Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Did Sen. Rand Paul Vote To Confirm Chuck Hagel? Here’s His Answer
The Blaze ^ | Feb. 27, 2013 | Becket Adams

Posted on 02/28/2013 9:31:14 PM PST by Mozilla

The U.S. Senate voted 58-41 Tuesday to confirm former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel as America’s new defense secretary, but not without a little controversy.

Four Republican senators backed Hagels’ confirmation: Sens. Thad Cochran (Miss.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Richard Shelby (Ala.), and Rand Paul (Ky.), as noted yesterday on TheBlaze.

Understandably, Sen. Paul’s vote took some by surprise. After all, didn’t the Kentucky senator vote against cloture before voting for Hagel’s confirmation (answer: Yes).

In an attempt to figure out this apparent contradiction, Fox News Channel’s Bill Hemmer on Wednesday asked the senator about his “aye” vote.

“You helped lead the charge publicly against Chuck Hagel. Yet he you voted to confirm him as Defense Secretary. He was sworn two hours ago at the Pentagon. Why the vote to favor him?” Hemmer asked.

“I filibustered him twice because I wanted more information, and I think when Republicans stick together we could get information. I was disappointed several on my side after they filibustered him immediately announced they wouldn’t continue the filibuster so we never got the information,” said Sen. Paul.

“I’m the same way on Brennan. I want more information on drone strikes in America. On final passage though I take the position that the president does have some leeway and some prerogative in who he appoints to political appointees.

“So I would like to get as much information as we can. I will stick with the party, if the party will stick together to try to get more information. In the end I voted for John Kerry also although I agree with almost nothing that John Kerry represents,” he added.

So there you have it. Sen. Paul voted against cloture because, according to him, he was angling to get more information on President Obama’s nominee and he voted to confirm Hagel because the president has some “leeway” with his appointees.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Kentucky; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: randpaul; randsconcerntrolls; rino; sellout; teaparty; waronterror

1 posted on 02/28/2013 9:31:20 PM PST by Mozilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Sounds pretty weak, to me.


2 posted on 02/28/2013 9:34:51 PM PST by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

just a matter of picking your battles. Hagels past comments on Israel, etc are irrelevant as SecDef. US policy with Israel isn’t the SecDef’s job, it’s the Presidents.


3 posted on 02/28/2013 9:39:54 PM PST by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

It is weak. Sen. Paul told reporters Tuesday he never got the information he was looking for on Hagel anyways. What a bunch of crock from him.


4 posted on 02/28/2013 9:42:07 PM PST by Mozilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Don’t they always have an answer?

You know what? I’m sick of this sheet. I don’t care about their excuses, their answers.

When does OUR opinion count?


5 posted on 02/28/2013 9:47:54 PM PST by KittenClaws (You may have to fight a battle more than once in order to win it." - Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

“In the end I voted for John Kerry also although I agree with almost nothing that John Kerry represents,” he added.

Keep it up and we won’t need to have elections *or* political parties any more. Gotta love the reasoning. Like father, like son...?


6 posted on 02/28/2013 9:50:08 PM PST by Attention Surplus Disorder (This stuff we're going through now, this is nothing compared to the middle ages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

You got that right, bro. Rand’s vote was totally irrelevant anyway. The rats have a solid majority in the senate. And I agree that a president should have the cabinet he/she wants. We do not elect the cabinet. We elect the president. When a person wins presidency, he/she should have the privilege to select his cabinet.

Not that proper protocol would shame future democrap votes for a republican president’s nominees. But GOP should set an example regardless of the shameless democraps.


7 posted on 02/28/2013 9:55:46 PM PST by entropy12 (The republic is doomed when people figure out they can get free stuff by voting democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

8 posted on 02/28/2013 10:00:00 PM PST by South40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Judge a man by his actions and not his words. This is easy to judge, therefore.


9 posted on 02/28/2013 10:03:33 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

That was lame, he could have just skipped it if he didn’t have anything to say.


10 posted on 02/28/2013 10:10:30 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is a longtime supporter of homosexualizing the Boy Scouts (and the military).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

There is “yes” and there is “no”. But if you don’t have enough
information then why not invoke the third option? Come
re-election time the “not enough information” can explain an
abstention better than it can a “yes” vote.


11 posted on 02/28/2013 10:15:23 PM PST by Sivad (Nor Cal Red Turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

“In the end I voted for John Kerry also although I agree with almost nothing that John Kerry represents,”

Like his father , he plays all sides against the middle.


12 posted on 02/28/2013 10:18:33 PM PST by NoLibZone (We have the nation we deserve. I predict FR will hate GOP Candidate for 2016 , because of his shoes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

"The Hagel Unit will disclose the information."


Rand Paul just lost a lot of respect and credibility.


13 posted on 02/28/2013 10:23:45 PM PST by shibumi (Cover it with gas and set it on fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Sen. Paul voted against cloture because, according to him, he was angling to get more information on President Obama’s nominee and he voted to confirm Hagel because the president has some “leeway” with his appointees.


