February 27, 2013

Only 27 Republicans vote to keep Democrats from confirming anti-Semite Hagel

What a proud morning to wear an American flag lapel pin on your tailored blazers, eh Senators?

Jewish Democrats were never going to break ranks because Jewish Democrats are largely secular, and even those who aren’t rank their metaphysical religious convictions behind their earthly devotion to the godhead of State.  They were and always will be lost causes and an embarrassment to their faith.  They are the camp enforcers, heirs to Soros legacy, and soldiers of those who fund much of the current transnationalist progressive agenda.

But Republicans who postured about the defeat of Hagel only to then allow that they’d made their point — which evidently is that they are capable of making empty gestures and strike a pose for headlines — and reverse course, allowing for the vote, are, as far as I’m concerned,  enemies of our military, enemies of our allies, and enemies of the citizens of a constitutional republic who rely on the federal government, as one of its enumerated roles, to provide for a strong defense.

And they are the reason why the Republican party needs to splinter.

Chuck Hagel failed to disclose many of his ties — both ideologically and monetarily — to a number of suspect organizations, many of whom evinced tenuous if not direct ties to terror organizations.  Sworn enemies of the US have applauded Hagel’s rise.  Islamist extremism is, to Hagel, largely a lie — concocted by the neocons and aided by the powerful Zionist lobby.  And besides, Israel is the bad actor, the creator of Islamic terrorists, of which there aren’t many, that whole idea about Islamic extremism being an exaggeration and what not promoted by the Jews and their sneaky Jew agenda.  He argued.  Foolishly and transparently.

Now, I know many conservatives and non-Ron Paul libertarians are upset with Senator Rand Paul’s affirmative vote, but frankly, that vote doesn’t bother me:  Paul voted to keep the nomination from coming up for a vote he knew from the numbers was a done deal if the filibuster option was defeated, and once the Republicans lost that vote — thanks to the McCainian axis of Mavericky Squish, which to his shame included Orin Hatch — Paul decided to show “deference” to the President in a way that, while I don’t agree with it, I can nevertheless understand politically.

Having voted to confirm Hagel, who would have passed anyway, gives Paul a certain leverage to go after Brennan, who seems to be his chief worry.  That is, it provides him with the cover of offering deference once the nominee makes it past the vetting process, which Hagel had, and allows him to point to that deference when he refuses to offers such deference to Brennan.

– And of course, it doesn’t hurt that Rand Paul probably gained favor with the hard-core Ron Paul crowd — at least, those who received the Good Doctor’s years of newsletters, which were often consonant in tone with that of Hagel’s various public statements about Israel, Iran, and the “Jewish lobby.”

Which is the surest sign yet that Paul is seriously positioning himself for a run for at GOP nomination in 2016, Rubio or no Rubio, Christie or no Christie, Jeb Bush or no Jeb Bush.

None of which much matters right now, because the fact is, the US just installed as its defense secretary a raving anti-Semite.  With the approval of the Senate.

I guess “never again” has been downgraded to “oh, come on. I mean, what are the odds, amiright?”

Posted by Jeff G. @ 12:33pm
61 comments | Trackback

Comments (61)

  1. Paul decided to show “deference” to the President in a way that, while I don’t agree with it, I can nevertheless understand politically.

    What would it have cost him to vote no?

  2. What would it have cost him to vote no?

    Disagreement with his own views of the matter. That’s all.

  3. which to his shame included Orin Hatch

    I’m so not surprised that it’s genuinely painful.

    Hatch is a full-blown beltway creature who values comity and collegiality above all else. After all, what’s another federal entitlement compared to Hatch’s Stunning Achievement, which was to befriend Ted Kennedy and his enormous head?

    What kind of man would he be if he didn’t honor Dead Ted by continuing his legacy?

    FOR THE CHILDREN!

  4. Disagreement with his own views of the matter. That’s all.

    Are you saying that Rand Paul holds views similar to his father’s regarding Israel?

    Cripes, they’re all corrupt.

  5. senators are whorish trash

    we should look elsewhere for presidential candidates I think

  6. I’m not thinking of Rand’s agreement with Ron so much as his agreement with Hagel. After all, it’s Hagel he’s voting to put in office.

