Patterico's Pontifications

1/31/2013

Hagel Open Thread

Filed under: General — JD @ 12:31 pm

[Guest post by JD]

Sen Graham clobbered Hagel.

The Dems like to quote Reagan out of context.

Apparently, clueless is a feature, not a bug, for the Hagel nomination.

I understand that Cruz, McCain, and others, took him to the woodshed as well.

—-JD

156 Responses to “Hagel Open Thread”

  1. I don’t know any individuals that were intimidated by the Jewish Lobby, nor can I think of anything dumb we did because of pressure from the Jewish Lobby.

    JD (b63a52)

  2. Apparently all of the gleeeeeeeeeen greenwalds are less than impressed. MediaMatters anti-Semites are ecstatic.

    JD (b63a52)

  3. Wow, that hearing looks like it was a disaster. It must mean Hagel is a shoe in for the job.

    NaBr (a094a6)

  4. Anti-semite. Neville Chamberlain clone on Iran. Detested by all who served with him….in the Senate at least and I’m guessing in Vietnam as well. And as he proved in the hearings today, as sure on his feet as Chuck Wepner on a bender. The over/under on Hagel’s withdrawal letter to Obama: 96 hours….

    Kevin Stafford (1d1b9e)

  5. It must mean Hagel is a shoe in for the job

    Unfortunately, yes. Locked in on 11/6/12.

    steve (369bc6)

  6. Via Ace:

    Ted Cruz Plays Slap the Dummy
    —Ace

    Ted Cruz may have sunk Hagel.

    …But Cruz might have made Hagel a very difficult for Democrats. Cruz played audio of Hagel agreeing with a questioner’s premise that the US was “the world’s bully,” complimenting that sentiment as an “important observation” (or words to that effect).

    Will our troops really be led by someone who calls them The World’s Bully?

    Little bonus on that question and response: Hagel said this on.. Al Jazeera.

    Consider the politics there.

    Obama picked this guy. That’s the thing.

    Now we know why. Hagel is as anti-US, anti-Israel, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood as Obama is.

    Kind of like Kerry.

    Plus Hagel’s an idiot. And Obama has to surround himself with idiots so he can maintain the illusion he’s brilliant.

    Steve57 (104863)

  7. Has anyone seen any video clips of Cruz dismantling Hagel anywhere?

    I admit I enjoyed watching McCain and Grahamnesty grill him. But I’d really like to see someone who I know is on my side all the time do it, too.

    Steve57 (104863)

  8. Obama has gone from having an administration of second rates to one of third rates.

    Worst president ever.

    SPQR (e385b9)

  9. Is Hagel a tax cheat too? So far that’s missing from the typical Obama nominee profile.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  10. Chuck Todd is providing cover for Hagel. I am shocked.

    JD (448fa8)

  11. As I mentioned elsewhere, Cruz also called Congress a “Fact-free” Zone when discussing the lack of benefit of the previous assault gun ban.

    In one way I don’t think it makes much difference whether Hagel is confirmed or not, the real issue is the Sec. of Defense’s (or Sec. of State’s) boss, and we can’t do much about that now.

    But, pardon me while I am dreaming for a moment of a Cruz/Rubio ticket for 2016, assuming we get there.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  12. Has Hagel ever visited the Dominican Republic with a certain Senator from New Jersey?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  13. SPQR, daley

    Funny x 2.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  14. I’m just shocked that the most pro-Israel President of all-time would carelessly nominate an Israel-hating punk who thinks Ahmadinejad is a partner for peace.

    Or to quote the dude in Casablanca, “I’m shocked to find out that anti-Semites are being nominated to Obama’s cabinet !”

    Elephant Stone (436d36)

  15. “I’m just shocked that the most pro-Israel President of all-time would carelessly nominate an Israel-hating punk who thinks Ahmadinejad is a partner for peace.”

    ES – You are right. Under Obama there is no distance between Israel and the United States if you believe some of their statements and not others or their actions.

    Hagel is a maroon who admits he does not know specific DOD programs, will not make policy, hates Israel and loves the idea of a nuclear Iran, although not today in front of Congress, after all, what difference, at this point, does it make.

    In short, he’s almost a perfect Obama nominee, another old white guy who knows nothing and disagrees with longstanding American policy.

    If the Senate doesn’t confirm him they’re a bunch of racist, homophobic, misogynist haters.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  16. Ted Cruz is a vinegaroon.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  17. A venomless scorpion?

    JD (b63a52)

  18. Yeah, sure. I’m just playing off daley.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  19. My new name here. For the record.

    Let’s see how the always calm and sensible JD deals with that earthshaking news.

    Rational Republican (3d5492)

  20. Right, Leviticus;

    Cruz earned his Bachelor of Arts from Princeton University and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School. He was an editor of the Harvard Law Review, an executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review.[12] While at Princeton, he competed for the American Whig-Cliosophic Society’s Debate Panel as one of North America’s top-ranked parliamentary debaters, winning the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship and the 1992 North American Debating Championship.[13] In 1992, he was named Speaker of the Year and Team of the Year (with his debate partner, David Panton) by the American Parliamentary Debate Association.[13] In 1991 he and his partner came in second to Austan Goolsbee and partner David Gray. Cruz was also a semi-finalist at the 1995 World Universities Debating Championship.[14]

    Then he was subsequently a law clerk to both Judge Luttig, and Chief Justice Rehnquist

    narciso (3fec35)

  21. In a real jounalist’s report or a real network political director’s analysis, a Chuck Todd shouldn’t give a rat’s #ss whether any particular person was confirmed or not. They just want to be able to say that the noble mon Obama selected a REPUBLICAN for such an important job.

    With the “love” on the left and the pushback on the right this has been one of the srangest cabinet choices and confirmation hearings I’ve ever seen.

    elissa (0a4150)

  22. Comment by Rational Republican (3d5492) — 1/31/2013 @ 2:46 pm

    Welcome back, Powder Dry!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  23. Your comments must follow our copyright policy. Commenters who do not use a consistent name, and/or who use a proxy to post, are subject to banning. Profane language will place your comment in moderation.

    True American, Larkosa, Powder Dry, Dry Powder, and now it’s new Moby name, Rational Republican. Apparently it cannot read.

    JD (b63a52)

  24. narciso,

    Kinda makes you wonder why he decided to eat sh*t for a living, doesn’t it?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  25. I like Hagel. He’s a good man.

    Reflexively opposing everything Obama does, even if they are/were originally good Republican ideas (like HCR), makes you look like a mindless partisan.

    Rational Republican (3d5492)

  26. JD, what’s the over under on that Moby getting banned?

    SPQR (91bcec)

  27. Well it’s a window into Obama’s mindset, which Ayers, Wright, Khalidi, Wolfe, et al, helped form

    narciso (3fec35)

  28. Hagel rather clearly demonstrates that Obama is unable to actually identify any one with any competence or talent for his administration. I can’t think of any one more prone to nominating third raters in recent history than Obama.

    SPQR (91bcec)

  29. Kinda makes you wonder why he decided to eat sh*t for a living, doesn’t it?

    By becoming a politician?

    JD (b63a52)

  30. Sure. whatever;

    He previously served as the director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice, and as Domestic Policy Advisor to U.S. President George W. Bush on the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign. In addition, from 2004 to 2009 Cruz was an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, where he taught U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

    narciso (3fec35)

  31. It is hard to imagine any serious president nominating the likes of Kerry for SoS or Hagel for SoD. Which makes Barry O. perfect, eh? But after seeing McCain, Graham, Cruz, et al rip Hagel, how could any

    serious

    Senator vote for him?

    NeoCon_1 (9dccdd)

  32. Leviticus–why try to be so clever. Just spit it out for those of us who don’t get what you are talking about in your last several comments.

    elissa (0a4150)

  33. narciso,

    Here’s a resume I’m sure you respect:

    Harvard (magna cum laude)
    Harvard Law School (magna cum laude)
    Editor of Harvard Law Review

    Ooh, or this:

    Columbia University
    Harvard Law School
    President of Harvard Law Review
    Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  34. SPQR – given that it has adopted a name similar to what other trolls have used in the past … It’s dishonesty is amusing. It is like it thinks we have never seennsomeone like that before.

    JD (b63a52)

  35. elissa,

    My apologies:

    I think Ted Cruz is a slicked-back, overhyped platitude fountain. Like most politicians.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  36. Leviticus, no frankly I’m not impressed by a “President” of Harvard Law Review who produces zero scholarship, nor a “Professor” of Constitutional Law with zero scholarship who acts so unconstitutionally in office.

    Obama’s “resume” is full of ticket punching devoid of accomplishment.

    SPQR (91bcec)

  37. What was wrong with what Cruz pointed out, about the ignorance about firearms, the shortcomings of Obamacare, or a foreign policy vouched for by Tehran,

    narciso (3fec35)

  38. L. Thanks. See. That wasn’t so hard was it? And it helps cut way down on rhetorical fuzz, inchoherent cross-talk, misunderstanding, etc, etc.

    elissa (0a4150)

  39. “He previously served as the director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice, and as Domestic Policy Advisor to U.S. President George W. Bush on the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign. In addition, from 2004 to 2009 Cruz was an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, where he taught U.S. Supreme Court litigation.”

    - narciso

    Columbia, Harvard, Harvard Law Review, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, state senator, U.S. Senator, two-term President of the United States…

    I would say that Ted Cruz is on his way to being as smart as Barack Obama. By your standards.

    I’ll stick to assessing Cruz by his words and actions, as I assess Obama. So far, I think they’re both a couple of vinegaroons. Maybe they should open a practice together.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  40. Oh my gosh – and Cruz was born in Canada. It’s too perfect.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  41. I love Allahpundit’s headline: “Hagel: If confirmed, I’ll be sure to learn much more about the Defense department”

    SPQR (91bcec)

  42. Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/31/2013 @ 3:00 pm

    He’s obviously over-qualified to be in the Senate of the United States.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  43. Conservatives hate Canucks

    JD (b63a52)

  44. Leviticus, did it escape you that Cruz’s resume shows more actual work and accomplishment than Obama’s did?

    SPQR (91bcec)

  45. Everyone hates Canucks, you hoser.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  46. Obama was NEVER a Professor, he was a Lecturer.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  47. “Leviticus, did it escape you that Cruz’s resume shows more actual work and accomplishment than Obama’s did?”

    - SPQR

    Apparently, yes.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  48. Cruz was an adjunct.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  49. Why does Leviticus hate Mexicans?

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  50. Ted Cruz is a future President or Supreme Court Justice.

    …William Howard Taft, minus 250 lbs !

    Elephant Stone (436d36)

  51. Now the distinction between adjunct and Professor matters? I are confuzzled.

    JD (b63a52)

  52. askeptic started it.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  53. Once again the republicans, show courage in going after a fellow republican. Haven’t laughed this hard since the last time I saw Rickles.

    mg (31009b)

  54. L. Did the book on economics that Patterico bought for you and had sent arrive at your place yet? I think many of us are interested in reading your take on its message.

    elissa (0a4150)

  55. Leviticus left all those skeet shooting championships out of Obama’s resume.

    SPQR (91bcec)

  56. No, he’s a DIABLO, a bird of a different feather, now I would have preferred they had gone after Kerrey, in this manner, who has been a much more odious figure, from Vietnam to Central America to the Middle East.

    narciso (3fec35)

  57. Leviticus – Put the puck in the net, eh.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  58. Kerry (for whatever unknown reason) is largely respected in the senate and elsewhere. Hagel is not a popular man anywhere, including by his own former staff and many colleagues. I get why they had to accept Kerry to go after Hagel and why they need to go after Hagel hard even if he is eventually confirmned.

    elissa (0a4150)

  59. Now the distinction between adjunct and Professor matters? I are confuzzled.

    I thought it was relatively simple:
    A Professor has tenure, and an Adjunct is just Paid Help.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  60. He was presenting Alinsky organizing principles, in lieu of the law, re that Cantor piece,

    narciso (3fec35)

  61. Elissa – they aren’t actual media anymore. They are partners

    JD (448fa8)

  62. narciso, thanks for the link.

    daley, he may well be a tax cheat and he may have done and underage Dominican hooker sandwich or two with Menendez. If you watch Cruz’s full questioning of Hagel you’ll note that Hagel decided not to disclose his finances as requested by the Senate committee. Nor did he decide to disclose where he’s traveled to deliver foreign speeches.

    I’m sure the Dominican teenagers loved it when he’d shout out in bed “I ought to put you in a cage you ANIMAL like an Israeli with a Palestinian” or “Al Jazeeeeraaahhh, chica!”

    Seriously, this guy was horrible. And it’s not just me referring to him as an idiot. So are the Democratic Senators.

    Hot Air has a hilarious post up, Hagel: If confirmed, I’ll be sure to learn much more about the Defense department

    You’ve got to watch the clips. He actually said basically, sure, he doesn’t know much about DoD but if he’s confirmed he promised to learn.

    One of the clips is titled, “CNN’s Dana Bash: Senators In Disbelief Over Hagel’s Poor Performance”

    Like, what the hay! He just didn’t feel like brushing up on the whole SecDef business before the hearing?

    I especially loved the part where he tried to reassure some Senator that these hearings weren’t really about him (WTFO) because he won’t actually be running anything at DoD. His underlings will.

    My favorite quote is one Jen Rubin got from an unnamed Democrat:

    “It is very clear from the testimony that Sen. Hagel will not be bringing the potato salad to the next Mensa picnic.”

    It’s clear from this waste of oxygen that Obama is either totally unqualified to be the hiring manager at a Taco Bell let alone President of the United States or he holds the DoD and the Senate in complete contempt and he doesn’t care who knows it (which amounts to the same thing either way you want to look at it).

    Steve57 (104863)

  63. L. Did the book on economics that Patterico bought for you and had sent arrive at your place yet? I think many of us are interested in reading your take on its message.

    - elissa

    No, not yet.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  64. I wasn’t insulting Taco Bell managers, by the way. I was just pointing out that everyone’s got to learn the ropes somewhere. A fast food restaurant isn’t that big of an operation and if you make a mistake it won’t be that expensive. Then you can go on to bigger and better things.

    Obama isn’t even qualified for an entry level management position.

    Steve57 (104863)

  65. 66- Dishwasher would be a stretch for him.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  66. 67. 66- Dishwasher would be a stretch for him.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 1/31/2013 @ 4:25 pm

    The only way he wouldn’t break any is if somebody handed him a shotgun and tossed them into the air for him.

    ‘This Hagel hearing is a disaster’ Liberals take to Twitter to slam Hagel

    Obama may have finally succeeded in serving up a **** sandwich that not even the MFM is willing to lie to the public about how good it tastes.

    Steve57 (104863)

  67. From the Almanac of American Politics 2000 – also 1998 I think, in the article about Nebraska – Junior Senator:

    He got the number two position in the Reagan Veterans’ Affairs Administration but resigned after only one year. He was one of
    two main speakers at the 1982 groundbreaking of the Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial. Then he made his great break, usig all of his savings–$5,000 –
    and starting Vanguard Cellular Systems, which became the second largest independent cell phone company in the nation; Hagel traveled on business
    to 60 countries and installed cell phone systems in Costa Rica, Saudi Arabia and Britain. Then he went back into government, as head of
    World USO and then deputy director of the 1990 G-7 Summit. In 1992, he returned to Omaha, to work in investment banking — and to prepare to
    run for the Senate.

    This was early in the days of cell phones. He talked of Dick Tracy and also carried around a
    shoe phone with him to demonstrate, like Maxwell Smart in in Get Smart.

    I don’t beleive that Barack Obama is a terrorist mole. With regard to Chuck Hagel, I am not so sure. His positions are not intellectually coherent.

    He sounds too much like an unregistered foreign agent. You can’t be sure he won’t give advice he knows to be bad, in the hopes he later on will be rewarded.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  68. I tuned in and was pleased that both ABC and PBS NewsHour did relatively objective reports on the Hagel hearings without a lot of analysis or BS. However, the video was all old white men. Apparently the producers of those reports felt Cruz as an attractive young Hispanic senator didn’t deserve any footage.

    elissa (0a4150)

  69. He sounds too much like an unregistered foreign agent.

    Hysterical

    JD (448fa8)

  70. Love the mensa insult. I’ll be using that from time to time when the occasion arises and the shoe fits.

    elissa (0a4150)

  71. That aside, regardless of the reason he seems hell bent on cutting the military budget. I see the Weekly Standard made the same comparison I did to President Truman’s Secretary of Defense in 1949-50, Louis A. Johnson.

    Anti-Defense Secretary Would Chuck Hagel be the second coming of Louis Johnson?

    Money is already becoming too much of a consideration.

    Do you know part of the reason the United States was so slow on Mali was cost??

    U.S. Weighing How Much Help to Give France’s Military Operation in Mali – New York Times Sat Jan 26, 2013 page A8

    All indications are that the administration is trying to find a solution, but that any refueling would probably be approved only with restrictions.

    “The discussions center on cost, and the concern about whether this becomes an open-ended mission for the French in Mali,” one Defense Department official said. “What does that mean about our commitment?”

    Since nominees sometimes go to work informally before they are confirmed, (Kerry did ) this could already be the work of Chuck Hagel!

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  72. Comment by Steve57 (104863) — 1/31/2013 @ 1:02 pm

    Hagel is as anti-US, anti-Israel, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood as Obama is.

    I don’t think so. I think Hagel sold himself as someone who knows how to chop the defense budget without harming any capability we need.

    The other things are things Obama might not care so much about – besides Hagel’s recanted.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  73. So are you proudly wearing Hagel’s colors then, Sammy?

    elissa (0a4150)

  74. No, not really as has been pointed out before;

    http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/tag/chuck-hagel/

    narciso (3fec35)

  75. 74. The other things are things Obama might not care so much about – besides Hagel’s recanted.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/31/2013 @ 4:43 pm

    Right, Sammy. And I have a bridge to sell you.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/

    M.J. Rosenberg is Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network. Previously, he worked on Capitol Hill for various Democratic members of the House and Senate for 15 years. He was also a Clinton political appointee at USAID. In the early 1980s, he was editor of AIPACs weekly newsletter Near East Report. From 1998-2009, he was director of policy at Israel Policy Forum.

    Today he tweets:

    MJayRosenberg I spent a couple of hours with Hagel a few years ago. Talked about Israel. Happily, he is lying today & knows it. He’ll be a good SeDef

    Steve57 (104863)

  76. I should add we all know he’s lying, too. Very poorly.

    Steve57 (104863)

  77. Note who they have commenting three quarter of the way, down,

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/hagel-don-t-judge-jewish-lobby-quote-151318895–politics.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  78. Yes, ‘David ‘Romney wants people to drown’ Chalian

    McCain welcomed the former senator by saying he was “pleased to see an old friend” before the Senate Armed Services Committee, but he immediately ripped into “the quality of your professional judgment.” (Politico’s David Chalian noted on Twitter that the Arizona lawmaker’s tone suggested that “old friend” really meant “ex-friend.”)

    narciso (3fec35)

  79. Note who they have commenting three quarter of the way, down,

    Who are you referring to?

    JD (b63a52)

  80. I don’t blame the left wing kooks for hating on Ted Cruz.
    His ascendency is a direct threat to the silly liberal Match.com profile that insists anyone with a Hispanic surname must vote Democrat and advocate for big government and the nanny state.

    He’s a brilliant man, and I am thrilled to see him embrace a front-and-center role in the United States Senate.

    He’s a big fish, and that’s why the little lefties want to fry him.

    Elephant Stone (203708)

  81. The lefty strategy on Cruz will be the same old Alinsky strategy they always use. They know he’s not stupid, so he must be ridiculed as strange or extreme.

    It’s a wonder any progress ever happens in a Progressive world. That was sarcasm. Progress never happens in a Progressive world.

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  82. We are terrified of Cruz. He went to Harvard, you know.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  83. Every time I have watched Cruz I have been favorably impressed.

    Patterico (89e117)

  84. The Left may claim that Hagel is getting borked, but Bork at least made them work for it. This was just fish floating at the top of a barrel.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  85. Closer analogy: Harriet Miers, but inept.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  86. 84. We are terrified of Cruz. He went to Harvard, you know.

    Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 2/1/2013 @ 12:09 am

    It shows, Leviticus. If I were you guys, I’d be terrified of him, too, after watching him dissect Hagel.

    If he had been on the stage with Obama instead of Romney, every debate would have been like the first one.

    So don’t pretend the reason you all are scared of him is because he went to Harvard. Only an unaccomplished insecure 40 something man brings up his alma mater or his major as a job qualification.

    Wait. That’d be Obama. Who claimed as one of his foreign policy qualifications that he had studied international relations in college.

    Steve57 (104863)

  87. Thank you, I’ve recently been looking for info approximately this subject for a long time and yours is the greatest I have came upon so far. However, what concerning the conclusion? Are you certain concerning the source?|What i don’t realize is actually how you’re now not really much more well-favored than you might be right now. You are very intelligent.

    Somanabolic Muscle Maximizer Kyle Leon Kyle Leon, Lean Machine, Six Pack, Jenny Craig (e7c71f)

  88. 85.Every time I have watched Cruz I have been favorably impressed.

    Comment by Patterico (89e117) — 2/1/2013 @ 12:13 am

    me too

    EPWJ (1ea63e)

  89. So you were wrong about him?

    JD (b63a52)

  90. That wasn’t quite my recollection,

    narciso (3fec35)

  91. Leviticus-

    I think you started it.

    So far you have made it clear that the problems with Cruz are:
    1. He ran for elected office (hence he is a politician, and a politician is a politician is a politician, which you all deplore)
    2. Even worse, he ran for office as listed as a Republican.

    I’m afraid you’ve just given me enough reason to ignore your posts (at least your posts concerning politics or public policy), which I have never done. That probably means nothing to you, and I don’t think it necessarily should; but if you want to be taken seriously by those who disagree with you, I doubt this is the way to go. If you don’t give a rip about what others think, that will show, and will invite a mutual response.

    What do you prefer (in a way that you actually think is possible), a dictatorship of enlightened ones, with you in charge? As it has been said, our form of government is very imperfect, but it is still better than any other form, and will be until King Jesus returns.

    And at least for the moment, at least at a state level, I think it is possible to win public office without the trappings of selling out to the “powers that be”, and not all politicians are created equal, and atypical politicians are to be encouraged. My 2 cents, FWIW.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  92. JD

    Yes, but in all fairness it was that I didnt know how he would vote – he had no record and Dewhurst did.

    I worry when a politician who is unknown takes a known politician and calls him some liberal when Dewhurst was anything but that.

    And Dewhurst also is a veteran and has a string of accomplisments whereas Cruz had to admit he padded his resume when it was actually the attorney general that ordered him and authored most of those opinions that cruz said he co-authored

    EPWJ (1ea63e)

  93. As far as being afraid of Cruz, I heard that he has already become a target of the NYT, Matthews, Maddow, and the usual anti-conservative voices.

    Can they demonize both Cruz and Rubio at the same time? They only had to do one at a time with GWBush and Palin.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  94. whereas Cruz had to admit he padded his resume

    I cannot find where he did this.

    JD (b63a52)

  95. JD

    except where he said he did this and he did that and later was found out that he didnt initiate thr defending this and that Attorney General Greg Abbot did and ordered him to.

    So in other words, we didnt really know where he stoofd until he has pleasantly been as staunch a conservative as he said he was

    EPWJ (1ea63e)

  96. Apparently, clueless is a feature, not a bug, for the Hagel nomination.

    And that one of the most ideologically flaky and unreliable (meaning irresponsible) Republicans just happens to be a choice of the current president speaks volumes about our society in this era of “Goddamn America.”

    It’s a wonder any progress ever happens in a Progressive world. That was sarcasm. Progress never happens in a Progressive world.

    But who cares? When a person is compassionate, tolerant, humane and sophisticated, that’s all that matters. So what if he or she lacks common sense and true compassion. That’s okay—it’s but a minor detail. Besides, traveling on that road paved with good intentions is a fun journey.

    I’m afraid you’ve just given me enough reason to ignore your posts (at least your posts concerning politics or public policy), which I have never done.

    But I give Leviticus credit for trying to sound less dyed-in-the-wool liberal by also, on occasion, slamming Obama. However, I suspect he reacts that way with his fingers crossed behind his back, or with a slightly pained look on his face. IOW, it’s more a case of the opposite of “damning with faint praise.”

    Mark (68549d)

  97. This was him, at the start of the Anbar Awakening, note how he ignores the point of the exercise;

    When you were engaging Chairman Biden on this issue on the specific question of, Will our troops go into Iran or Syria in pursuit, based on what the president said last night?, you cannot sit here today — not because you’re dishonest or you don’t understand — but no one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won’t engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border.

    narciso (3fec35)

  98. Comment by Mark (68549d) — 2/1/2013 @ 8:44 am

    I think Leviticus really doesn’t like Obama, but if his anti-politician bias is so bad that he rejects all of them as jerks, what good does it do to read his comments? I now know ahead of time he will be abusive, dismissive, and sarcastic and it will not add to the discussion, just provoke reaction like others with little discernible benefit.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  99. Leviticus reveals to us the enemy’s plan. They’re going to try to make these hearings about Cruz.

    These hearings aren’t about Cruz. They’re about Hagel. And the GOP needs to hammer that point. If the Democrats in the Senate approve Hagel’s nomination then they are spitting in the face of every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine serving this country. Just as Obama did when he nominated Hagel.

    The Dems no doubt will argue that Hagel is a fine man who served his country. So what. The SecDef Job isn’t a patronage appointment that exists to reward a fine man who served his country. It requires a competent person who is capable of running a large, complex organization with one of the objectives being the welfare of those who serve.

    Hagel demonstrated he is not such a person. If the Democrats approve this nomination out of party loyalty, because they belong to the Obumble personality cult, then they’re putting partisan interests ahead of the interests of the country.

    Steve57 (104863)

  100. Hagel was fundamentally wrong, five years ago, and frankly dishonest about it, as Obama was, and this has an impact on the vaccuum by our leaving, that has led to the Syrian imbroglio getting worse,

    narciso (3fec35)

  101. If the Democrats in the Senate approve Hagel’s nomination then they are spitting in the face of every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine serving this country.

    Steve is right.

    I also think that Hagel was embarrassingly wrong in his analysis of the Surge tactic. Our Secretary of Defense should both be smart on defense and also support our military.

    Any Republican who threatens the ‘white male’ narrative always brings out the long knives from democrats. It’s been that way since the democrat party’s Jim Crow laws.

    Dustin (73fead)

  102. Even george W. Bush was wrong on some things, but it makes a difference wwhat the balance of opinion is in an Adminsitration.

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/bombing-the-syrian-reactor-the-untold-story/

    In the end, our near-perfect policy process produced the wrong result. At a final session in the gracious Yellow Oval Room at the Residence, Bush came down on Rice’s side. We would go to Vienna, to the IAEA; he would call Olmert and tell him what the decision was. I was astounded and realized I had underestimated Rice’s influence even after all this time. The president had gone with Condi….

    …In his memoir, Bush explains one key consideration: The CIA told him it had “high confidence” that the facility in Syria was a nuclear reactor but “low confidence” that Syria had a nuclear-weapons program, because it could not locate the other components of the program. The president thought that the “low confidence” judgment would leak, as it surely would have, and the United States would have been attacked for conducting the bombing raid despite the “low confidence” report. That is a reasonable argument, but it explains only why we did not bomb—it does not explain why he urged the Israelis not to do so.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  103. As I had sat in the Oval Office on July 13, listening to his conversation with Olmert, I had wondered how the president would react to the Israeli action. With anger? Or more pressure? None of it. He heard Olmert out calmly and acknowledged that Israel had a right to protect its national security. After hanging up, the president said something like “that guy has guts,” in an admiring tone…..He had sided with Condi and shown that she was still in charge of Middle East policy, but her “take it to the UN” plan had been blown up along with the reactor. He did not seem very regretful. What is more, he instructed us all to abandon the diplomatic plans and maintain absolute silence, ensuring that Israel could carry out its plan.

    The Israeli assessment of Syria’s likely reaction was correct. The Israelis believed that if they and we spoke about the strike, Assad might be forced to react to this humiliation by trying to attack Israel. If, however, we all shut up, he might do nothing—nothing at all. He might try to hide the fact that anything had happened. And with every day that passed, the possibility that he would acknowledge the event and fight back diminished. That had been the Israeli theory, and the Israelis knew their man. We maintained silence and so did Israel—no leaks. As the weeks went by, the chances of an Israeli-Syrian confrontation grew slim and then disappeared. Syria has never admitted that there was a reactor at the site. Soon after the bombing, the Syrians bulldozed the reactor site, but the only way they could be sure their lies about it were not contradicted was to prevent a full examination. When a 2008 site visit by IAEA inspectors found some uranium traces, Syria made sure never to permit a return visit….

    ….A very well-placed Arab diplomat later told us that the strike had left Assad deeply worried as to what was coming next. He had turned Syria into the main transit route for jihadis going to Iraq to kill American soldiers. From Libya or Indonesia, Pakistan or Egypt, they would fly to Damascus International Airport and be shepherded into Iraq. Assad was afraid that on the heels of the Israeli strike would come American action to punish him for all this involvement. But just weeks later, Assad received his invitation to send a Syrian delegation to that big international confab of Condi’s, the Annapolis Conference, and according to the Arab envoy, Assad relaxed immediately; he knew he would be OK. I had not wanted Syria invited to Annapolis because of its involvement in killing Americans in Iraq, but Condi had wanted complete Arab representation as a sign that comprehensive peace might be possible. It was only years later that I learned that Assad had instead interpreted the invitation just as I had: as a sign that the United States would not seriously threaten or punish him for what Syria was doing in Iraq.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  104. Sammy,

    When you post a link to an article, you don’t have to share that much of it.

    The IAEA has proven to be unreliable and driven by an agenda other than their stated one. I am pleased that Bush was working behind the scenes to play the hand he was dealt… a tough hand in his last two years of office.

    Dustin (73fead)

  105. 75. Comment by elissa (0a4150) — 1/31/2013 @ 4:50 pm

    So are you proudly wearing Hagel’s colors then, Sammy?

    No, I think Hagel is terrible.

    But I am not too worried about general policy.

    If Hagel is merely a fool, he doesn’t add anything to what we already have because Obama is president.

    I have two big concerms, one general and one very specific related to his job. And this is what could kill his nomination.

    My worry about general policy is that Hagel may be corrupt and twist evidence in favor of inaction everywhere, and every time, to influence what Obama decides.

    Whether this is likely or not depends upon whether or not Hagel has already made his pile. Maybe he is not looking for any more money. I guess the odds are about 60% he would twist evidence.

    The second consideration is the thing that probably got him the job – his promise to slash the Defense budget but not harm anything Obama may want to do (and there are some things he may want to do.)

    It’s one thing for a president not to have an intention to do something – it’s worse for the U.S. not even to have the capability.

    If Hagel is dishonest – and he’s almost certainly dishonest about this at least – he will slash anything that allows U.S. troops to be put anywhere, since Obama doesn’t expect this to be done any more. But he will be careful to maintain and increase the number of drones, since Obama likes drones.

    He may even maybe add a bit, but not too much, to special forces.

    He’ll slash procurement.

    He’ll give Obama his forces in the Far East.

    He’ll maintain benefits for soldiers and veterans since Obama doesn’t want that cut.

    He’ll cut the number of active duty soldiers.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  106. Comment by Dustin (73fead) — 2/1/2013 @ 11:31 am

    The IAEA has proven to be unreliable and driven by an agenda other than their stated one. I am pleased that Bush was working behind the scenes to play the hand he was dealt… a tough hand in his last two years of office.

    He didn’t play it well according to Elliot Abrams, who said he made the wrong decision.

    The right decision would have been not to go to the IAEA (as Bush intended, once he got all the chips in a row) because that would have the effect of warning Syria, while having a near zero chance of success. And warning Syria, he thought, was a bad idea.

    Cheney wanted to bomb it but Abrams wanted Israel to bomb it.

    Bush had a conversation with Olmert on July 13, 2007. Elliot Abrams was taking notes. Abrams thought Olmert would say he would call him back tomorrow but Olmert answered him right away.

    He said we told you the first day we cannot accept it – that reactor has got to go. He said, you’re telling me you won’t act, that means we will, although we won’t be precipitious about it.

    In his memoirs Bush said that Olmert initially said, “George, I’m asking you to bomb the compound” – i.e., that he asked again – but Abrams does not remember that.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  107. Anyway, Bush seems to have allowed Condoleeza Rice to be in charge of policy here, and also decided on caution, because the CIA didn’t see any other part of a nuclear program in Syria beyond enriching uranium.

    This might be because there wasn’t any! Perhaps this reactor was being built entirely on behalf of Iran and wasn’t a Syrian project at all!

    Perhaps Iran was hiding this in Syria and Syria was just the landlord, or, you could say, the project was being split up between different countries.

    Abrams doesn’t seem to considered that idea at all. And the truth is I wonder if the earlier pre-2003 Libyan atomic bomb was also in coordination with Iran and paid for by Iran.

    Bush apparently thought there was a risk of wider war if something was done, because his big reaction to Israel bombing it was that Olmert had guts, and to drop the whole idea of going to the IAEA and to go along with the Israeli idea of simply saying nothing about this.

    Abrams then says Bush made another mistake. Assad was fearful the U.S. would do something becausde of his aid to people waging war in Iraq, but then he invited Syria to some soprt of peace conference.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  108. “I think Leviticus really doesn’t like Obama, but if his anti-politician bias is so bad that he rejects all of them as jerks, what good does it do to read his comments? I now know ahead of time he will be abusive, dismissive, and sarcastic and it will not add to the discussion, just provoke reaction like others with little discernible benefit.”

    - MD in Philly

    I comment on other things besides my dislike and disrespect for American politicians. You could continue to read those comments, if you want – comments where I am not abusive, dismissive, or sarcastic. Like the recent thread where I discussed Medicare and Medicaid with Patterico, for instance. There are probably a thousand more examples. Forget about those if you want, but they’re there for all the world to see. Apparently the only acceptable spleen-venting is spleen-venting aimed at Barack Obama – or have you decided to ignore the comments of every other commenter on this site (with the possible exception of DRJ) as well?

    “So far you have made it clear that the problems with Cruz are … he ran for office as listed as a Republican.”

    - MD in Philly

    I made no such thing “clear.” I said nothing of the sort. I think nothing of the sort. The letter after Cruz’s name is meaningless, and doesn’t matter a whit to me; if you don’t know that by now you should. Don’t project some latent partisan supplication onto me to justify the growth of the inclination in yourself.

    “What do you prefer (in a way that you actually think is possible), a dictatorship of enlightened ones, with you in charge?”

    - MD in Philly

    Is that in any way fair, or rational? Have I suggested anything of the kind? Or are you just trying to score a cheap point with a cheap audience? I have been hammering on the illegitimacy of the two-party system and its beneficiaries for YEARS, now. What I would prefer, and what is exceedingly possible, and what (I guess) you would rather not discuss for some reason is the possibility of MORE PARTIES, giving voters MORE CHOICES, giving politicians MORE ACCOUNTABILITY.

    Pretend that this is suddenly some grounds for ignoring me if you want; and pretend you weren’t looking for an excuse. Obama has made a lot of people on this site hysterical, and hysteria doesn’t like dissent. Fine. I’m sorry to hear it, but fine. Apparently the only acceptable spleen-venting is spleen-venting aimed at Barack Obama.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  109. Comment by Steve57 (104863) — 1/31/2013 @ 4:11 pm

    It’s clear from this waste of oxygen that Obama is either totally unqualified to be the hiring manager at a Taco Bell

    There is no reason to think Chuck Hagel has any kind of special ability to cut defense. This would be like the owner of a Taco Bell, hiring some friend of his who has a peripheral job to slash costs without harming sales – when everybody else is telling him it can’t be done.

    Now you can say Godfathers Pizza did that with Herman Cain. But Herman Cain knew what he was talking about. Theer was maybe reason perhaps to believe he could do it, and they were also desperate.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  110. One has to wonder why the Democrats would loyally push through such a disasterous nominee. Do they think it will be different after he takes office?

    Rumsfeld was FAR FAR more capable and look what he did for Bush in the end.

    Loose lips sink ships, what do they sink when they’re on the boss?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  111. Hagel confirmatiuon hearing live blog by the Atlantic: (in reverse chronological order)

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/chuck-hagel-confirmation-hearing/61628/

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  112. 112. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 2/1/2013 @ 12:29 pm

    One has to wonder why the Democrats would loyally push through such a disasterous nominee. Do they think it will be different after he takes office?

    Rumsfeld was FAR FAR more capable and look what he did for Bush in the end.

    They are probably not thinking long term at all, and they may not realise there could be some disastrous failure – the Republicvans aren’t really pointing this out, but just criticiing his past. They probably think one Secretary of Defense is no different from the other. If they do think there could be a problem, they may be afraid to challenge the president on this.

    Loose lips sink ships, what do they sink when they’re on the boss?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  113. Obama’s first cabinet: A bunch of incompetent Democrat hacks.

    Obama’s second cabinet: A bunch of incompetent Democrat hacks with one or two incompetent Republican hacks.

    Hooray for the new era of bipartisanship!

    JVW (4826a9)

  114. ==Or are you just trying to score a cheap point with a cheap audience? I have been hammering on the illegitimacy of the two-party system and its beneficiaries for YEARS, now. ==

    Well thank you very much from the “audience”. C’mon Leviticus. Chill. You are absolutely entitled to your opinions and when they are offered respectfully and somewhat cogently you deserve for people to treat you and them respectfully, too. You frequently riff on ideas that offer food for thought. But as you are still in school and you’re still young enough to be on your parents’ health insurance policy, the fact that you’ve “been hammering on the illegitimacy of the two party system and its beneficiaries “for years” is just kind of funny to see in print. You know?

    elissa (0a4492)

  115. My high school senior doesn’t like the two party system either.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  116. you would rather not discuss for some reason is the possibility of MORE PARTIES, giving voters MORE CHOICES, giving politicians MORE ACCOUNTABILITY.

