GOP is Filibustering Hagel nomination

[HomerJS]

BTW - During the Bush administration, # of cabinet nominations filibustered....


0.0

 

[Charles Kozierok]

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.

Aka -- suckers.

 

[randomrogue]

When you resort to sounding like Rush Limbaugh you've lost the argument.

I'm trying to find the last time a cabinet member appointment was filibustered.

This is poor leadership and obstructionism. It's the equivalent of a toddler throwing himself on the ground and pouting when you won't buy a toy at the grocery store.

 

[randomrogue]

Only two Cabinet appointments have ever been filibustered: C. William Verity, President Reagan’s choice for Commerce in 1987, faced a filibuster by conservative Republicans who said he was too favorable to trade relations with the Soviet Union; and Dirk Kempthorne, President George W. Bush’s pick for Interior in 2006, was briefly delayed by two senators who objected to government policies regarding oil drilling. Both were ultimately confirmed easily – Kempthorne on a voice vote.

There

 

[PokerGuy]

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

Filibustering is part of senate procedures. Those procedures don't magically get suspended when it comes to their consenting of nominations. How they come to consent or not consent is part of senate procedures. Filibustering is part of those procedures.

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.

I repeat, you're just wrong. You don't get to make the rules as to what the senate is or isn't supposed to do. The rules are there and the process is there. The gop is playing within the rules of the game, doing exactly what they should do. I would prefer that they not have to resort to filibustering as much, but that's the tool available to them at this point.

 

[soundforbjt]

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

Doubt that...did you listen to the GOP/TP's golden boy Rubio's speech? He played the victim as well as anyone I've ever heard.

 

[PokerGuy]

BTW - During the Bush administration, # of cabinet nominations filibustered....


0.0

# of nominations that needed to be filibustered: 0. 0 for 0. So that stat says absolutely nothing.

 

[soundforbjt]

# of nominations that needed to be filibustered: 0. 0 for 0. So that stat says absolutely nothing.

So, you're saying Hagel's is the worst nomination in the history of Congress?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Filibustering is part of senate procedures.

And those procedures are not part of the constitutional mandate of the senate -- "advise and consent" -- as you said before.

Procedures are put into place based on general understandings of how they will be used. This behavior by the GOP is abuse of the procedures, which should have been changed at the start of the session, and would have been, if Harry Reid had a spine.

I repeat, you're just wrong.

You're entitled to your opinion. Given your long-term right-wing hackery, I'll give it all of the weight it deserves.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

# of nominations that needed to be filibustered: 0. 0 for 0. So that stat says absolutely nothing.

It's another indication that the GOP is currently abusing the senate procedural rules.

Filibusters are not supposed to be used for this sort of thing and everyone bloody well knows it, including the GOP. Which is why they are filibustering but trying not to call it a filibuster.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

Why would Obama shove single payer healthcare down our throats? Obama didn't want single payer healthcare.

"There are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well," Obama told the American Medical Association House of Delegates June 15 during its Annual Meeting in Chicago. "But I believe -- and I've taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief -- that it's important for our reform efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States."

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/06/22/gvsa0622.htm

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

BTW - During the Bush administration, # of cabinet nominations filibustered....


0.0

What about John Tower under Bush 1? Oh...that's right...they didn't need a filibuster.
http://mrwagenberg.net/APGOPO/Cabinet%20Confirmations.pdf

In addition, perhaps you should read about Bush's judicial appointments before implying that Dems were highly cooperative during his 2 terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies

 

[Phokus]

Why would Obama shove single payer healthcare down our throats? Obama didn't want single payer healthcare.


http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/06/22/gvsa0622.htm

That's actually a lie, he doesn't say he doesn't support a single payer system, but there's the political reality of Republican obstructionism that he has to deal with, i think this article goes into this more:


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ama-statements-single-payer-have-changed-bit/

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."

Yes, Obama did support single-payer, but Duffett said Obama also talked about the need to be strategic and work within political limitations, which he attributed to Obama's background as a community organizer.

"You have to figure out who's with you, who's against you, how you divide and conquer and move that football down the field," Duffett said. "It just can't be the same little group of liberals who have health insurance and sit around the table and verbalize their great policy ideas. You have to have more people than that."

Duffett said if the entire video were aired, it would show Obama making statements about the need to be practical, much like his later public statements.

"I've never felt that his core principles for accessible, guaranteed health care for everyone were ever compromised. He's an organizer, and you have to figure out as strategically as you can how to win," he said.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What about John Tower? Oh...that's right...they didn't need a filibuster.
http://mrwagenberg.net/APGOPO/Cabinet%20Confirmations.pdf

Irrelevant. The objection here is that the vote itself is being blocked.

You want to vote Hagel down? Fine. Hold a vote. That's the way it's supposed to work.

And Tower was blocked over ethical/behavioral concerns. Not to try to "get concessions".

So the comparison is utterly invalid in multiple respects.

In addition, perhaps you should read about Bush's judicial appointments before implying that Dems were highly cooperative during his 2 terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies

FAR more judicial appointments have been blocked under Obama than were under Bush. So that doesn't fly either.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's actually a lie, he doesn't say he doesn't support a single payer system, but there's the political reality of Republican obstructionism that he has to deal with, i think this article goes into this more:


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ama-statements-single-payer-have-changed-bit/

I quoted Obama in context...he effectively said that he supported the Obamacare approach because single-payer would be too disruptive to the U.S. health system. He clearly did not support single-payer at that time. Perhaps he would like to see it in the future, but he was a pragmatist and acted on what he believed was best for our country.

There is nothing in that article that says he was taking this position because of the political reality of Republican obstructionism that he has to deal with. You are full of it as usual it seems.