  7. Still can’t figure out how this fuckchop was ever a republican.

  8. And here I thought Rand Paul was one of the good ones.

  9. What would it have cost him to vote no?

    I thought I answered that in the post: he would lose some of the “authority” he can bring on a vote to try to block Brennan, because he could be cast as knee-jerk against any Presidential appointment. This makes the press’s job harder should they wish to discredit him preemptively.

    As for Rand Paul’s agreement with Hagel with respect to Israel, I don’t believe you introduce legislation to keep advanced weaponry out of the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood if you are, like Hagel, and anti-Semite. But I could be wrong.

    Paul has said we shouldn’t be giving arms to those countries calling for our demise. I think he differs from Daddy on foreign policy.

  10. Would a Rand Paul abstention have been better than a “yes” for us non-beltway types? Probably, but to the insiders it may signal weakness, like calling at poker when a raise is the best move.

    Politics sucks.

  11. I’m not supposing Rand Paul is an anti-Semite. He may be, but I can’t see that at all. On the other hand, I do think he sincerely believes the War making apparatus of the USA is far too large, consumes far too much of the national wealth; is in fact the original source of the ratchet and pawl that drives the growth of national government (see Bob Higgs’ accounts); that he has no desire to come to fight Iran over Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons; that he prefers to seek comity with the Arab states of the Gulf and the Saud rather than challenge them over their support for the looney jihadists their nations produce; that the neo-cons have directed the country in an untenable strategic direction (though his rhetoric is far cooler or circumspect than is Hagel’s); and potentially many other points of agreement with Hagel besides. And that further, anything Hagel and ObaZma accomplish together displeasing the populace can be solely pinned on them, even if Paul happens to agree with those results, but keeps his agreement to himself out of view of the polity. He may have calculated well.

  12. I thought I answered that in the post: he would lose some of the “authority” he can bring on a vote to try to block Brennan, because he could be cast as knee-jerk against any Presidential appointment. This makes the press’s job harder should they wish to discredit him preemptively.

    So if his NO vote carries insufficient “authority,” it’s rescinded? Flipped to a YES? What?

    For the sake of Pete, the press doesn’t take its cues from reality when it wishes to discredit someone: they’ll go after Paul no matter what he does, so he might as well do what’s right. They will not cast him as “knee-jerk against any Presidential appointment”: they’ll cast him as a neo-Nazi, puppy-smoothie-drinking, children-murdering, homophobic redneck. He’ll wish he were cast merely as “knee-jerk against any Presidential appointment.”

    If he’s got his eyes on 2016, why on earth does he think that his “deferential” vote helps? Hagel is going to make a dog’s breakfast out of the whole world for all to see, and the fact that Paul gave him the go-ahead will count AGAINST him with the base. The base has already demonstrated that it’s too testy to settle for the lesser of two evils: who’s advising this guy?

  13. anything Hagel and ObaZma accomplish together displeasing the populace can be solely pinned on them, even if Paul happens to agree with those results, but keeps his agreement to himself out of view of the polity. He may have calculated well.

    Doesn’t that provide him sufficient cover to vote no?

  14. Doesn’t that provide him sufficient cover to vote no?

    I don’t know why he would want to vote no, is the point. I simply think he has too many strategic points of agreement to forgo the opportunity, and that in an honest sense, he signals by means of the vote just that.

    And why not?

    I don’t begrudge him his judgment of the strategic situation. The country is in a hideous fiscal debt, and on an ordinary reading can’t afford to conduct world-wide policing. If ObaZma and Hagel see fit to reduce the international profile of US expenses guarding the empire world, who, in Paul’s view, should disagree?

  15. Thank you for this post, Jeff. You’ve said what I’ve been trying to express about Paul’s vote which initially had me quite upset, but have come to think of as a strategic move after pondering it for a number of hours.

  16. If ObaZma and Hagel see fit to reduce the international profile of US expenses guarding the empire world, who, in Paul’s view, should disagree?

    Someone who recognizes that Hagel will do MUCH worse than that?