    Do multiple parties encourage accountability or are they given cover – by having to join coalition goverments like in Europe?

    What do you think Lev..

    EPWJ (1ea63e)

  117. “They are probably not thinking long term at all, and they may not realise there could be some disastrous failure – the Republicvans aren’t really pointing this out, but just criticiing his past.”

    Sammy – Exactly. It really makes no sense to look at a nominee’s past stupid actions and statements during a confirmation hearing when all we are concerned about is the future. Nobody seriously examined Obama’s past before he was elected and look how well that’s worked out.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  118. Rich Galen Hagel testimony links:

    http://www.mullings.com/dr_02-01-13.htm

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  119. Commentary article: Hagel credibility in shreds:

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/01/31/chuck-hagel-credibility-left-in-shreds-hearing/

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  120. “the fact that you’ve “been hammering on the illegitimacy of the two party system and its beneficiaries “for years” is just kind of funny to see in print. You know?”

    - elissa

    That’s fair enough. And I didn’t think that you would include yourself in that “cheap audience” I mentioned above. You shouldn’t, anyway.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  121. “Did someone say something about having more parties ? I love parties ! People who limit themselves to just two parties are dull ! I’m definitely voting in favor of having more parties !”

    —Charlie Sheen, overheard at, uh, well, a party.

    Elephant Stone (a62c87)

  122. True American, Larkosa, Powder Dry, Dry Powder, and now it’s new Moby name, Rational Republican. Apparently it cannot read.

    I’m not running from it, that’s my new name, no secrets. You apparently can’t understand that people might want to change their names. I’m sure it happens here all the time.

    So do what you want, I don’t really care either way.

    Rational Republican (3d5492)

  123. Right, Sammy. And I have a bridge to sell you.
    Comment by Steve57 (104863) — 1/31/2013 @ 4:58 pm

    Is that the bridge Sammy lives under?

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  124. We are terrified of Cruz. He went to Harvard, you know.
    Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 2/1/2013 @ 12:09 am

    Some people attend Harvard, others are educated there.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  125. “…a competent person who is capable of running a large, complex organization…”

    One of the largest, most complex, organizations existing; and completely beyond Hagel’s level of understanding and competency.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  126. Pretend that this is suddenly some grounds for ignoring me if you want; and pretend you weren’t looking for an excuse. Obama has made a lot of people on this site hysterical, and hysteria doesn’t like dissent. Fine. I’m sorry to hear it, but fine. Apparently the only acceptable spleen-venting is spleen-venting aimed at Barack Obama.

    Welcome to Patty Rico’s site.

    Rational Republican (3d5492)

  127. Mark Steyn weighs in at NRO:

    …This week, an over-sedated Elmer Fudd showed up at the Senate claiming to be the president’s nominee for secretary of defense, and even the kindliest interrogators on the committee couldn’t prevent the poor chap shooting himself in the foot…”

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  128. “Obama has made a lot of people on this site hysterical, and hysteria doesn’t like dissent.”

    Rational Republican – This isn’t all about you all the time.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  129. I’m reminded of the consultant’s interview in ‘Office Space’ what is it you do here;

    narciso (3fec35)

  130. ==Welcome to Patty Rico’s site.==

    Here’s a thought—Why don’t you try to dazzle other commenters with some original thought, be honest about your position and political background, and engage in reasoned, less aggressive and less contemptous dialogue. Things might go better. Absent that, people legitimately wonder why you bother to enter the community here if you find it to be so unpleasant and unrewarding– and they wonder why they should bother to pay you any mind. There are other blogs out there, you know.

    elissa (0a4492)

  131. No, Sammy, that was a North Korean reactor, although the uranium may have come from Iraq.

    narciso (3fec35)

  132. 114. the Republicvans aren’t really pointing this out, but just criticiing his past.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 2/1/2013 @ 12:43 pm

    Sammy, I’m not going to address all the points where you’ve gone off the rails. But where are you getting your info if you’ve been led to believe that all the Republicans did was criticize Hagel’s past?

    Hagel: If Confirmed, I Intend To Learn About The Defense Department

    They so thoroughly dismantled his present unpreparedness to take that office that Hagel felt compelled to confess he knew very little about major DoD programs and acquisitions. Hagel himself pointed out that he was asked about the workings of the DoD circa 2013, which were completely over his head. As in the here and now. But promised to do better if confirmed.

    Which was pathetic, and in and of itself should disqualify him from the position.

    He had to comfort the committee that it will not be the case that “I will be running anything.”

    Who feeds you the impression that all the GOP Senators did was criticize his past?

    Steve57 (104863)

  133. Whoa. Even the NYT is taking Hagel to the woodshed on Iran. This is the clearest indication yet that the White House is not happy with Hagel’s performance in the hearings

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/on-iran-hagel-muddles-the-message/.

    elissa (0a4492)

  134. The Administration’s policy doesn’t make sense, elissa, that is why Biden misrepresented the policy and Raddatz let him do it,

    narciso (3fec35)

  135. elissa, there’s no way the WH could be happy with Hagel’s performance. Because as the NYT article you link to observes, as much as the WH would like everyone to think Obama’s policy on Iran is simple and straight forward, plenty of people have there doubts if he’s serious.

    I’ll go out on a limb and say that Hagel, who I’m not going to condemn as an idiot but he didn’t strike me as particularly intelligent, may have inadvertently given the game away. Obama is not serious. That seems to me the danger of “weeks of preparation” if those prepping the witness give the witness too much credit. That they can feed him both the truth and the BS meant purely for domestic political consumption.

    Steve57 (104863)

  136. What narciso said.

    Steve57 (104863)

  137. This was their ‘cunning, cunning’ plan;

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/01/why-hagel-was-so-terrible.html

    narciso (3fec35)

  138. narciso,

    …the White House also worried about Hagel being too professorial.

    It’s been a while since I was in college. When I was in college professors could ‘splain ****. That was, like, a basic job requirement. Now, apparently, “professorial” means spoutin’ off in ways that average mortals can’t understand. “Too professorial” apparently means no one can decipher what you’re saying.

    If that’s the current definition, there’s a guy who’s “too professorial” trying to live out of what he finds in dumpster behind my business because I have no idea what he’s saying.

