Forgive me for forsaking the Tip Line.
It’s not that I don’t read it, I do. I just have neglected promoting items:
- donb — Paul Rahe in Obama’s Next Move: “The name of the game for our President is to force a crisis that will eventuate in massive tax increases — first on high earners and then on the middle class more generally.” (h/t: Instapundit)
- legalizehazing — Fantastic video of a Law student dropping precident on an officer attmpting to stop him for open carrying.
- ClinkinKy — trouble in paradise.
- Ragspierre — Happy Birthday George Schuyler.
- UncleSamuel — more trouble in paradise.
- punfundit — Limbaugh: These are Not Normal Times.
- DINORightMarie — Allen West on anti-Semitism on campus.
- moe4 — the campaign bus stops in Albany.
- Janitor — Sodastream thinks it can change the world, and maybe it can.
BREAKING – we interrupt this Tip Line Tuesday Night to bring you a real what the …. , can someone explain this to the viewing audience:
The four Republican senators voting in favor of Hagel were Cochran (Miss.), Johanns (Neb.), Shelby (Ala.) and Rand Paul (Ky.)
— Susan(@AlwayzSusan) February 27, 2013
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
What… the
Shelby’s a squish – a Democrat who switched to Republican in 1994, after the repub’s election victories.
He brings the pork rolling in, and is (has been?) fairly popular. The teaparty has its sights set on him, but he isn’t up for reeelection until 2016, and is banking on the sure bet that by that time
our country will be in flames, FEMA camps will be in full swing, and guerrilla warfare will be raging throughout the countrysideother stuff will have happened, and voters will have forgotten this particular sin.The reason Rand Paul voted for Hagel was so that he would be able to motion for a reconsideration of the issue at a later date:
Senate Voting Procedure Rule XIII section 1:
” RULE XIII
RECONSIDERATION
13.1 1. When a question has been decided by the Senate, any Senator voting with the prevailing side or who has not voted may, on the same day or on either of the next two days of actual session thereafter, move a reconsideration; and if the Senate shall refuse to reconsider such a motion entered, or if such a motion is withdrawn by leave of the Senate, or if upon reconsideration the Senate shall affirm its first decision, no further motion to reconsider shall be in order unless by unanimous consent. Every motion to reconsider shall be decided by a majority vote, and may be laid on the table without affecting the question in reference to which the same is made, which shall be a final disposition of the motion.”
This might make sense if Rand was the last to vote and it was clear the vote was decided. Otherwise, it appears that he is just playing both sides of the fence to the detriment of us all. With Obama, Kerry and Hagel running things, I will be surprised if Israel doesn’t end up in a major war in the next four years.
I trust Rand Paul and am confident he had a very good reason for voting “Aye”.
That is 100% BULL.
First of all, it is not at all certain that confirmation votes can be reconsidered in any case.
Secondly, reconsideration requires 1) recognition of the Senator so moving by Reid (fat chance), and 2) a majority of the Senate agreeing to reconsider (again, fat chance).
This is a ridiculous reason to vote for a nominee and if Paul indeed gave that as his reason, he is an idiot.
There are some conservatives who believe the President is entitled to whoever he wants in an appointment if they are constitutionally eligible. I could see Paul in that category – I disagree with it, but the position is at least defensible.
While I believe that Rand Paul believes the President can nominate whomever he chooses, I also believe that Rand Paul believes in the constitutional duty of the Senate to ADVISE AND CONSENT. My position is that Rand Paul doesn’t agree with Chuck Hagel’s qualifications. He knew the bill would pass (A democrat majority, as you say with your “fat chance” comments) but at least this way he has a CHANCE to make them reconsider (and given 41 no votes, I don’t think it’s too far fetched to say that it’s better odds than a “fat chance”) and had he voted against the prevailing winds, his chance would have been 0%.
My position is entirely reasonable, it’s not 100% and it’s at least as equally valid in it’s logic as your position is.
Naw. This was a way to coddle the Ronulins (Ron Paul fruitcakes) after voting against cloture.
While I like Rand, he is a politician, and he is tainted by his crazy daddy and daddy’s crazy followers.
I must be crazy then.
One would be crazier to follow the Karl Rovians. And, I would never vote for Chris Christie or Jeb Bush.
As far as Nat’l Defense, I’m good with missile silos, closed borders,satellite surveillance, drones used on foreign enemies and staying at home minding our own business. If our allies need help we help them.
What’s to worry about? Besides Hagel we have Windsurfer Kerry and Dennis Rodman working for the state dept. What me worry?
