Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: Cost of the Hagel Filibuster

  1. -1
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,724
    vCash:
    2321
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Cost of the Hagel Filibuster

    1. Republicans come out looking pretty shabby
    "The impressive thing about the anti-Hagel effort is how politically tone-deaf it is," says Daniel Larison at The American Conservative. Republicans in Washington "are desperate for a winning issue, but Senate Republicans seem to be missing the point that stalling Hagel's confirmation (which will happen eventually) isn't a winning issue for them." Quite the opposite, in fact. "In the short-term, they will take a justified beating in the press for their ridiculous tactics," but they're also "making sure that all of the moderates, independents, and realists that they have alienated over the last 10 years will keep running away from them." Laurence Vance at the libertarian LRC Blog seems to agree: "I am no fan of Hagel," he says, but it's clear that Republicans are throwing up roadblocks just "because Hagel is not seen as being as bloodthirsty and war-crazed as they are. The GOP cannot be reformed."

    2. They've set a dangerous precedent
    Filibustering Hagel, simply put, "is just insane," says Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. "If there's one thing practically everyone agrees about, it's that presidents should basically get to pick their own cabinets." You only try to derail nominees in extreme circumstances, and that's hardly the case here. Hagel is "a standard issue DC pol with no skeletons in his closet, no bizarre views, and no scandals in his background," and normally his nomination wouldn't even be controversial.

    The "potentially serious short- and long-term consequences" of this filibuster "should worry both parties," says Steve Kornacki at Salon. Once you "shatter tradition" by pulling this maneuver once, it very well "might lead to similar filibusters in the future — both for Obama's nominees and for nominees of future presidents from both parties." Yes, "future Republican Cabinet nominees for major posts are now much more likely treated in the same way," says The American Conservative's Larison. "That won't be good for future Republican administrations or the government as a whole."

    3. This could revive filibuster-neutering efforts
    Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who lost a fight to radically scale back the Senate filibuster last month, reminded his Democratic colleagues that they could have avoided this setback if they'd agreed to the stronger measures he proposed. "It is deeply disappointing that even when President Obama nominates a former conservative colleague of the GOP caucus, the minority is abusing the rules and the spirit of 'advise and consent,'" he said. "If our step we took last month is to be successful, extraordinary stunts like today's filibuster can't happen."

    Well, "if this isn't enough to get Reid to revive the threat of filibuster reform, nothing will be enough," says Greg Sargent at The Washington Post. Agreed, says Ed Kilgore at Washington Monthly. Reid is an institutionalist who is loath to take away senators' privileges, but "he needs to pick up the threat for real, shake it at Senate Republicans, and mean it."
    http://theweek.com/article/index/240...gel-filibuster

    Also has a point about the military and reasons from Republicans as to why they did it.
    "I'm not here to be a distraction," Pouncey said.
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10...ogical-testing
    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    GoFins!'s Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2008
    Posts:
    492
    vCash:
    1096
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1. Republicans are looking shabby because they're sticking to their principles rather than worrying about being on the winning side of an issue or how their actions will poll with independents and moderates.

    2. Nominations should be derailed based on scandals and skeletons, not on ideology. There is nothing wrong or bizarre about appearing anti-semitic.

    Republicans should worry more about Washington traditions than opposing a candidate they disagree with.

    3. The Democrat could have changed the rules to prevent the Republicans from sticking to their principles.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-2009-speech/
    “I’m somewhat disappointed that more African Americans don’t think for themselves and just go with whatever they’re supposed to say and think."


    - Dr. Benjamin Carson
    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Ya know whats shabby? A POTUS that takes his wife to a $900 Valentines day dinner then has the audacity to talk about the evils of profits and how rich people should pay their fair share.

    He Bammy...how about you take that $900 and buy some meals for all the homeless people around OUR house, and you and Michelle can stay in and cozy up....oops, she's not really the cozying type anymore is she?

    What a waste


    Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,724
    vCash:
    2321
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    Ya know whats shabby? A POTUS that takes his wife to a $900 Valentines day dinner then has the audacity to talk about the evils of profits and how rich people should pay their fair share.

    He Bammy...how about you take that $900 and buy some meals for all the homeless people around OUR house, and you and Michelle can stay in and cozy up....oops, she's not really the cozying type anymore is she?

    What a waste
    All of that was in response to Chuck Hagel's filibuster?

    Damn, this thing is moving faster than i thought.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    All of that was in response to Chuck Hagel's filibuster?

