Posted on 01/28/2025 4:31:22 AM PST by MtnClimber
To me, whenever all the Democrats line up united on an issue, as the Democratic Party senators did for the vote on the nomination of Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense, I always have a question. And that’s different from the question of why a guy like Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) would vote with the Democrats.
Just what was their problem with Secretary Hegseth? I mean, it’s not as if he’s going to blow up the Department of Defense and replace Boeing and Lockheed with a brilliant Elon Musk startup and compromise all the senators’ contributions from defense contractors. Seriously: how long do you think it would take Elon Musk to produce a world-beating fighter jet from a standing start? Okay, okay, I know. Elon wouldn’t do that. He would repurpose his Starlink satellites to confuse the radar of the enemy’s planes so that they would shoot each other down.
So what was the problem?
I got the sexual allegations against nominee Clarence Thomas back in 1991. Supreme Court justices get to move the needle, and I am sure that if our Democratic friends knew what Thomas would become in his more than 30 years on the court, they would have found a better accuser than Anita Hill. Sexual allegations are much simpler than an open discussion of the issues.
And I got the sexual allegations against nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Not another conservative on the Supreme Court! Inconceivable! Sexual allegations are much simpler than an open discussion of the issues.
So what was the problem with Hegseth?
Here are two ideas. First, the Democrats are the Inner Party. When you are the Inner Party, you get to flood the zone with sexual allegations and don’t you forget it. Second, it is much easier to blacken a candidate
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Yep, all of the 'RATs and the three RINOs voted against Pete because he thinks NATO is taking advantage of the USA. They just can't say that so they have to go with the dirty tricks.
The problem with Pete Hegseth and many of Trump’s other nominees is that they are not in the pocket of the uniparty and will not undermine Trump from the start.
Now, the uniparty may get to some of them and get them to turn against Trump, but that is a problem to be handled later.
the Nazi tats were not great, but I think the extreme alcoholism and lack of any managerial or leadership experience were also important.
Troll
The problem is that he may prove to be too effective at his job, showing up every defense secretary for the last 50 years that they were just rearranging deck chairs.
There were no Nazi tats and claims of alcoholism are just the usual pack of Democrat lies along with financial mismanagement of the veterans group he led. Congrats on being gullible enough to swallow the lies hook line and sinker though.
The “problem”, for Uniparty, is the cabinet positions, not the people.
It is so weird that Democrats, of all people, choose Sexual allegations as their smear vehicle of choice. Everybody knows Dems prefer to engage in any and all sorts of weird sexual fetishes as much as possible. Sex is their very core.
So why would they get upset about a candidate’s sexual escapades and infidelities? Shouldn’t they be celebrating a candidate’s weird or perverse sexual proclivities? Just look at the long line of sexual weirdos they pick to run government.
It is obviously a smear campaign against conservatives and nothing more.
Hirono accused him of making “sexual advances” toward very elderly, little Japanese old ladies from Hawaii.
“So what was the problem with Hegseth?”
Nothing. Turtle, Murkowski and Collins are sickening. Their no vote was a thumb in Trump’s eye. They voted for Austin who was a failed DEI general officer. but not Pete. The left will continue with sex smear tactic against MAGA candidates just to get these three weaklings to switch votes.
They're not upset that a candidate has sexual deviance, they're upset when he doesn't, because then they have no leverage over him.
We live under a blackmail-ocracy, like other ones around the world, set up by globalists who pull the strings from behind the curtains.
I’ve read that Pete paid $50,000 to a woman.
That woman did not testify in front of the Senate under oath to my knowledge. That and the fact that Pete has the ability to charm people pretty much mentally negated the payment.
I guess you also consider Indians “Nazis” because Hindus use the swatztika.
Or, maybe, just maybe, you’re not so stupid and understand that different groups (such as Christians in Pete’s case) use symbols in 100% different ways.
Nah, you’re too stupid and trolling.
“tats”
It is a Crusader-style Jerusalem cross I believe.
there was a TV show around 15 years ago called “The Apprentice” where the host had a short phrase to take care of problem people.
It was not “you’re fine”.
Look up "uniparty" and "RINO" for an answer to your question.
An open discussion of NATO would leave most Americans scratching their heads.
We signed a treaty with Europe to jointly protect ourselves from the evil Soviet Union. The Soviet Union no longer exists, but the US is still paying the entirety of the cost for NATO to protect us from a non-existent threat.
Then to top it all off, two of the biggest threats from the former Soviet Union are fighting each other and we are completely funding one of the former Soviet states in that war.
Try explaining that to someone born after the fall of the Soviet Union.
EC
I’m somewhat mystified by Turtle’s ‘no’ vote.
Usually the ‘no’ votes that can be ignored are allocated to the most vulnerable senators. Turtle is headed towards the door.
Definite troll.
Forget the sarcasm tag?
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.