    Someone who knows that you can still get someone in the position who will draw down the U.S. footprint without being a raging “Hitler didn’t finish the job” fanatic?

    Someone who can plainly see that Hagel is demonstrably Not Fit For Any Office, regardless of his views, based on his muddle-headed performance alone?

    Someone who figures that the Senate owes Obama exactly ZERO deference after he made those “recess” appointments and continues to disregard the court order saying he was out of line?

    Someone who understands that times are so bad that we need to die on every hill?

  17. Also, can someone provide an example of when a Republican made a “strategic move” and it paid off?

  18. Maybe it seemed like a good time to have fuckups at both Defense and State. I have to say that now is a much better time to roll those dice than e.g. 30 years ago.

  19. I remember strategic moves and how well they panned out for Republicans. Remember how vitally important it was that Hayes got in office, and what it took to make that happen?

  20. The questions you pose dicentra are hardly issuing from Paul’s point of view, is the problem. They’re certainly valid and relevant questions from the point of view of those of us who disagree with Paul though. It’s simply the case, I contend, the Paul doesn’t share them.

  21. While I tend to agree that elections matter and generally the president should be given broad latitude as to his choice of appointments, there is a whiff of having to destroy the country in order to save it attached to approving Hagel’s nomination.

  22. The Senate isn’t supposed to be a rubber stamp. At some point the Senate’s role has to, you know, mean something.

  23. a Republican made a “strategic move” and it paid off?

    romney taking on gingrich in fla

  24. Also, can someone provide an example of when a Republican made a “strategic move” and it paid off?

    Lincoln promoting Grant is the last time I can think of.

  25. You obviously never listen to Levin because you speak in ignorance.

  26. i just wanted to say that

  27. So if his NO vote carries insufficient “authority,” it’s rescinded? Flipped to a YES? What?

    I’m not following.

    For the sake of Pete, the press doesn’t take its cues from reality when it wishes to discredit someone: they’ll go after Paul no matter what he does, so he might as well do what’s right. They will not cast him as “knee-jerk against any Presidential appointment”: they’ll cast him as a neo-Nazi, puppy-smoothie-drinking, children-murdering, homophobic redneck. He’ll wish he were cast merely as “knee-jerk against any Presidential appointment.”

    And he’ll be able to say it’s odd they say that, as he was one of 4 Republicans to vote for Hagel because Hagel was the President’s choice, and the Senate didn’t hold up the appointment long enough to answer all the questions he had.

    For my money, if you voted to allow an up or down tall, then voted “no,” that’s the mark of political asscovering of the kind that so sickens me. You get to be shown as voting no, yet your actions allowed the nomination to succeed.

    Those are the games played by the McCain’s and the Grahams, et al.

    If he’s got his eyes on 2016, why on earth does he think that his “deferential” vote helps? Hagel is going to make a dog’s breakfast out of the whole world for all to see, and the fact that Paul gave him the go-ahead will count AGAINST him with the base. The base has already demonstrated that it’s too testy to settle for the lesser of two evils: who’s advising this guy?

    Because he’s going to try to pick off libertarians and those “independents” who still worry about “compromise”, and he already blasted the Senate GOP for pretending it would filibuster only to say immediately after that it had made its point and would allow the vote to go through.

    At that point the die was cast.

    Of course, this strategy requires now that he lead the fight against Brennan, that he continues forcing votes on handing over tanks and aircraft to the MB, and that he continues to be the pol most willing to forcefully tackle the debt crisis. He’s adopted the penny plan, for the most part, and he’s shown already that his office returns money it doesn’t need.

    Perhaps like us, he sees where we’ll be in several years, and inasmuch as foreign policy even matters to voters at that point, he’ll be able to point and say he was willing to give the President’s nominee a chance once he made it to vote, and the President’s nominee proved to be as much of a disaster as his economic policies.

  28. Paul is playing a long game.

  29. Woodward tells @politico Obama would say ‘Whoa, we don’t tell any reporter you’re going to regret challenging us.’ http://politi.co/ZJIl1X

    link

  30. it’s 5:00 pm here and I went all day without confirming any anti-semites or even validating one with an approving glance.

    It’s not that hard.

  31. You obviously never listen to Levin because you speak in ignorance.

    I’m listening to Levin NOW.

    And he’ll be able to say it’s odd they say that, as he was one of 4 Republicans to vote for Hagel because Hagel was the President’s choice, and the Senate didn’t hold up the appointment long enough to answer all the questions he had.

    It doesn’t matter what he’ll be able to say. The press will destroy him regardless of what he does or says.

    Paul is playing a long game.

    Of course he is. It’s going to work out exactly as he planned.

  32. It’s simply the case, I contend, that Paul doesn’t share them.

    That’s why I’m upset.

  33. Notice how Bob Woodward instinctively retreats to an “if only comrade Stalin ObaZma knew of this” defense of the administration?

    I did.

  34. proggtardia today

    NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) — Just a month after Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the strictest gun control law in the country, state officials plan to make some exemptions.

    The law toughened restrictions on military-style rifles and high-capacity semiautomatic handguns, but those restrictions will be changed so those types of weapons can be used on the sets of television shows and movies being shot in New York.

    link

  35. It doesn’t matter what he’ll be able to say. The press will destroy him regardless of what he does or says.

    Well I guess we should all just throw up our hands and bow to the blowhards in the press, then.

  36. sdferr wrote at 14:35…

    I don’t begrudge him his judgment of the strategic situation. The country is in a hideous fiscal debt, and on an ordinary reading can’t afford to conduct world-wide policing. If ObaZma and Hagel see fit to reduce the international profile of US expenses guarding the empire world, who, in Paul’s view, should disagree?

    The thing is: someone from The West, the civilized world, has to be the policeman of the world. Otherwise the Totalitarians can run amok.

    The only nation that can do so by itself is The United States, a role we took over from a declining Great Britain too late to spare us World War II.

    We can afford to carry-out this role if we get serious on the domestic front about the size and expense of our governments at all levels.

    Rand Paul wants to pretend that things will not change much in the world if we stop policing it. Yeah, that worked well when Britain abdicated their role after WWI.

  37. Well I guess we should all just throw up our hands and bow to the blowhards in the press, then.

    No, you do what is right rather than trying to play 3-D chess with “what they’ll be able to say.” He can’t influence whether the press will attempt to smear him, so there’s no need to think in terms of how something looks or sounds to them.

  38. Also, is there any chance that Levin will get some new soundbites for his commercial fillers? I’m about to throw the headphones across the room.

  39. Why can’t Levin provide transcripts of his show? Or if he does, why can’t I ever find them?

  40. We can afford to carry-out this role if we get serious on the domestic front about the size and expense of our governments at all levels.

    I think this is certainly true Bob, albeit not simply true today, which, given the circumstances today is where Paul’s own view begins. He doesn’t believe any attempt to curtail the ruinous march down the path of Europeanization of our social welfare life and economy is going to be dealt with any time in the near future (and in this, it would be hard for us to disagree, at least on the merits of the current trends).

    Freed from the iron grip of these wasteful and destructive socialist policies, freed from the iron grip of government over economic freedom, innovation, entrepreneurship and so on, the US could relatively undertake to resume its long role as a provider of peace through strength. But these conditions are surely a ways off. And hence, in part at least I believe, comes Rand Paul’s calculation. Well, that, and the fact that he’s been tutored his lifelong in the boons of a kind of pacifism.

  41. Why do people feel compelled to announce that they’re “first-time callers”?

    I know it started with Larry King, but given how hard it is to get on the air, how many frequent callers are there, and furthermore, who gives a rip if it’s your first time calling in? Telling the host that you’ve called in before regarding X makes some sense, but otherwise? WTF?

    Also, what’s with referring to what they said to the call screener? None of us heard that conversation, so they can freely repeat themselves without being redundant.

    “Long-time caller, first-time listener,” is a better line anyway.