Say What>.... bull pellets...


14 posted on 02/28/2013 10:35:52 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

We’re going to be the faithfull followers for just so long, right?


15 posted on 02/28/2013 10:48:09 PM PST by KittenClaws (You may have to fight a battle more than once in order to win it." - Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

“The fact that Hagel hates Jews just didn’t bother me as much as it bothers some conservatives,” added Paul.


16 posted on 02/28/2013 10:54:20 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

I am sooo sick of gov’t by FREAKOUT!

I am sooo sick of gov’t by SELLOUT!


17 posted on 02/28/2013 11:03:23 PM PST by bigmak007 (They who can't control their own passions, want to passionately control others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

The fact is that Rand Paul is correct.

The President ahs to be given wide leeway in who he chooses to run his departments.

John Kerry is a lousy human being and has been wrong on every major foreign policy decision in the last five decades, however he is not a criminal and does qualify for the position. Same with Hagel. Hagel is the exact type of person O’Bumbler wants in Sec of Defense simply because he is an idiot who will implement his plans. Hagel and Kerry are not the problem. O’Bumbler is!

O’Bumbler decides. You can hardly prevent a decorated War Veteran and a former Senator from becoming a cabinet member. It just isn’t feasible and probably isn’t justifiable. .


18 posted on 02/28/2013 11:27:58 PM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
Police: Sen. Paul’s son assaulted flight attendant

He was charged with "misdemeanor assault on a female by aggressive physical force."


The U.S. Code would seem to apply here.

49 USC § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants

An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

Criminal Resource Manual 1406 Aircraft Piracy, Interference, and Other Title 49 Aircraft Offenses -- Venue

Further, there are good arguments that even a brief interference with a crew member under 49 U.S.C. § 46504 (formerly 49 U.S.C. App. § 1472(j)) or offenses such as assault under 49 U.S.C. § 46506(1) (formerly 49 U.S.C. App. § 1472(k)) need not be tried in the district over which the aircraft was flying at the time the offense was committed.

Perhaps if Senator Paul votes the right way, the feds at justice.gov will not prosecute his son.
19 posted on 02/28/2013 11:29:51 PM PST by greedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
“just a matter of picking your battles.”

True, but it would be nice if the GOP actually “picked” a battle and fought to win.

20 posted on 03/01/2013 2:24:50 AM PST by Shane (When Injustice Becomes Law, RESISTANCE Becomes DUTY.----T.Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

“I’m the same way on Brennan. I want more information on drone strikes in America. On final passage though I take the position that the president does have some leeway and some prerogative in who he appoints to political appointees.


Go away, go far far away.


21 posted on 03/01/2013 2:32:44 AM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
Senator Paul's comment on giving the chief executive "SOME LEEWAY" has eliminated the Constitutional requirement of Senate confirmation of certain appointees.
22 posted on 03/01/2013 2:38:58 AM PST by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

obama just loves effing with the GOP. He finds the biggest fools possible for the job and still manages to push them through. He just loves to “win.”


23 posted on 03/01/2013 2:46:22 AM PST by Right Wing Assault (Dick Obama is more inexperienced now than he was before he was elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Sounds lame to me.


24 posted on 03/01/2013 2:47:35 AM PST by MagnoliaB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town

Then why have votes? Just have the “president” say and do and rule however he likes.

Sheesh.


25 posted on 03/01/2013 2:51:11 AM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

We used to think that having three branches of government was a good thing — but Obama has shown us that all we need is The One.


26 posted on 03/01/2013 3:26:00 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (The ballot box is a sham. Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Looks like the anti-Semites on FR are exposing themselves.

Genesis 12:2-3

New International Version (NIV)

2 “I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.[a]
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.”


27 posted on 03/01/2013 4:09:51 AM PST by SVTCobra03 (You can never have enough friends, horsepower or ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Trying to justify his vote by making it appear noble only convinces me, he was either leveraged or bought.


28 posted on 03/01/2013 4:15:58 AM PST by orlop9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: orlop9
Trying to justify his vote by making it appear noble only convinces me, he was either leveraged or bought.

Very unimpressive.

The last couple of times I've heard him speak, he's given me the impression that he has White House fever.

30 posted on 03/01/2013 4:32:21 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: entropy12
We do not elect the cabinet. We elect the president.

So why did the Founders create the review process?

Rand's position is cowardly or irrational, making his defense of his position suspect.

31 posted on 03/01/2013 4:36:14 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
The President ahs to be given wide leeway in who he chooses to run his departments.

Even if they are criminal enterprises. Got it.

The mystery is, why we win any elections at all.

32 posted on 03/01/2013 4:40:35 AM PST by itsahoot (MSM and Fox free since Nov 1st. If it doesnÂ’t happen here then it didn't happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

So, when will he find a presidential decision stupid enough to actually vote against it? I used to think Senator Paul could be trusted. Dummy me.


