Posted on 02/14/2013 3:30:39 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Senate Republicans blocked a vote on Chuck Hagel’s nomination as secretary of defense on Thursday, launching an unprecedented filibuster and a severe rebuke to the White House.
Falling one vote shy of the 60 needed to move forward on the nomination, the Hagel filibuster brought stark condemnations from President Obama and Senate Democrats for its precedent-setting nature -- the first time a defense secretary nominee had been filibustered. The setback came during what many believe is a critical period for the Pentagon as it winds down troops from Afghanistan and implements costly budget cuts.
It was also a hard slap to a former colleague and member of the chamber.
Asked about the Senate vote during an online “fireside hangout,” Obama said that he expects that Hagel will be confirmed. But he slammed Senate Republicans for their “unprecedented filibuster” of a defense chief nominee.
“What seems to be happening, and this has been growing over time, is the Republican minority in the Senate seems to think that the rule now is that you need to have 60 votes for everything,” Obama said. “Well, that’s not the rule.”
He added that “it’s just unfortunate that this kind of politics intrudes at a time when I’m still presiding over a war in Afghanistan and I need a secretary of defense who is coordinating with our allies” on U.S. strategy in the region.
Republicans predicted they would relent to a simple majority vote, guaranteeing confirmation, later this month -- but only if they see more information about Hagel’s post-Senate foreign policy speeches and his work in private investment groups. Senior Republicans initially scoffed at those demands, first raised by freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), as unnecessary, but now party leaders hold them up as the main cause for delay.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
He was one vote short (Meaning, there were some cowardly Republicans who got cold feet).
Republicans Cochran, Collins, and Johanns had all already committed to voting yes so the only mystery was whether Reid could find two more GOPers to cross the aisle. He found one: As expected, Murkowski ended up erring on the side of bipartisanship. Orrin Hatch voted present, which may or may not be his way of signaling that he’ll vote for Hagel when they try this again in a few weeks but not right now.
RAND PAUL VOTES NO (Wonder what his father would say to that ... ).
EDIT TO ADD:
The White House finally got back to McCain and Graham about their questions on Benghazi.
Turns out that no, Obama never once called Libya’s president on the night an American ambassador was being murdered at the consulate. It was Hillary who took the 3 a.m. phone call. But then, Obama was busy that night: He had a campaign event in Vegas to get ready for the next day.
Also, the reason the vote was 58/40 instead of 59/39 is because Reid switched his vote at the last minute.
Procedurally, he has to vote no in order to be eligible to ask for another vote in a week or two. And at the moment, there’s no reason to believe Hagel won’t finally clear cloture when that happens.
Hagel is no more painfully incompetent than other cabinet nominees. In the words of VP Cheney he is certainly more competent than his new boss.
I was so wanting to give McConnell an “attaboy”....but I suppose that I’ll be denied that small pleasure.
McConnell is almost as imposing as Boehner is.
/sarc
NOBODY should be confirmed as Secretary of Defense unless they can get at least 90 Senators to vote in favor of their confirmation. NOBODY.
The Secretary of Defense should not be a partisan office appointed by partisan hacks and affirmed by partisan hacks. If you can’t get the Senate to agree almost unanimously on the person to fill this position, then that is not the person who should fill that position.
The Sun is hot.
The mighty seas are salty.
Each of us will be present at our own death.
The GOP will eventually fold.
With 55 radical leftist senators, and a few RINO's, I think you misunderstand the era we live in..........
Does nobody remember the really rough treatment of George Bush-41’s pick for secretary of defense, ex-Texas senator John Tower, in 1989?
The Democrats have repeatedly set the rules of engagement over time. They should not be surprised that sometimes, this rises and bites them in the gluteus maximus.
OK, but what OTHER cabinet level positions have been held back by filibuster when the Dems were opposing GOP apointees. Can anyone think of any?
The most famous rejection of my life was Judge Bork for the Supreme Court, but he did get an up-or-down vote by the full Senate and lost 58 to 42. It's interesting to look at the Republicans who voted against him. Every one of them were horrible RINOs and two eventually switched parties.
Thank god that the Tea Party is now around to primary suckers like this out of their jobs.
Remind me about what happened to the nomination of John Bolton to become Ambassador to the Useless Nations.....
He was George H. W. Bush's nominee for Secretary of Defense in 1989, but he was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 53 to 47. SO the full vote did take place.
Agree
From the compost:
“Democrats, however, have suggested that Republicans are only focusing Benghazi to slow the confirmation process so that Hagel — known for a mercurial temperament and as an impulsive decision-maker in the past — would withdraw his nomination.”
But I guess a ‘mercurial temperament and impulsive decision maker is ok to be SOD in a democrat’s opinion. These people, including the WP, are treacherous.
Thanks SeekAndFind.
I remember it. Fat Teddy sat there so pompously criticizing Tower for his drinking and womanizing. As far as the public record shows, Tower never got so drunk while out womanizing as to drive of a bridge and kill the object of his womanizing.
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.