    Damn, this thing is moving faster than i thought.
    Hypocrisy abounds in Washington...you cant shake your dick without pissing on a hypocrite in that town
    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,724
    vCash:
    2321
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    Hypocrisy abounds in Washington...you cant shake your dick without pissing on a hypocrite in that town
    What does Valentines day, vilification of the top 2%, and homeless people have to do with the Defense Secretary appointment?
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    GoFins!'s Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2008
    Posts:
    492
    vCash:
    1096
    Thanks / No Thanks
    2. They've set a dangerous precedent
    Filibustering Hagel, simply put, "is just insane," says Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. "If there's one thing practically everyone agrees about, it's that presidents should basically get to pick their own cabinets." You only try to derail nominees in extreme circumstances, and that's hardly the case here. Hagel is "a standard issue DC pol with no skeletons in his closet, no bizarre views, and no scandals in his background," and normally his nomination wouldn't even be controversial.


    "
    Only two previous Cabinet officials required 60 votes before confirmation, and this has never happened for a Defense secretary nominee. Compelling, isn't it? But, doesn't it beg the question: "Who were the other two cabinet officials?" It's a pretty relevant question. But the media doesn't really include the information in these hysterical charges of unprecedented! Why not? It's not like they have to research back to the Millard Fillmore presidency to find them. In fact, the media only has to look back to the last president, George W. Bush.
    That's right, the Hagel cloture vote is unprecedented except for the other two times a cabinet secretary needed 60 votes, and both of those filibustered nominations were Bush nominees facing Harry Reid's minority Democrats.
    Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and Environmental Protection Agency head Stephen Johnson both had to meet a sixty-vote threshold. At the time, those filibusters really were unprecedented, because it had never happened before in the history of the republic. Now that it has happened to Hagel, the third time in ten years, it's hard to describe it as unprecedented... unless the fact that it is President Obama's nominee being held up raises the issue to a higher level. "

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...-Unprecedented
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    What does Valentines day, vilification of the top 2%, and homeless people have to do with the Defense Secretary appointment?
    Hypocrisy abounds.....the same as it does in fillibustering a presidential nomination as it does when talking about wanting tax payers to pay their fair share.

    This fillibuster is another example of the rank and rampant hypocrisy in Washington. Nothing more....just the im gonna get you before you get me politics weve seen evolve in DC.

    The President is a hypocrite, and he leads...from the top down.

    Sorry if it confused ya.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    Gonzo's Avatar
    Administrator

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2004
    Posts:
    20,337
    vCash:
    16769
    Loc:
    Brooklyn
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Hydra logo
Gift received at 05-21-2014, 12:20 PM from DisturbedShifty1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    Hypocrisy abounds.....the same as it does in fillibustering a presidential nomination as it does when talking about wanting tax payers to pay their fair share.

    This fillibuster is another example of the rank and rampant hypocrisy in Washington. Nothing more....just the im gonna get you before you get me politics weve seen evolve in DC.

    The President is a hypocrite, and he leads...from the top down.

    Sorry if it confused ya.
    The only confusion I see is in your understanding of thread topics.





    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,724
    vCash:
    2321
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    Hypocrisy abounds.....the same as it does in fillibustering a presidential nomination as it does when talking about wanting tax payers to pay their fair share.

    This fillibuster is another example of the rank and rampant hypocrisy in Washington. Nothing more....just the im gonna get you before you get me politics weve seen evolve in DC.

    The President is a hypocrite, and he leads...from the top down.

    Sorry if it confused ya.
    Oh, so you were just looking for a soapbox to rant about how awful everything is(note: how awful everything is now that the GOP is pulling the stunt, but if it was Obama itd just be his fault), despite the fact that two subjects have absolutely nothing to do with each other?

    My bad, i'll help ya out: Benghazi, Solyndra, Change, Keystone pipeline. Go nuts.

    And "leads...from the top down" is a form of symbolism. According to some members on this forum, that doesnt exist.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. MERGED: Cost of War/The Real Cost of War
    By Ferretsquig in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 10-11-2006, 11:55 AM
  2. Sen. Hagel Says GOP Has Lost Its Way
    By Walking25 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-25-2006, 03:37 PM
  3. Hillary onboard for filibuster
    By The_Dark_Knight in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 01-30-2006, 02:49 PM
  4. Filibuster.
    By SkapePhin in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 04-28-2005, 03:08 PM
  5. fight the filibuster
    By finataxia24 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 04-03-2005, 09:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •