Hagel to withdraw

[Avatar4321]

You talk like obstruction of government is a bad thing.

And that is why Republicans are terrible at governing.

That's how our government was designed. Obstruction is good. It keeps bad legislation out.

 

[Avatar4321]

So they don't care who he nominates (which actions would dictate otherwise) - they haven't put forward a more acceptable nominee?

They can't Constitutionally. It's the President who chooses Nominees.

 

[Delia]

Sure they can! They can say who they would accept as a nominee. He may even listen, and put that person forward.

 

[DiamondDave]

You talk like obstruction of government is a bad thing.

And that is why Republicans are terrible at governing.

No.. that is why they are slightly better than DEMs... because it was NEVER supposed to be easy to give government new powers, or to take charge of new things... and unfortunately, the far left thinks it is the job of government to take more responsibility over people, over how well off they are, over who should be funded for this or preferred for that... and thus they support the government having an easier time grabbing more power

 

[Vast LWC]

Why would we have to wait till our guys sitting in the White House? All we have to do is look back at the Bush administration to see Democrats doing the same thing they are complaining about now. It gets old.

While, admittedly, that is true, the Republicans more than doubled the amount of obstructions of the Democrats from the Bush era.

 

[ogibillm]

You talk like obstruction of government is a bad thing.

And that is why Republicans are terrible at governing.

That's how our government was designed. Obstruction is good. It keeps bad legislation out.

legislation fine. nominees are something else entirely.

 

[RosieS]

McCain is acting as if Hagel dumped him for some younger, richer Republican.

Karma's a bitch, John.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Vast LWC]

No.. that is why they are slightly better than DEMs... because it was NEVER supposed to be easy to give government new powers, or to take charge of new things... and unfortunately, the far left thinks it is the job of government to take more responsibility over people, over how well off they are, over who should be funded for this or preferred for that... and thus they support the government having an easier time grabbing more power

ROFL. Thanks for the laugh.

So, tell me, what "new powers" are being granted to the government by filling the position of Secretary of Defense? How is actually placing someone in one of the most important positions in government a "power grab"?

Republicans hate government so damn much that they have no clue how to do anything concerning running it, aside from whining, complaining and obstructing.

 

[DiamondDave]

And that is why Republicans are terrible at governing.

That's how our government was designed. Obstruction is good. It keeps bad legislation out.

legislation fine. nominees are something else entirely.

No.. it is also fine.. because you want everyone vetted.. you want to the country to know what is getting put in...

 

[DiamondDave]

No.. that is why they are slightly better than DEMs... because it was NEVER supposed to be easy to give government new powers, or to take charge of new things... and unfortunately, the far left thinks it is the job of government to take more responsibility over people, over how well off they are, over who should be funded for this or preferred for that... and thus they support the government having an easier time grabbing more power

ROFL. Thanks for the laugh.

So, tell me, what "new powers" are being granted to the government by filling the position of Secretary of Defense? How is actually placing someone in one of the most important positions in government a "power grab"?

Republicans hate government so damn much that they have no clue how to do anything in it but whine, complain and obstruct.

I did not say this was granting new powers.. I was going on the subject of obstruction itself... BUT since you asked, he should be fully vetted and scrutinized so that the populace knows exactly what they are getting

I don't hate government as a conservative... I hate over-sized government, I hate government just ignoring the process and doing whatever they please... and I hate what you guys think government should be when you want your way, and then fully accept the obstruction when it suits you

 

[Sallow]

Careful what you folks wish for..

This is unprecedented. And while it may seem good fun now..wait till it's your guy sitting the the White House.

I said the same thing about Bush's new found powers..except I said..wait till it's our guy sitting in the White House.

Why would we have to wait till our guys sitting in the White House? All we have to do is look back at the Bush administration to see Democrats doing the same thing they are complaining about now. It gets old.

Bush got almost everything he wanted.

