GOP is Filibustering Hagel nomination

[Ausm]

Abuse is in the eye of the beholder.

To this beholder and also with the American Electorate who reelected President Barack Obama, this looks like abuse to us.

Oh Please read this article too....

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/21/opinion/zelizer-congress-polarization

 

[Bowfinger]

Abuse is in the eye of the beholder.

In the eye of this beholder it is clearly abuse, and a growing majority of Americans share similar views. Americans are sick and tired of unprecedented levels of nakedly partisan GOP obstructionism. I think the filibuster is a useful tool, but it must be the tool of last resort. The GOP wields it like a spoiled child, throwing a tantrum every time they aren't getting their way. That is not responsible, representative governing.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I didn't say this was an idiot appointment (I don't think Hagel is an idiot at all), I was commenting on the use of the filibuster in general.

I don't think Hagel is a bad guy, but there's a strong sense that obummer wants to put him in place so he can put a GOP face on the military cuts that need to be made (ie, blame the gop). Hagel also has a lot of questionable decisions in his past that have angered other senators. The delay is also a ploy to force the administration to provide requested information regarding their benghazi screwups.

Dems can feel free to disagree, but pretty much this.

Obama comes from the Chicago school of politics - no holds barred street fighting. He's not appointing a rep out of a desire to show bi-partisanship.

 

[Ausm]

Would be kind of amazing if they do the first fillibuster in history, especially given that Hagel is a former Republican senator.

If they can't even confirm one of their own members, who would they confirm ?

Not even this guy would pass their purity test!

 

[boomerang]

Maybe Obama can just declare that the senate is in recess again.

His crown is out getting a polishing, but as soon as it's back...

 

[randomrogue]

I didn't say this was an idiot appointment (I don't think Hagel is an idiot at all), I was commenting on the use of the filibuster in general.

I don't think Hagel is a bad guy, but there's a strong sense that obummer wants to put him in place so he can put a GOP face on the military cuts that need to be made (ie, blame the gop). Hagel also has a lot of questionable decisions in his past that have angered other senators. The delay is also a ploy to force the administration to provide requested information regarding their benghazi screwups.

Thank you for answering.

You discredit your opinion but using derogatory names for Obama. Where did you find this to be the official reason for the filibuster? This sounds more like something Rush Limbaugh would say.

This is the first filibuster of a secretary of defense nominee.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...el-becomes-first-filibustered-defense-nominee

They were displeased with Hagel for any number of reasons: He had gone from supporting to opposing the Iraq War and surge during the George W. Bush administration. He was too soft on Iran and too hard on Israel, they said.

Among Inhofe's stated concerns about Hagel, is that the Iranian Foreign Ministry supports his nomination.

 

[Bowfinger]

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

There is way too much truth in that. It's no wonder NBC had to pull it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There is way too much truth in that. It's no wonder NBC had to pull it.

Yep. I have a long rant about it in the Debate Club.

 

[randomrogue]

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

Is this really how these hearings have been going? CSPAN the new comedy central?

 

[Phokus]

Abuse is in the eye of the beholder.

Sometimes, but it would be a stretch to say filibustering your own bill isn't abuse, which is something the GOP has actually done

 

[PokerGuy]

You discredit your opinion but using derogatory names for Obama.

You think it derogatory, I think it's highly complimentary considering the names we should be calling him based on his reign, but that's completely besides the issue at hand.

Where did you find this to be the official reason for the filibuster? This sounds more like something Rush Limbaugh would say.

There is no such thing as an "official reason". "official" reasons for filibusters are neither required nor provided, senators can filibuster for any reason. A 60 senator vote can then end the filibuster by ending debate on the issue. I gave my best guess why I think they're filibustering.

 

[Zebo]

I think I agree. I Know why they are filibustering in that he went 100% against war parties lies whole time on iraq/afghanstan adventures even the surge lie since iraq is blowing up yet again. I can appreciate that. But what I don't care for is he thinks Israel has no right to defend herself and blame everything on Israel instead of crazy assed fundis who attack her. Is isreal responsible for 5000 thais being slaughtered by their Islamic militants last few years? naw man that religion is war like and all free peoples should be defended from it. Anything that weaken camp islam I am for for national security interests and humanistic ones. I don't really care about jews pre se only that they are a shining light in that shit hole fundamentalism that deserve our support.

