to determine whether Mr. Bolton was trying to bully analysts.

Either the issue was John Bolton or it wasn’t.

Filibustering Bolton

“Yes, filibuster Bolton!”

Tales of Two Filibusters: The Judges & John Bolton

Democrats Extend Debate On Bolton

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 27, 2005

Senate Democrats refused to end debate on John R. Bolton’s nomination to be U.N. ambassador yesterday, extending the contentious issue into next month and angering Republicans only three days after many had heralded a bipartisan breakthrough on judicial nominees.

Democrats said they launched the delaying tactic only as a means of pressuring the Bush administration to provide documents related to Bolton’s handling of classified information and his role in preparing congressional testimony about Syria in 2003. They rejected the administration’s argument that some of the requested information is not relevant to the confirmation debate.

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) told reporters that Democratic leaders had assured Frist that he would get 60 votes to end debate if he tried. But Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the Democratic leader “told Senator Frist this afternoon he did not have the 60 votes needed, and urged him to consider holding off on the vote” while Biden and others pressed the administration for the requested documents.

He rejected Democratic complaints that they did not have enough information. “They have what they need,” McClellan said.

Biden said yesterday’s vote was meant “to tell the administration that they cannot dictate to the United States Senate.”

“Maybe they’ll take notice,” Biden added. “But the administration is so arrogant, you can’t be sure.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/26/AR2005052601910_2.html

The same can certainly be said about this administration, which has arrogantly made “recess” appointments when the Senate could not possibly be in recess pursuant to Article I, Section 5, Clause 4, the Adjournments Clause, of the Constitution. Your guy has no respect for separation of powers and he was, rightfully, slapped down by the DC Ap Ct. He will lose if he appeals to the Supreme Court, too.

Democrats filibustered Bolton. They wanted more documents.

Republicans are filibustering Hagel. They want more documents, including the transcripts of his speeches and the amount of money he received from foreign groups.

Turnabout is fair play. Get used to it.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Fortunately, not the highlight of my year.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:24 PM

It’s really OK if it is. Pretending to win arguments on an anonymous news forum seems to be the draw for you guys. It’s not like you can defend Obama’s presidency on the numbers.

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Well, not a different angle. But RWM offered a false ‘same behavior’ example…and you high fived her for it. So…Match point for me on that one!

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Er, wrong. Either the issue was Bolton or it wasn’t. Democrats said:

Democrats said the issue is no longer Mr. Bolton, but an institutional fight with the administration over access to names from foreign communications intercepts, which Democrats want to see to determine whether Mr. Bolton was trying to bully analysts.

“Repubs are behaving differently here than the Dems did with Bolton. Dang facts. It’s not ‘both sides’.”

Er, wrong. Dang facts.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Turnabout is fair play. Get used to it.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 3:27 PM

As George Costanza yelled at the end of “Titanic”:

THAT’S GOTTA HURT!

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Why were they were filibustering? Was it because they were ‘demanding answers’ on an issue that did not involve John Bolton? RWM – I’m not saying they can’t do this.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Um, they said it wasn’t about Bolton. They wanted documents, which included Bolton, but the scope of the demand went beyond him.

My point is that they remain the party of perpetual outrage and obstruction. In fact, their ‘outrage’ is just another device to obstruct.

They have a right to demand documents. They have a right to demand the White House answer questions and turn over documents related to Benghazi. If the WH will not do it in the normal course of business, then they have a right to filibuster.

As for “perpetual outrage,” I seem to recall that there wasn’t ANYTHING that Bush did that failed to raise the outrage of Democrats.

I remember your party calling Bush a liar, unpatriotic, a traitor (“He betrayed this country!!!”). So, puhlease, save it with your “both parties don’t do this” shit.

And they admit that…and Ed acknowledges it.

They have not admitted that they are filibustering simply to obstruct and, if Ed “acknowledged” that, then he is incorrect.

We can continue to examine other filibusters waged by Democrats…if you’d like.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Democrats filibustered Bolton. They wanted more documents.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Realting to Bolton…to determoine something about…Bolton.
If you wanna say that’s wrong, ok.
But you’re saying ti’s the same thing – and it’s not.
Pretty simple.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:53 PM

THAT’S GOTTA HURT!

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Come on…you’re not one of those, are you?
RWM is more than capable…able to engage with out the back pats.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Democrats filibustered Bolton. They wanted more documents.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Relating to Bolton…to determine something about…Bolton.
If you wanna say that’s wrong, ok.
But you’re saying it’s the same thing – and it’s not.
Pretty simple.

(fixed)

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Come on…you’re not one of those, are you?
RWM is more than capable…able to engage with out the back pats.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:56 PM

She doesn’t need my help showing you were wrong. The Democrats said the issue was not Bolton.

Chuck Schick on February 14, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Lol! RWM, how about a smile for me. I could use one. ; )

Bmore on February 14, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Relating to Bolton…to determine something about…Bolton.
If you wanna say that’s wrong, ok.
But you’re saying it’s the same thing – and it’s not.
Pretty simple.

(fixed)

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:57 PM

They wanted more than just documents about Bolton.

Republicans want documents – too – about Hagel, which he has refused to turn over.