 

[werepossum]

It's all about trying to squeeze some concessions out of the process.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...age-for-chuck-hagel-showdown-87639.html?hp=f1

QUID PRO QUO.

Agreed. However, I'll say that Senate confirmations, being a Constitutional duty, should only be filibustered to seek more information on the nominee, not on a very marginally related issue. And while I'd dislike seeing Hagel as SecDef, I think a President has the right to have in his cabinet the people he wants as long as they are qualified, competent and trustworthy. Hagel should be confirmed; he'll be carrying out Obama's policy, not his own.

I'm sure they'll confirm him once he's fellated the donkey.

That started out slow, but in spite of being gross-out humor was actually pretty funny.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Irrelevant. The objection here is that the vote itself is being blocked.

You want to vote Hagel down? Fine. Hold a vote. That's the way it's supposed to work.

And Tower was blocked over ethical/behavioral concerns. Not to try to "get concessions".

So the comparison is utterly invalid in multiple respects.

John Tower was essentially railroaded with a party line vote that was highly controversial. However, I do agree that up and down votes are the way it's supposed to work. It's a shame that Democrats have used their power to deny Republicans up and down votes on many, many nominations. Why should they expect to be treated any differently?

FAR more judicial appointments have been blocked under Obama than were under Bush. So that doesn't fly either.

I agree...that doesn't fly either. But again, given their past behavior, why should they be surprised to be treated this way?

 

[Phokus]

I quoted Obama in context...he effectively said that he supported the Obamacare approach because single-payer would be too disruptive to the U.S. health system. He clearly did not support single-payer at that time. Perhaps he would like to see it in the future, but he was a pragmatist and acted on what he believed was best for our country.

There is nothing in that article that says he was taking this position because of the political reality of Republican obstructionism that he has to deal with. You are full of it as usual it seems.

No you didn't, nowhere does it say he was opposed to single payer. You're making shit up.

And do you actually follow Politics and News at all?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=34160171 (scroll up to the top)

You do realize he's trying to sneak in a public option, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/h...rance-plans-nationwide.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Good god, look how ignorant you are, "as usual it seems"

 

[PokerGuy]

And those procedures are not part of the constitutional mandate of the senate -- "advise and consent" -- as you said before.

The mandate is for the senate to advise and consent. How the senate goes about doing that is determined by the senate rules. Filibusters are part of the procedural rules of the senate. In other words, yes, they are doing exactly what they should be doing. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean they aren't following the rules of the game.

This behavior by the GOP is abuse of the procedures, which should have been changed at the start of the session, and would have been, if Harry Reid had a spine.

Funny, sounds exactly like what the gop idiots were saying back when the dems were blocking all the Bush nominations. It's only "abuse" when they use the rules in a way you don't like them to be.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No you didn't, nowhere does it say he was opposed to single payer. You're making shit up.

And do you actually follow Politics and News at all?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=34160171 (scroll up to the top)

You do realize he's trying to sneak in a public option, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/h...rance-plans-nationwide.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Good god, look how ignorant you are, "as usual it seems"

I said Obama supported Obamacare instead of single-payer at that time based on his exact words which I quoted in context. If you want to call Obama a liar...go for it....you won't be the first.

A few posts back you said that Obama was taking this position because of the political reality of Republican obstructionism that he has to deal with. Please quote where Obama said this...or admit that you're making shit up.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

However, I do agree that up and down votes are the way it's supposed to work.

Thank you.

It's a shame that Democrats have used their power to deny Republicans up and down votes on many, many nominations. Why should they expect to be treated any differently?

Please list some cabinet nominations where Democrats have "used their power to deny Republicans up and down votes".

 

[PokerGuy]

Update: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/14/16962960-hagel-nomination-hits-a-wall?lite

Looks like they won't have the sixty needed votes tomorrow.

Despite what some (mistakenly) think, I'm not in favor of filibustering of Hagel's nomination. I don't have a problem with the use of the filibuster in general, but I don't see a good reason to want to filibuster Hagel. Sure, we know obummer just wants to use him to pin blame on the gop instead of being a leader, but that's not a good reason to filibuster IMO. It is within the rules though.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I said Obama supported Obamacare instead of single-payer at that time based on his exact words which I quoted in context.

Actually, what you said was that Obama "didn't want single payer healthcare".

And the specific context was someone saying he wished Obama had tried to pass single payer instead of what he did pass.

It's entirely possible that Obama personally does want single payer, but that at the time he made that speech had decided that it was impractical, and so he was not going to try for it. In fact, that seems the most likely case. And so the person you were responding to was saying that he wished Obama had not done the politically expedient thing, but had pushed for what he really wanted.

Makes sense to me.

It's also worth noting that directly after what you quoted in that speech, Obama put forth his support for a "public option".

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It is within the rules though.

Nobody has argued that it isn't within the rules.

But there are "unwritten rules" in a place like the senate. The GOP is violating those rules, and even they know it, which is why they are afraid to call this fillibuster what it really is.

If the Democrats had any balls, they would nuke the filibuster tomorrow.

 

[PokerGuy]

Nobody has argued that it isn't within the rules.

But there are "unwritten rules" in a place like the senate. The GOP is violating those rules, and even they know it

Oh, so now we're supposed to care about the unwritten rules, but only when the gop violates them. LOL

If the Democrats had any balls, they would nuke the filibuster tomorrow.

Like I said, it sounds exactly like what the gop was saying just a few short years ago. Things change, and changing the rules of the game just because you don't like the current score inevitably comes back to bite you in the butt. Tampering with rules that have worked for 200 years because the other side isn't playing ball with you is stomping your feet and throwing a tantrum, just like the gop was doing during GWB years.