 

[Zebo]

Not even this guy would pass their purity test!

RR was last president who was not bought and sold before he got there. None since compare right or left.

You know Wall Street did not want his low tax rates cause they thought there would be high inflation and interest rates due to more money on main street and destroying their stock and bond portfolios? The MIC hated he sat down with Gorbachev to end the cold war and pulled out of Lebanon. But he did what people wanted... mostly.

 

[PokerGuy]

To this beholder and also with the American Electorate who reelected President Barack Obama, this looks like abuse to us.

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.

 

[PokerGuy]

In the eye of this beholder it is clearly abuse, and a growing majority of Americans share similar views. Americans are sick and tired of unprecedented levels of nakedly partisan GOP obstructionism. I think the filibuster is a useful tool, but it must be the tool of last resort. The GOP wields it like a spoiled child, throwing a tantrum every time they aren't getting their way. That is not responsible, representative governing.

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.

 

[randomrogue]

Pokerguy are you Rush Limbaugh by chance?

 

[surfsatwerk]

I voted for Hagel when he was running for Senate. This current crop of Republicans can go rot for all I care.

 

[ichy]

The traitors at AIPAC don't like Hagel because he doesn't place Israel's national interests in front of the US's.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

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.

That's a completely asinine argument.

We're not talking about legislation here. It is the president's role to nominate, and the extent of the senate's "involvement" is discussing and then voting on the nominee.

While the president should avoid extreme nominees, he does not need to, nor should he feel compelled to, consult with the opposition party before making his selections. I'm betting no Republican president ever did. And there's nothing extreme about Hagel.

If they want to filibuster, fine. Let them. There should be absolutely no concessions given to these thugs. If they want the US to be without a secretary of defense, let them accept the consequences.

They are sure not going to win in the court of public opinion. But then the GOP stopped having any sense in that area years ago.

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 a load of absolute horseshit.

"Polarizing" is a two-way street. The GOP has been attacking and undermining Obama literally since before he even took the oath of office. Doing that and then using the resulting "polarization" as an excuse for blocking nominations is the height of transparent hypocrisy.

 

[Zebo]

The traitors at AIPAC don't like Hagel because he doesn't place Israel's national interests in front of the US's.

If that was only reason he wouldnt even be there. According to conspiracy theorists AIPAC pwns both parties. Naw man thats a little of it but main thing is he stuck a needle in their eye 100% during Bush years.

watch this confrontation with McInsane,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wzFfSc2Fjc

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

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.

Yes, certainly the facts that the chart shows doesn't matter.

And coming from someone who calls our president "the bummer" certainly shows your credibility (or to be more accurate, shows you have no credibility).

 

[PokerGuy]

Pokerguy are you Rush Limbaugh by chance?

Not likely, I don't listen to him, he's the right wing equivalent of most of the left wing drivel in the media. I don't care for either side's BS spin.

 

[PokerGuy]

That's a completely asinine argument.

We're not talking about legislation here. It is the president's role to nominate, and the extent of the senate's "involvement" is discussing and then voting on the nominee.

While the president should avoid extreme nominees, he does not need to, nor should he feel compelled to, consult with the opposition party before making his selections.

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.

If they want to filibuster, fine. Let them. There should be absolutely no concessions given to these thugs. If they want the US to be without a secretary of defense, let them accept the consequences.

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.

They are sure not going to win in the court of public opinion. But then the GOP stopped having any sense in that area years ago.

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.

"Polarizing" is a two-way street.

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........

 

[PokerGuy]

Yes, certainly the facts that the chart shows doesn't matter.

Correct. Facts without context are worthless. The chart just shows volume, increasing over time. That fact doesn't mean anything without a contextual analysis. Why is it increasing?

 

[Oldgamer]

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.

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.

The GOP is crippling us with what they are doing, and they look pathetically stupid and very "obstructionistic". The majority of American's even other republicans are appalled at the nonsense concerning the nominations.

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