Why Did Sen. Rand Paul Vote To Confirm Chuck Hagel? Here’s His Answer

The Blaze ^ | Feb. 27, 2013 | Becket Adams

[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.

[Jim from C-Town]

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!

[Truth2012]

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.

[jpsb]

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.

[jpsb]

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