33 posted on 03/01/2013 4:52:06 AM PST by Pecos (If more sane people carried guns, fewer crazies would get off a second shot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder

Randy Paul has no moral compass, no core. In the years to come he’ll vote more with democrats than republicans, especially on anything to do with national defense. He’s like the old man, just call him the Neville Chamberlain of the US Senate.


34 posted on 03/01/2013 7:59:43 AM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; Jim from C-Town
In the Senate, Rubio and Paul, who are both seen as possible 2016 presidential contenders, were awarded the Defenders of Liberty designation, receiving a “perfect 100 percent” score on their voting records, Politico reports.

Paul was one of three U.S. senators to score a perfect 100 percent rating from the Club for Growth in 2012, along with Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and former Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who resigned his seat to take charge of the Heritage

National Journal ranks Rand Paul as the 6th most conservative Senator.

Before claiming Paul is not conservative you might want to have a peek at this

35 posted on 03/01/2013 8:34:07 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

Did you read what he said the other day in an article on FR?

That social conservative principles need to be relaxed in order to draw in more voters for the R party. IIRC aboriton and fag marriage were mentioned.

He’s as bad as his father, just not as physically ugly.


36 posted on 03/01/2013 8:44:18 AM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: KittenClaws

We’re going to be the faithfull followers for just so long, right?


Dogs follow, cats have a serious problem following anyone..


37 posted on 03/01/2013 10:42:31 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

“He’s as bad as his father, just not as physically ugly”

Except for that head of hair he refuses to comb. What’s up with that? I’ll bet this phony goes to a beautician to get his hair looking like he stuck it out the window of his car.

Like him or not, the old man had principles. The son has none. I heard him interviewed before he became senator and he has no use for the US military being stationed all over the world. He wants to legalize dope. He wants to legalize prostitution. But the minute he became US senator he’ll now say he’s against all these things. REAL libertarians have no use for him and real conservatives know he’s a phony. And don’t forget he campaigned for the old man for president. He could have sat it out but he didn’t.


38 posted on 03/01/2013 4:46:10 PM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
From my link in 35

Abortion Issues
2013 Planned Parenthood - Positions 33%
2012 Planned Parenthood - Positions 33%
2011-2012 National Right to Life Committee - Positions 100%
2011 NARAL Pro-Choice America - Positions 0%
2011 National Right to Life Committee - Positions 100%

Paul is very much pro-life, you should take a look at the link I posted in 35.

39 posted on 03/02/2013 3:42:23 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

Did you read his recent statement here on FR about getting rid of social conservative principles to attract voters?

Ron Paul also said he was “pro-life” but also that abortion should be up to the states.

That means he’s not pro-life. And for Rand Paul to have a 33% positive rating from Planned Parenthood is certainly damning him with faint praise. That means 1/3 of the time he votes the way PP likes. Pretty poor rating. Someone may make statements about how pro-life he is, but if he wants to “soften up” on it, or make it a states’ rights issue, to gain votes - then he’s lost mine, and a host of other actual, real conservatives.

Why Rs think that being more LIKE the dems is a winning position I cannot grasp. They are totally wrong. In order to win, they should actually stand up for the Constitution and real conservative principles.

His voting for Hagel and the reason proves his quality as well.


40 posted on 03/02/2013 8:25:42 AM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

I agree, I never claimed Rand Paul was anything but a conservative. I just realize and agree with him that the President gets to decide who he wants to be in his cabinet. Being a veteran and a former or sitting Senator are requirements enough.

I don’t like MOST of O’Bumbler’s appointments, but he is the President, God Help Us!


41 posted on 03/02/2013 4:44:18 PM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

I heard this on the Beck show- and I was VERY uncomfortable with it. I wonder of Rand knows that we have a representative republic- and that we don’t send these idiots to DC to further their career- but to SERVE us.

He kept blabbing on and on about what HE wanted to do.. blah- blah..

I kept yelling at the radio, “What did your constituents tell you to do??”

I had just begun to pay attention to him, and now I am highly uncomfortable with this guy.


42 posted on 03/02/2013 4:49:30 PM PST by Truth2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
I will let Paul, in his own words, address your thoughts on him and his father.

Sarah Palin's endorsement [in the Kentucky GOP Senate primary] gave us a boost that energized supporters, brought in new ones, and, of course, annoyed my opponent and his Republican bosses to no end.

In talking to Palin, one of the primary things I wanted to do was allay her fears about social issues, telling her, "My opponents call me a libertarian but I want to assure you that I am pro-life." Palin responded, "Oh, we all have a little libertarian in us."

I do not apologize for believing there is too much government involvement in the private lives of Americans. Trying to portray me or my father as not pro-life--or saying I want to legalize heroin, or prostitution, or making other outlandish claims-- are smears Republican establishment types have always attempted. This race would be no different. One could make the argument that if sincerity is measured by proposed legislation, my dad is arguably the most pro-life member of the House.

43 posted on 03/03/2013 5:51:25 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town

Yes, I just pinged you since you and I seem to be the only ones defending Paul on this thread. :)


44 posted on 03/03/2013 6:02:32 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson