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.
“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.
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.”
Sounds lame to me.
Then why have votes? Just have the “president” say and do and rule however he likes.
Sheesh.
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.
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.”
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.
So why did the Founders create the review process?
Rand's position is cowardly or irrational, making his defense of his position suspect.
Even if they are criminal enterprises. Got it.
The mystery is, why we win any elections at all.
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.
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.
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
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.
We’re going to be the faithfull followers for just so long, right?
Dogs follow, cats have a serious problem following anyone..
“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.
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.
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.
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.