GOP is Filibustering Hagel nomination

[PokerGuy]

Uh, no... you can't protect the country by holding up the nomination of our defensive secretary. If something happens, war, or instability in other countries that pose a threat to us and our allies, and many other things, you need to have the defense secretary in place ready to handle those issues.

If that's the case, then you should nominate someone that can be confirmed in the senate. You can't nominate someone and then blame the senate when they do exactly what they are supposed to do. By your logic, the senate should just blindly confirm anyone the president nominates simply because of how critical the role is -- and that goes 100% against the constitution. If you want them to just blindly agree, then do away with the consent requirement. Otherwise, they are doing their job.

But thats ok, lets just let them keep being the stupid party, and dems will continue to win, and gain seats.

Doing the right thing isn't always popular.

 

[kage69]

Using the filibuster to protect the country from the idiots in the white house is not "abuse", it's using a procedural tool to do what is needed.

...providing there is a Dem in the White House anyway. Otherwise, non-record setting use of the filibuster under a (R) admin seems to warrant the discussion of the 'nuclear option' (see 2000-2008) in order to halt "tyranny of the minority."



Funny how these concerns ebb and flow depending on which party is in power...

 

[Phokus]

If the other party has no interest in involving your party in the governing, then you can expect the excluded party to use whatever tools they have to block the party currently in power. If the party in power tries to work with the other party, then I'd expect the use of the filibuster to decrease accordingly.

The increased use of the filibuster isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the problem, which is partisanship and polarization. We have the most divisive and polarizing administration in history, so it's no surprising to see the most use of tools like the filibuster in history.

What alternate reality do you live in?

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM WITH THIS COUNTRY

I swear to god, i wish Obama shoved single payer healthcare down your throat rather than using a shitty ass REPUBLICAN healthcare plan and having you idiots slap on 'Obamacare' onto the plan.

You idiot, you want to see divise and polarizing, THIS is divisive and polarizing:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...rs-renege-on-debt-limit-deal-defense-cuts.php

When Republicans even sabotage spending cut bills, that pretty much signals that the GOP is the problem in this country.

Or when Republicans filibuster their own bill:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/mcconnell-filibusters-his-own-bill-to-lift-debt-limit.php

It's truly shocking how much lower the GOP can bring Congress down to the depths of hell yet you idiots are unwilling to call them out on it.

 

[TerryMathews]

If that's the case, then you should nominate someone that can be confirmed in the senate. You can't nominate someone and then blame the senate when they do exactly what they are supposed to do. By your logic, the senate should just blindly confirm anyone the president nominates simply because of how critical the role is -- and that goes 100% against the constitution. If you want them to just blindly agree, then do away with the consent requirement. Otherwise, they are doing their job.

Doing the right thing isn't always popular.

More than one person here has said that, the Senate should confirm anyone that Obama puts forward because it's his cabinet.

Same posters also think there should be no debt ceiling, even though the nation's debt is the purview of congress. Cognitive dissonance?

 

[Ausm]

The filibuster is a procedural tool used by senators to block vote on legislation or nominations. If more bad legislation is proposed or more stupid nominations are proposed, then a higher number of filibusters is perfectly appropriate. Since we have idiots in the white house making appointments and idiots in congress proposing legislation, you're going to see a lot more filibustering.

As one who didn't vote for the bummer or any of his minions, I *want* my rep to do what is needed to block bad nominations / legislation.

I hope we return the favor in SPADES if/when your party ever gets back in power in the Senate.

Karma's a Bitch.

 

[Ausm]

Of course it is, yet hacks always complain about gop obstructionism while ignoring the "my way or the highway" approach from the white house. People who live in glass houses........

LMFAO what alternate reality do you live in?

 

[Sonikku]

No seriously. Are we at a point where they're filibustering without a reason? Why can't I find a reason?

Obama wants the man for the job and whatever Obama stands for, we don't stand for. Seems like reason enough to me.

 

[Ausm]

Obama wants the man for the job and whatever Obama stands for, we don't stand for. Seems like reason enough to me.

Basically if you had an analytical mind, you could see through the Bullshit and realize that President Obama is pretty much insulated from the GOP cudgel of making his life a living hell so basically the GOP are going after low hanging fruit.