    Steve57 (104863)

  139. That TA who nobody understands when he tries to explain the calculus problem?

    It isn’t that he has poor English language skills.

    He’s just “too professorial.”

    Steve57 (104863)

  140. And here I was thinkin’ perfessers could make the complex understandable to the dumb****s who made it through “har screwel.”

    Steve57 (104863)

  141. Hagel is too tied into the money stream out of the emirates, otherwise he would have said, ‘You think
    America, is a bully, fine we can bolt from Doha, right now, how long would Doha last before Iran or even Saudi Arabia, took you over,

    narciso (3fec35)

  142. Leviticus-

    I thought I’ve made the point before, and I thought you were in agreement, that while you detest all politicians, it might be fair to say you often dislike repub/conservative politicians more.
    If that is not true, and you hate all equally, then I apologize for the mistake.

    I am not beholden to criticizing Obama above all others. I am happy to equally criticize any other politician who goes to explicitly racist and conspiracy-promoting churches, who is closely associated with unrepentant domestic terrorists, and has said that the Constitution is flawed and he wants to transform America, but on the sly, not by forthrightly amending it.

    I think proposing a benign dictatorship (kinder wording) is more likely realistic and practical than thinking the US will be changed into a multiple party system anytime soon. In the meantime, even if there was a multiple party system, the people running for office would still be politicians.

    In the meantime, I would have thought Cruz would be someone you could respect. He was chosen not by the machinery of one of the two parties but by popular enthusiasm. If he does not keep his campaign promises I think he is much more likely to get booted out when he is up for reelection than most other elected officials. An elected official who got there by being the choice of the people and held accountable for reelection, I thought that is what you say you want, and why I was surprised and disappointed for yout to do the kneejerk, “He’s a politican, he sucks!”

    Pretend that this is suddenly some grounds for ignoring me if you want; and pretend you weren’t looking for an excuse.
    Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 2/1/2013 @ 12:00 pm

    I’m not wishing that you had a bad day for the sake of having a bad day, but I hope you have had a bad day that temporarily affected your judgement in writing this. I don’t pretend nor would I need to, and I don’t look for excuses but I give reasons.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  143. There’s nothing preventing a multi-party system now, as their have been more than 2 parties supporting candidates for president for many years, and in 92′ the presence of a third party candidate determined the results of the election.

    All that is needed is the nucleus of support and financing. In the meantime, fighting the battle to get an “outsider” nominated through the primaries seems to be actually a workable proposition.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  144. Excellent points, as per usual, MD in Philly.

    As you touched on, Ted Cruz WAS the outsider in the Senate race, and defeated “experienced” politicians both in the primary and general election. And as you stated, because Cruz made a real connection with voters as a tea party guy who advocates for limited government, if he were to show too many signs of acquiescing to the “go along to get along” inside-the-beltway Democrat “Lite” branch of the GOP, his Texas constituents would feel painfully betrayed, and surely run someone against him in a primary.

    Incidentally, isn’t it funny how some people who allegedly distrust politicians and distrust government, coincidentally end up advocating for more politicians, more political parties, and more expansive government ?

    As a limited government conservative, I distrust politicians. That’s why I want them to have less power.

    Elephant Stone (30e04f)

  145. Thank you for your kind comments, ES.

    I do agree with Leviticus on the general principle that it would be great if elected officials were held more accountable. I’ve “thought out loud” about making mandatory recall votes or some such part way into a term of service, so if some senator backtracks on his promises in the first 2 years the public has a chance to kick him out, rather than let him continue his malfeasance for 2 more years then spends the last 2 years polishing his record for reelection.

    Probably the best way to accomplish this is to have an educated public and responsible journalism. The good part about that is it is something we would like to have anyway and would not be an additional effort or expense. The “bad” part is that it is dependent on the character of a nation and of its public, and rthere is no quick and direct fix for that.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  146. Palin was also someone who worked for election from the outside, who took on entrenched interests of both parties, who ran on her experience as what was best for the people of the state. Initially it got her an 80% approval from the public, but we know what happened then.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  147. She recognized a like minded sort in Cruz, in the way she though McCain was, I don’t know if she realizes ultimately he ‘threw her to the wolves’.
    Cruz is the only public figure that has really acknowledged her contribution, Perry, Bachman, Paul, have for the most part, run and hid.

    narciso (3fec35)

  148. I think Palin realizes a lot.

    Cruz, from the little I’ve heard from him, sounds confident in who he is and what he believes and is not going to be cowardly about it.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  149. I don’t doubt it, that’s why she keeps counsel from a small circle,

    narciso (3fec35)

  150. How many public officials could get their private emails hacked and have it be pretty embarrassment free? She should have been elected for something on that basis alone.
    G’night.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  151. MD in Philly,

    I already lived through the CA recall of 2003 which never would have been necessary if the Golden State had a more knowledgeable and more wise electorate that would have rejected Gray Davis’ re-election bid in 2002.

    I think that the Founders did put in place the House elections every two years to provide a “quick” remedy to Congressmen who were met with disapproval. That’s important because the House is where the pursestrings are. Also, until an Amendment one hundred years ago, US Senators were chosen by state legislatures in order to be the representation of each state. The Amendment allowing for direct popular election of US Senators has been awful for the cause of limited government not to mention for the cause of “federalism,” and states’ interests in Congress. As we saw this past election cycle such as with the Massachusetts Senate race, the Senate races have become national referendums to a degree.

    Additionally, all the inherent checks and balances among the three co-equal branches of government as well as the checks and balances between the feds and the individual states, were intended to see that any change or momentum as far as policy goes, would be done slowly over time and done as a result of a consensus. If they intended for overnight “transformations” as Dear Leader Obama fantasizes about, or if they envisioned such open-ended “Executive Privilege” as Obama claims the powers to execute (i.e. “recess appointments” when there’s NO recess),by definition the Founders would never have instituted such checks and balances nor would they have created three “co-equal” branches in the first place. (I realize I’m probably preaching to the choir.)

    I’ll try to comment on third parties at another convenient time, but I gotta run right now. Cheers.

    Elephant Stone (30e04f)

  152. No, Obama, is who Franklin worried about, when he mused openly ‘a Republic if you can keep it’ they had read Gibbon, Livy, Polybius,they knew how the mob, left unchecked, dissolves liberty, they understood Tyler’s admonition, or Cicero’s, even if they didn’t say it,

    narciso (3fec35)

  153. Good discussion all.

    Our probs cannot be met in the election booth, we need more than a few hairs plucked from between the eyebrows.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4495 secs.