  42. Lee Smith, Tablet:

    Pro-Israel Obama supporters on the Hill and in the press keep trying to make the case that in spite of how it might look on the surface, the administration cares deeply about the U.S.-Israel relationship. They point to the success of Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile defense batteries as evidence that the security and military cooperation between the United States and Israel has reached unprecedented highs under Obama’s stewardship. But politics is mostly about how things look. And if the administration really cared that much about Israel, it wouldn’t nominate a secretary of defense who referred to defenders of the U.S.-Israel relationship as “the Jewish lobby.”

    Has anyone ever heard or seen Rand Paul leap to his feet to scoff or denounce the ObaZma administration assertions that it is the strongest supporter of Israel in the history of history? No?

    Well, probably, neither have the Israelis. It isn’t hard to guess what they make of that.

  43. And that contention has made Woodward, once Public Enemy Number One to a generation of Republicans, the unlikely darling of the right wing. Conservatives suddenly swoon over him, with his stepped-up appearances on Fox News and starring role in GOP press releases. And while White House officials are certainly within their rights to yell at any journalist, including Bob Woodward, this very public battle with a Washington legend has become a major distraction at a pivotal moment for the president.

    That bolded bit is a contemptible lie, to be plain about it. Of such stuff is the current “journalism” made though, so it doesn’t come as a surprise.

  44. It is a lie sdferr. Just like the lie that has become TRVTH that Woodward and Bernstein took down Nixon by breaking the Watergate story.

  45. It doesn’t matter what he’ll be able to say. The press will destroy him regardless of what he does or says.

    They’ll attempt to, sure.

    But there’s more Gingrich than Boehner in this one when it comes to dealing with the press.

  46. The real vote on Hagel was cloture. Paul’s yes vote on the nomination is precisely as meaningful as McCain’s no vote.

  47. But there’s more Gingrich than Boehner in this one when it comes to dealing with the press.

    I think so, as well. He doesn’t play nice with others and I appreciate that.

    After he got Hillary off-balance, the press became askeered. They started in about how Hill outsmarted him and wtf is he asking about sending arms to Turkey for anyway? Clearly, he doesn’t play by the rules and he’s not crazy like his old man.

    I’m looking forward to him questioning that bastard Brennan.

  48. Pingback: Around the Blogosphere in Eighty Twenty Seconds | Daily Pundit

  49. Also, can someone provide an example of when a Republican made a “strategic move” and it paid off?’

    “Mr. Gorbachev,… Tear down this wall!”
    R. Reagan

  50. Lamar Alexander (R, TN) voted against Hagel’s nomination, but voted for the cloture motion. Posturing. Up for re-election 2014.

    Bob Corker (R, TN) voted against Hagel’s confirmation, but voted for the cloture motion. Posturing. Up for re-election 2019.

    Alexander should expect Tennesseans to have long memories, if we make it to November 2014.

  51. “Mr. Gorbachev,… Tear down this wall!”

    Twasn’t a strategic move; it was a great line in a speech.

    Backed up, of course, by a genuine conviction that the USSR was The Evil Empire and with a determination to defeat them once and for all.

    He wasn’t playing 3D chess. He wasn’t doing odd things today to open up space to maneuver in the future. He wasn’t operating in terms of “what he could say” about an apparently uncharacteristic vote.

    He took aim at the USSR, cocked the hammer, and dared them to make his day.

  52. Dicentra,
    You are right; the speach was a tactic. The strategy was to run up the score and put the game away.

    Strategy doesn’t have to be “3D chess” sometimes you just keep handing the ball to Csonka and then help Alan Page off the turf, pat him on the back and then assure him that he’ll get another chance next play ;^)

  53. Larry Csonka

    Bonus, scroll to 3:33 and see the first recorded use of the word “heh” in a Football game as Zonk looks back briefly to admire his work.

    Double bonus

    “Look what 39 did to that poor tackler”

  54. I always figured Csonka was just pissed off he had to wear those gay-ass uniforms.

  55. Notice how Bob Woodward instinctively retreats to an “if only comrade Stalin ObaZma knew of this” defense of the administration?

    That was my immediate reaction when I saw the quote. If he really were a right-winger as the Obamarrhoids have claimed, that wouldn’t have happened.

  56. Unless that was itself a shot across the bow: “Knock it off or I’ll spill more.”

Leave a Reply