Hagel is the new Benghazi.....

 

[evident]

I don't think Hagel has the qualifications for the job. His confirmation hearing was pretty terrible. But even if the hearing was fine, the GOP probably would have done the same thing

 

[umbrella39]

Using the filibuster to protect the country from the idiots in the white house is not "abuse", it's using a procedural tool to do what is needed.

The GOP knows what's best.

 

[Phokus]

I honestly believe Obama could come out for tax cuts for the rich tomorrow and the GOP would find some way to oppose it JUST because it came out of Obama's mouth.

And then mouth breathing retards like Pokerguy would complain how divisive Obama is.

It's truly shocking how idiotic most conservatives are.

 

[PokerGuy]

...providing there is a Dem in the White House anyway. Otherwise, non-record setting use of the filibuster under a (R) admin seems to warrant the discussion of the 'nuclear option' (see 2000-2008) in order to halt "tyranny of the minority."



Funny how these concerns ebb and flow depending on which party is in power...

Actually, no. I was 100% opposed to the "nuclear option" back then as well. People always seem to forget that changing the rules to help you when you have the power is going to come back and bite you in the butt when you don't.

 

[HomerJS]

The dems DID do this on Bush appointees. Convenient how you forget that.

There you go again, with that false equivilence...

 

[umbrella39]

I'm starting to think some of our more esteemed conservative members are truly living some alternate reality...

 

[PokerGuy]

I hope we return the favor in SPADES if/when your party ever gets back in power in the Senate.

"we" ? "my party"? Who's "my party" exactly?

I'm comfortable that the practice will continue for future candidates as well. They're just going to have to be better at working with the other party to get things done instead of "my way or the highway". The same people who believe in the "my way or the highway" administration now were complaining when Bush (stupidly IMO) took that approach with the international community when he was in office.

 

[PokerGuy]

There you go again, with that false equivalence

And there you go again with the meaningless stat of volume. Without contextual analysis, the number of times the procedure is used means nothing. Completely worthless.

 

[Phokus]

I'm starting to think some of our more esteemed conservative members are truly living some alternate reality...

Heh, starting to think? It's always been that way. And it's way more than 'some', it's virtually 'all'. I WILL, however, give props to Arkaign:

I'm a conservative, but find this kind of behavior absolutely reprehensible. I recently went to a backyard cookout with a few neighbors (this is an almost 100% 'Republican' area), and was shocked at: A) How fucking idiotic most of them were and B) How often I heard people talking about assassinating the POTUS and other 'liberals/commies' - Arkaign on the radicalization of the GOP

As a conservative, I also have to say that: Republicans are generally not interested in truth if it interferes with their bottom line. They'll use any means necessary, lies, cheating, and stealing to push their agenda. That's the nature of the people we are dealing with at the top of the Republican party. - Arkaign

Arkaign is literally the ONLY conservative i have ever met, online or in real life, that has any semblance of self awareness.

 

[Ausm]

"we" ? "my party"? Who's "my party" exactly?

I'm comfortable that the practice will continue for future candidates as well. They're just going to have to be better at working with the other party to get things done instead of "my way or the highway". The same people who believe in the "my way or the highway" administration now were complaining when Bush (stupidly IMO) took that approach with the international community when he was in office.

How the fuck do I know? It was a guess you could possible be a fucking alien for all I know ,in regard, to how utterly out of touch you are to reality.

 

[Ausm]

I'm starting to think some of our more esteemed conservative members are truly living some alternate reality...

I think a majority of the dwindling out of touch whitey Rightists frequent this forum.

 

[FerrelGeek]

The left is of the opinion that since 'they won!' everyone has to bend over and do what they say. They like to ignore that we live in a free country. Obama isn't interesting in bi-partisanship or compromise. He's nothing but a Chicago thug politician.

I'm no GOP fanboy, but they have just as much of a right to use whatever political tools they have at their disposal to block the nomination as the dems did to block judges under Bush.

The dems just play the outrage / victim game better than the reps though.

Apparently you misunderstand the role of the senate in the nomination process -- advise and consent. Not just one part of the senate -- all of the senate. If you nominate someone that one party is completely opposed to, then you can expect that party to use a procedural tool to block the nomination by not allowing it to come to a vote. Completely logical. If you have the attitude that the other party is irrelevant in the discussion (just as obummer does, and just like you show in your post), then you shouldn't whine when those you seek to exclude from the process block your nominations.

