Shared publicly  - 
Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked -- for now -- Chuck Hagel's nomination to lead the Pentagon, marking the first time the chamber has successfully filibustered a Cabinet nominee.
Donny Sloan's profile photoAlbert Sheldon's profile photoAmbuli Victor's profile photoHeather Daniel's profile photo
Republicans... putting troops lives in danger for the sake of politics. Sounds about right. 
No ones lives will be in danger. You sound like as much of a DOLT as Reid and the President do when they spout that bull crap.
We need strong military leadership and he is not it. 
The troops still report to the Commander-in-Chief. The Constitution is funny that way ;-)
One would think that someone that has served in the U.S. Military might understand the chain of command. Guess that's not the only thing he didn't pay attention to.
+Justin Kettel who do you like for SoD?  Chuck Hagel seemed like a pretty good choice from the standpoint of having both combat and political experience, etc etc.
On the surface +Jared Kofron, I agree; however, when you drill down to his core thoughts related to the region involving our theater of operations, thoughts on Israel, etc. it's concerning.

And I am a military veteran (Marines). 
What are they doing right? Do you people even know why they are filibustering the man? Has nothing to do with who he is... they are throwing a political tantrum to try to get attention to something else. 
No, because of the republicans wanting answers on Libya, they are playing this tactic. It's just a tantrum tactic. 
The Democrats never do that (he typed sarcastically).
When you can't score points with your first argument, be obtuse.
-Saul Alinksky
Michael- In all seriousness, I do. Libya is a big effing deal, to quote the Veep. The Republicans have to leverage what they can to get answers to that abomination. I do not want Hagel on the post. I think he would be a disaster, in my opinion. Let the Dems offer a better candidate for the position.
I think we deserve answers on Libya, what with 4 dead Americans, and no respone thus far. And in all fairness, he has not looked like he would be a strong SoD.
If they wanted to teabag the man for who he was that's one thing, but this is complete horse crap. 

Where are the press conferences calling out Obama on Benghazi, or where is the Fox News outrage on Benghazi. 

There are other ways of getting answers, pulling these tantrum tactics with nominations is ridiculous. 
Didn't the Dems, while in majority, delay confirmation on a Repub pick for 3 months... at which time there was no SoD... or is my memory deceiving me?
The fact that Graham is using this forum to find out where the POTUS was the night of a terrorist attack speaks for itself. 

Lie after lie from the administration... the most transparent too allegedly. 
Actually it is about Benghazi.  The American people have a right to know what actually happened and more importantly we have a right to know how future instances like it will be prevented.  We also have a right to know how glibly Obama and his people lie.  If throwing a weak nominee under the bus is a way to force the truth out of the administration, then I'm all for it.  Hagel's past statements show that he would be reluctant to project military force and projecting military force is the job of the defense department.  +Michael Washington the press conferences do not call out Obama on anything because the press is in the president's pocket.  There is Fox News outrage on Benghazi every evening.
+Michael Washington apparently you have been drinking the libby kool aid, Chuck Hagel is not worthy of the job and his stances on an ally like Israel is terrible, Hagel has an R next to his name but it should be an D
+Michael Washington The fever still hasn't broken and Republicans haven't learned from election night 2012.

Didn't Chuck Hagel predict the exact outcome of the War in Iraq? He told us the truth and we couldn't handle the truth. How long until it erupts into a full civil war? 

We don't have to go to far back to see the statements of the Republicans and the facts. Wasn't there a proclamation during a SOTU about WMD? Still, some will insist that they found WMD.

What I think is going here is that some don't want to give up on the trillions generated by Military Industrial Complex. You know the one, the one a Republican President (no less) warned us about.
Screw Obama. He's like a nose hair. You feel him hanging on and annoying the piss out of you but until you find the right tool to cut him out of there, you're stuck with him. Bring me a Remington rotary trimmer. Lets put this dingleberry back on the mules arse where he belongs.
What frustrates me, is either block him or not, but WTF is the point of a delay, when you already admit you will approve him a week later? Another classic example of WTF is wrong with the current crop of GOP congressmen. Delay just for the point of delay.
Maybe they want to know more information about what kind of DoD he will run.
Maybe it has more to do with cooperation than anybody realizes. If you continually ask for anything but the president consistently lied to you, stonewalled you, vilified you, refused to cooperate with you, then maybe it's a little, "how do you like it now?"

Obama is the enemy. He deserves no mercy. 
+Jay Carlson , it is a homoerotic reference isn't it? Lol. The tea bagger is the dominant person; whereas the tea baggee is the receiver. Since one never tea bags a friend, who is the tea baggee? Lol. I think left handers like the idea of getting tea bagged.

The hilarity of the entire reference is that calling someone a teabagger is not an insult at all.  If I were them, I'd be worried about who that teabagger is going to teabag next, sleeping with one eye open and things like that.  It makes me laugh.  Morons.
John Tower was rejected by the Democrats after a three month delay. One week delay is not worthy of whining.
+Eric Helm Are you suggesting that Democrats do not normally whine?  It is what they do best.  Would you then suggest that Dale Jr. not drive fast or race cars?  For a Democrat to not whine, it would take something cosmic or pharmacological, like shock therapy.
+Ken Foster Thats valid, but that is not what was said. They stated they will approve him when they come back, not that they still need more info. THAT is why the delay ticks me off.

Say you cant vote yes until you get more info, or will vote No because you dont approve, but dont say.. We will vote yes, but feel like delaying it for a week because.. well.. the only reason I can find is what was put forth by +John Shepard    ... ** maybe it's a little, "how do you like it now?"  ** Which, IMO, is childish, and a CLEAR example of what is wrong with just about everyone in congress right now, the GOP members acting this way in this case especially.

Ask for more info, vote yes, or vote no, but dont delay just to be petty.

+Eric Helm Just because others do foolish and petty acts, does not justify others when they do the same thing. Notice in your example, they "rejected" him.

The pettiness comes from that it has already been said they will approve him, the delay is just to delay, not to get more info, not for any reason at all, except to be petty. THAT is why I get so frustrated with this action.
+Noel Beale agreed, it's frustrating to have such obvious political attention getting tactics coming from the House.  I'm not sure it's the kind of attention the GOP is going to want in the long run though...
There's no reasoning with you guys +Jared Kofron +Noel Beale .  What exactly do you suggest a system of checks and balances to be utilized for, or did you skip that in your education?  The minority party has very few parliamentary tactics within their quiver, and fortunately for us, they want to use it.

Compartmentalizing it may suit YOUR purpose, but it doesn't  suit MINE.  Mr President, if you want me to cooperate with your priorities, show a little cooperation to me.  In the meantime, shove it up your stupid rear end.

As for the attention it gets us, here is the secret about representative politics.  I vote for my representative and my senator.  We are a conservative area.  Do you really think we give a crap about this President?  No.  We're going to send them right back to stonewall and do whatever it takes to frustrate this waste of human breath until the day he leaves office.  So say we all.
+John Shepard that's fine that you want to vote your reps back into office to stonewall.  That attitude is what is going to keep the republicans strong in the House, but in national and statewide elections, the GOP is going to be held accountable for its behavior - which is frankly undemocratic.  

They are the MINORITY party - like it or not, the whole reason that we vote is to allow one party to set the agenda for the next few years.  That's how it's supposed to work.  
+Jared Kofron Do you realize what country you are in?  With all due respect, you apparently have no idea because even the most basic concepts of Civics are lost in your naivete.  Allow me to school you.

There is this thing called checks and balances and another called separation of powers.  What each branch does, another branch can undo within certain limits.  Also, within each branch, what the majority party attempts, the minority party can prevent within certain limits.

In practice:

1. The President can veto Congress.
2. The President must approve what Congress does--unless Congress overrides the veto.
3. The President appoints justices to the Supreme Court but only with approval of the Senate.
4. The Supreme Court can overturn what the President and Congress do together through judicial review.
5. Congress can recall justices from the Supreme Court.

There are many other checks and balances that are too numerous to name here, but these are major ones.  You should learn them.

Reality Check:  In our system of government, there is no supreme authority.

Realizing a concept: "Tyranny of the majority", our Founding Fathers instituted a couple of different designs to prevent the party in power from abusing its power.  One design is found in the bicameral legislature.  In the bicameral legistlature, one body is tied to population (House) and one is tied to the the virtue of membership in the union (Senate).  Each body has specific responsibilities.  The Senate's design prevents large states of cramming legislation down the throats of smaller states.

Within the Senate, they have a tool called filibuster which is supposed to prevent the majority party from running roughshod over the minority party.  The filibuster has its own check and balance and is called the supermajority: 60 votes.

So, you see, the idea of one party being elected and given ultimate authority is ridiculous.  Our system was designed with gridlock in mind, so get it straight.  If there's one thing any good Democrat does, it is jack up our system and cry like children because they are too uneducated to understand the difference or are savvy enough to know but too cavalier to care.

The key to being a good Democrat is to convince people that Democrats know best, to consolidate power under one party, and to rule by making others subservient and reliant upon the government that Democrats hope to control.

Congratulations on passing your first phase of indoctrination.  
+John Shepard I appreciate your condescending lesson on the US political system!