He missed on Harriet Miers and turning SSI into a voucher program.

It was his own party that opposed him on immigration.

 

[ogibillm]

That's how our government was designed. Obstruction is good. It keeps bad legislation out.

legislation fine. nominees are something else entirely.

No.. it is also fine.. because you want everyone vetted.. you want to the country to know what is getting put in...

vetted is fine. but not allowing positions to be filled is something entirely different.

 

[Lakhota]

I doubt Hagel will withdraw. This right-wing nonsense is giving Democrats much political capital for 2014.

 

[Sallow]

Why would we have to wait till our guys sitting in the White House? All we have to do is look back at the Bush administration to see Democrats doing the same thing they are complaining about now. It gets old.

While, admittedly, that is true, the Republicans more than doubled the amount of obstructions of the Democrats from the Bush era.

Not really.

Bush, in terms of policy and appointments, was one of the most successful Presidents in history.

 

[Foxfyre]

What is their justification for fighting Hagel so hard. Who do they want?

Hagel has been very anti-Israel, pro-Palestinians in the past and this is a concern for the Republicans. He also has sent very mixed messages over the years on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran and was very unprepared and muddled in his answers at the hearing. And there are unanswered questions re his dealings with some questionable folks around the world, most especially in the Middle East, questions he has so far refused to answer.

So most of the GOP is opposed to the nomination, but will ultimately vote to confirm him. They are getting as much mileage out of it as they can to force the President's hand in releasing requested information on Benghazi, etc. by holding up the process. This is a standard practice in the Senate no matter who is in charge, however.

I think the initial test vote was Tuesday to break a GOP filibuster so the confirmation can proceed on a straight up or down majority vote. The final tally was 58-40--one Senator voting present but not for or against. Harry Reid then changed his vote to "no" with the Republicans which allows him to bring the issue up again--some quirk in the Senate rules.

So they don't care who he nominates (which actions would dictate otherwise) - they haven't put forward a more acceptable nominee?

It is not the duty nor would it be acceptable protocol for either party in the Senate (or anywhere else in government) to put up a nominee to be Secretary of Defense. It is the President's duty to find a suitable candidate fully qualified for the position and present that nomination to the Senate for confirmation. The vast majority of the President's appointees are confirmed, regardless of the party in power.

But just as Bush 41 was unable to get John Tower, also a member of the Senate, through the nomination process to be Secretary of Defense, Obama is having a tough time with Hagel. The Democrats thought there was sufficient reason to block Tower. The Republicans believe there is sufficient reason to block Hagel.

It is my sense, however, that Hagel will eventually be confirmed. Bush 41 was forced to abandon Tower's nominaton and they did subsequently confirm Dick Cheney for that position.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why would we have to wait till our guys sitting in the White House? All we have to do is look back at the Bush administration to see Democrats doing the same thing they are complaining about now. It gets old.

While, admittedly, that is true, the Republicans more than doubled the amount of obstructions of the Democrats from the Bush era.

Im not very impressed with figured pulled out of someone's @$$.

 

[Vast LWC]

 

[Delia]

Well apparently, you have a very roomy ass.

 

[Avatar4321]

McCain is acting as if Hagel dumped him for some younger, richer Republican.

Karma's a bitch, John.

Regards from Rosie

That's because McCain and Hagel have some personal animosity

 

[Foxfyre]

And that is why Republicans are terrible at governing.

That's how our government was designed. Obstruction is good. It keeps bad legislation out.

legislation fine. nominees are something else entirely.

So the Democrats were bad, bad, BAD for blocking John Tower's nomination as Secretary of Defense, yes? For blocking Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court? For putting Clarence Thomas through the most viscious nomination process this country has ever seen?

The Senate's Constitutional duty to confirm nominations is just supposed to be lip service right? They have no role other than to rubber stamp whatever name the President sends over? They really shouldn't even be holding hearings?

Please enlighten us on how this should work.