There is no stipulation that any particular rule in the senate is only allowed to be used for "extreme" candidates.



Sure, stomp your feet and just say "if you don't approve who I nominate, you're a thug!". Perfect example of the problem. If you pick someone that both parties are comfortable with, then you have no problem getting them confirmed.



Doing what's right isn't always popular, especially with the left wing media presenting a skewed viewpoint..... Even more commendable then that they are taking the right steps.



Of course it is, yet hacks always complain about gop obstructionism while ignoring the "my way or the highway" approach from the white house. People who live in glass houses........

 

[Oldgamer]

If that's the case, then you should nominate someone that can be confirmed in the senate. You can't nominate someone and then blame the senate when they do exactly what they are supposed to do. By your logic, the senate should just blindly confirm anyone the president nominates simply because of how critical the role is -- and that goes 100% against the constitution. If you want them to just blindly agree, then do away with the consent requirement. Otherwise, they are doing their job.

Doing the right thing isn't always popular.

Ok lets get one thing clear. What is going on right now is not "protecting the public from a bad nomination". Chuck Hagel has already gotten the approval of the majority of the repubs and dems. What we are seeing is "obstructionism", and the repubs holding out as long as they can delaying his nomination to try and get more concessions and deals. Stupid stupid stupid is all I can say on this.

The majority of the US (its citizens) are disgusted by this, and it is killing any chances the repubs have for a 2016 presidency, not to mention the upcoming governor races.

I want our reasonable, smart republicans back, not these tea puke hacks, that other republicans put in place and promoted "hoping to use them for a win" , and now these uneducated tea puke hacks have gotten a taste of power and are tearing our republican party apart.

This nomination is already approved, it is people like that idiot Ted Cruz and L. Graham that are holding this shit up. Again, it is just more of the same crap and they haven't learned anything from what just happened to them in this past election.

Don't you want your republican party back? Don't you want to see them be successful? Or do you just want this "stupid party" to continue its course and create "one manufactured" crisis after another?

 

[Phokus]

The left is of the opinion that since 'they won!' everyone has to bend over and do what they say. They like to ignore that we live in a free country. Obama isn't interesting in bi-partisanship or compromise. He's nothing but a Chicago thug politician.

I'm no GOP fanboy, but they have just as much of a right to use whatever political tools they have at their disposal to block the nomination as the dems did to block judges under Bush.

The dems just play the outrage / victim game better than the reps though.

You might as well be, you meet their threshold of being incredibly retarded to join their club.

LMAO, 'isn't interested in compromise'. What part of passing a GOP healthcare plan and extending the Bush tax cuts isn't 'compromise' to you, you bitch idiot?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Apparently you misunderstand the role of the senate in the nomination process -- advise and consent.

Filibustering is not "advising" and not "consenting". It's obstruction.

Of course it is, yet hacks always complain about gop obstructionism while ignoring the "my way or the highway" approach from the white house. People who live in glass houses........

In your prior post you blamed "divisiveness" and "polarization" on only one party. That's about as hackish as it gets.

You are also a hack because if the roles were reversed, you'd be upset at the senate, and not the president, whereas I think this sort of behavior is unacceptable from either party.

I repeat: the president gets to pick the nominees. And the senate confirms them unless there's a very good reason not to. The senate is NOT supposed to hold things up to try to get concessions on unrelated matters.

 

[Ausm]

You might as well be, you meet their threshold of being incredibly retarded to join their club.

LMAO, 'isn't interested in compromise'. What part of trying to pass a GOP healthcare plan and extending the Bush tax cuts isn't 'compromise' to you, you bitch idiot?

Obama bent over backwards for those motherfuckers and they kept moving the goal posts on him which made him look like an idiot.I'm glad he changed tact this go around.

 

[thraashman]

I hope we return the favor in SPADES if/when your party ever gets back in power in the Senate.

Karma's a Bitch.

I don't. Karma is a bitch, and yes the GOP would deserve it. But this isn't about politics, this is about the country. And unlike the GOP, the dems seem to care at least a small amount about the well being of the country.