Now, should we talk about John Tower?

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Lol! RWM, how about a smile for me. I could use one. ; )

Bmore on February 14, 2013 at 4:48 PM

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 4:56 PM

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 4:56 PM

; )

Bmore on February 14, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Democrats filibustered Bolton. They wanted more documents.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Relating to Bolton…to determine something about…Bolton.

Pretty simple.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 3:57 PM

And, the Republicans want documents FROM Hagel, including financial disclosures concerning his speeches, advocacy, and advisory roles, especially those pertaining to overseas organisations and countries.

If a nominee was receiving money from Iran or North Korea, wouldn’t that be pertinent information to consider before confirming her to such a sensitive position?

Why won’t Hagel turn over the information? Is he hiding something?

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Verbaluce:

What was your position when Democrats rejected the nomination 53-47 for Secretary of Defence of a newly-elected President, GHW Bush, in 1989? Senator John Tower’s nomination to become Secretary of Defence was the first time that the Senate had rejected a cabinet nominee of a newly elected president.

The post of Secretary of Defence was left vacant for 3 months.

What was your position when Democrats filibustered Miguel Estrada, who had received a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association (which is not a conservative or even libertarian-leading organisation. I know. I have been a member.)?

“On March 6, 2003, there was the first of seven failed cloture votes on Estrada. Fifty-five senators voted to end debate on his nomination and allow a final confirmation vote, and forty-four senators voted not to end debate. After twenty-eight months in political limbo and a protracted six-month battle using the filibuster, Estrada withdrew his name from further consideration on September 4, 2003.”

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 5:16 PM

verbaluce on February 14, 2013

…do you need lotion?

KOOLAID2 on February 14, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 5:16 PM

You wanna shift the argument here.
I’m staying on topic. You have yet to refute my point that in fact the Repubs are acting differently here.
They are using this nomination to argue about something unrelated. To the point of filibuster.
They do not dispute this.
Why do you?
Right….because you just have to.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 8:12 PM

I’m staying on topic. You have yet to refute my point that in fact the Repubs are acting differently here.
They are using this nomination to argue about something unrelated. To the point of filibuster.
They do not dispute this.
Why do you?
Right….because you just have to.

verbaluce on February 14, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Yes, I have. They have been demanding document disclosures from Hagel for weeks.

They do not dispute this. Why do you?

The Republicans are not acting differently than Democrats, but, of course, you probably think that sequester and pro forma sessions were created by them.

Right….because you just have to.

And, why would I “have to” considering the FACT that I’m not a conservative nor have I EVER been a Republican?

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Why do Progs want, as their SecDef, a man that attended the same amount of colleges that Sarah Palin did, but had a lower grade point average (D)?

I guess they want people just like them to occupy high offices.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 9:08 PM

Why do Progs want, as their SecDef, a man, who is IGNORANT of the foreign policy positions of the administration in which he wants to serve?

I guess they want their SecDef to be just like them.
.
.
Why do Progs want, as their SecDef, a man, who was described by an Obama adviser as “BAFFLING” and “INCOMPREHENSIBLE”?

I guess they want their SecDef to be described just as they are.
.
.
Why do Progs want to put into office a BIGOT, who has made anti-Semitic comments frequently, has demonstrated homophobia, and is even against abortion even in the case of rape?

I guess they want a “bigoted hater” just like themselves.

Resist We Much on February 14, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Reid’s Short Memory on the Filibuster

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blasted Republican senators for their refusal to support bringing former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel’s nomination to the floor for an up or down vote. Amidst references to the unprecedented nature of the Republicans’ obstructionist efforts, Reid failed to mention his opposition to a Bush administration cabinet nominee on nearly identical grounds.

“Just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse, it gets worse,” Reid lamented this morning on the Senate floor. “I’m going to call Chuck Hagel when I finish here and say, ‘I’m sorry, sorry this has happened. I’m sorry for the president, I’m sorry for the country, and I’m sorry for you.”

The momentum for a filibuster picked up steam when senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham indicated they would not vote to end debate and allow a vote on the nomination until the White House provided more information on the Benghazi attack. “Chuck Hagel had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi,” Reid argued.

Former Idaho governor Dirk Kempthorne didn’t have anything to do with the Bush administration’s position on public land sales in Southern Nevada, either. Nonetheless, Reid in 2006 supported a filibuster of Kempthorne’s nomination as secretary of the interior until the administration agreed to redirect funds from an enormously profitable Nevada land management fund, set to go to the Treasury Department, to the state of Nevada.

“I said before that I couldn’t support Governor Kempthorne’s nomination unless we could come to an agreement about key public land issues,” Reid, who said the Senate minority leader at the time, said in a statement. When the Bush administration acceded to Reid’s demands, he declared his support for Kempthorne’s nomination.

Reid today repeatedly decried the GOP’s opposition to Hagel’s nomination, pointing to the historical nature of the alleged obstruction. As it turns out, Kempthorne was the last cabinet nominee to face a filibuster . . . thanks in part to Harry Reid.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340768/reids-short-memory-filibuster-eliana-johnson

Resist We Much on February 15, 2013 at 1:41 AM