Skip to comments.Why Did Sen. Rand Paul Vote To Confirm Chuck Hagel? Here’s His Answer
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 Americas 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. Pauls vote took some by surprise. After all, didnt the Kentucky senator vote against cloture before voting for Hagels confirmation (answer: Yes).
In an attempt to figure out this apparent contradiction, Fox News Channels 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 wouldnt continue the filibuster so we never got the information, said Sen. Paul.
Im 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 Obamas nominee and he voted to confirm Hagel because the president has some leeway with his appointees.
Sounds pretty weak, to me.
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.
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.
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?
“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...?
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.
Judge a man by his actions and not his words. This is easy to judge, therefore.
That was lame, he could have just skipped it if he didn’t have anything to say.
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.
“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.
"The Hagel Unit will disclose the information."
Rand Paul just lost a lot of respect and credibility.
Sen. Paul voted against cloture because, according to him, he was angling to get more information on President Obamas nominee and he voted to confirm Hagel because the president has some leeway with his appointees.
Say What>.... bull pellets...
We’re going to be the faithfull followers for just so long, right?
“The fact that Hagel hates Jews just didn’t bother me as much as it bothers some conservatives,” added Paul.
I am sooo sick of gov’t by FREAKOUT!
I am sooo sick of gov’t by SELLOUT!
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. .
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 attendantsPerhaps if Senator Paul votes the right way, the feds at justice.gov will not prosecute his son.
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.
True, but it would be nice if the GOP actually “picked” a battle and fought to win.