What makes my day is that the Obama “Bye-Bye” countdown clock is ticking away.
Is there anyway I can donate 50 cents towards doing something with those bags .
Models use hemorroid crime. Tightens & brightens no end.
OT: in the JJJ IL 2nd Congressional District primary, Debbie Halvorson concedes to Robin Kelly. With 55 percent counted, Kelly has 57 percent, Halvorson 19 percent. Turnout about 11 percent; apparently some precincts with zero votes. Bloomberg offers his congratulations.
Shelby was the guy who sabotaged the Fannie/Freddy reform act in his committee back in 2005 when the Republicans held both houses and the Presidency.
Anyone else watch the four Fox market shows on Saturday mornings? Can’t remember which one, because of the crying baby, but there was a black lady with the capital in the background saying something to the effect of “Consider yourselves lucky that you got the SS tax holiday and that the government gave you that money.”
I’m trying to find the video, but have had no success.
Update: with ten precincts outstanding, Paul McKinley winning the five-way Republican primary with 28.8 percent (311 votes).
Robin Kelly gave a shout out to Jan the communist Schakowsky in her “victory” speech. She mentioned the NRA so many times voters probably expect them to be on the ballot in April.
Someone on another site suggested that continuing a protest against Hagel without sufficient cause and without a plan for an alternative outcome would be near-sighted. The continued obstruction of his nomination would further degrade his public standing and leave him increasingly vulnerable to manipulation by Obama and other interests.
I tend to agree with this assessment. Even in a consensus, there is not a uniform opinion. Neither all Democrats nor all Republicans are created equal with uniformly common interests and opinions. While Hagel is not the ideal candidate for Secretary of Defense, he may serve as a needed counterweight to even less ideal men and women.
As for the professor, your first duty is to family (and similar obligations), second to your employer (and similar obligations), and third to Legal Insurrection. The second and third mean little without the first. The second is a means to provide for the first and the third. The third appreciate your decision to share your time and insight.
A less crazy man in the position of Secretary of Defense might at least counter Obama, in ways Obama would not even know.
The insane, pathetic people at the top of our government won’t be able to stand in the wind of outrage that is building against them. Your idea that Hagel will be manipulated further by Obama if the right attacks his credibility is not near-sighted, but it is far-sighted: it doesn’t see the forest for the trees. Hagel has no idea what he is doing, and he has long left the sanity reservation — that’s why Obama chose him.
The LAST thing we need to do is bolster this lunatic by silence.
As for your last paragraph: it’s a non sequitur. Perhaps you can add the missing dots.
At the end of the day, Hagel is just another clueless figurehead in an Administration with more clueless figureheads than a traveling puppet show. The policies will be all Obama’s, unfettered by the need to pretend to care about our security or foreign policy needs by the reelection campaign, and this will be true no matter who is the figurehead at the Pentagon.
Pretty much. But Hagel has BAD ideas of his own, which coincide with Obama’s BAD ideas (i.e., nuclear disarmament).
Not many, mind. But BAD.
Those senators that voted for Hagel’s confirmation deserve more respect than those who voted for cloture and then against confirmation.
Rand Paul bizarrely voted against cloture, but then FOR confirmation. I suspect he shares his father’s views on Israel, which are essentially the same as Hagel’s (and Obama’s).
Once again, the Republicans meekly cave with no discernible practical or political benefit. What a surprise.
It looks like I was wrong about Rand Paul. His explanation for his vote is “The President deserves some leeway…”. Really? What are we paying you for, then? The Bookworm Room sums up this fiasco pretty well in Chuck Hagel — a litmus test for Republican weakness and stupidity:
Bill O’Reilly Talking Points Memo. How will history judge the Obama Presidency??
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2013/02/bill-oreilly-talking-points-memo-how.html
Way I see it, whomever is made Secretary of State will be some Puppet Drone executing Obama’s foreign affairs directives and Obama would only pick some other idiot were Hagel rejected, therefore, the inept Hagel will fail miserably to execute Obama’s inept foreign policy. Hard to know who or what to root for.
There is more than one Mideast Arab nation that would love to see Israel kick Iran’s ass. Hopefully for Israel, the US Cavalry will be available to them no later than January 2017.
Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2Wx230gYJw
Rand Paul’s explanation was bizarre. He really said he voted for the nomination because “Republicans need to stick together”? I am leaving the Republican party to become a conservative independent, because of his explanation and vote.
The Republican party is dying the death of 1,000 votes.