I'm not arguing for ultimate power or anything even close to it.  The only point I am trying to make is this:

Each party has some set of ideas that they think will make this country great and work well.  The american people vote for representatives of the party whose ideas they agree with the most, and then the winning party uses its time in office to try to implement those ideas in some fashion.  

Here's a reality check: congress presently has somewhere in the 10-20% approval rating.  The GOP is scoring somewhere in the same area - 20ish percent according to polls.  The democrats?  closer to 40-50%.  There are also more blue states than red - according to this study (, it's 20 to 12 that are strongly blue or red.  The presidential election last november went to the democratic nominee, both from the electoral and popular perspective.  Lastly, add up the number of votes cast for democrats in ANY office vs. that of republicans in ANY office and again, the democrats were ahead.  

So the writing is on the wall - the country is more attuned at the moment to the picture of the future that the democrats are painting.  So why does the GOP minority think it has the right to be obstructionist when it comes to actually implementing that picture?  Checks and balances is one thing, but I think that most folks would say that the GOP use of procedural politics is edging on flagrant.  

Ask yourself, if by some miracle the situation were reversed, and the democrats were doing what the GOP is doing now, would you approve?  
+James Thomas nice cheap shot from the sidelines.  I don't mind if you think me a fool, but if you don't actually have anything to contribute I'd just as soon have you not say anything at all.
It was truly sickening to see the confirmation.. Hagel's vision seems a little progressive. Some what like GW beliefs. He was a founding father too. The only thing I can think when watching the confirmation was under senate definition it's unpatriotic to question Israel's foreign and domestic policy but completely patriotic to question Obama's. In my opinion someone who served in our military and has been endorsed by many high ranking military personnel , but is being interviewed by a majority who have never served (chicken-hawks) sounds like a shame and injustice to the people. 
It's a shame that instead of trying to constructively discuss what is actually happening, you just want to mark somebody as liberal, or uneducated, or some combination thereof.  For the record, I am a centrist, wildly overeducated, and grew up in an extremely conservative area.

I personally happen to think it's unfortunate that the GOP is continuing to go one direction while the country seems to be going the other - and that's all I've been trying to say.  Having a two party system with checks and balances doesn't do much good if one of them goes off the rails and loses the respect of the american public.
Wow, overereducated. That is a new one.
Not really in the past if you fill out an application at Home Depot on one of the computers and you referance having a masters they rejected your application for being "over qualified" in other words over educated 
Celebrating my 27th consecutive year of being in school, so yes, I think over educated covers it. 
+David Jenson Just curious to know what free stuff are you talking about? I completely agree the practice is not a good idea for the future of the country. 
Mostly I'm referring to public opinion polls. People are decidedly unhappy (as a whole) with the GOP.

Physics, since you asked. 
27 consecutive years? Wth? What takes that long? Not intending to be condescending here, but are you working on cold fusion or something?
+James Thomas it's certainly not true from the standpoint of the structure of govt as written, but we certainly hold our commander in chief responsible for the political agenda during his time in office. Given that's how we treat the office, I think it stands to reason that its a real expectation that we have of the same - that they set and curate a political agenda that we are happy about. 
You want a king, not a president. The art of leadership is getting people to do that which they do not want to do because they want to do it. So, who is the failure here if the president sets the course?
+John Shepard that's an odd republican-strategy meets dwight eisenhower "portmanteau" of the original quote, which is getting somebody else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.  And on that note, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody on either side of the aisle who really thinks that Obama is a great political leader.  I think he's got a lot of really good ideas, but good god the man just cannot seem to get that across.

And herein lies my point exactly - he sets the course - he is expected to set the course, and that's why he gets elected - because we entrust him with the reins through our vote.  This is what I meant before when I said that the point of electing him to office is essentially to have him (and his party) set the agenda, which we will henceforth hold him accountable for.
A Ph.D. in physics takes that long, it turns out.  Who knew?
Amen to that. Screw this president.
+James Thomas a point well made.  That said, I don't believe that the country should just do whatever the elected president wants - that's not what I'm advocating.  In fact I'd be surprised if you believed that when GWB held office that we should have just blindly done whatever he thought was good policy.

In particular, I don't think that my party has it all figured out - in fact, I'm pretty sure nobody does.  We just don't have the kind of evidence we need to really say that one way or the other is the right way to go when it comes to conservatism vs liberalism - so in my opinion, we need a healthy mix of stabbing in either direction.  For example, I was/am really encouraged by the immigration legislation taking place and the seemingly bipartisan nature of it.  

I don't begrudge the minority their right to a voice - I just don't think that the country benefits when obstruction is the goal.
Let me suggest your choice of words "obstructionism"  is exactly the impression the President among others is trying to suggest, a very negative political spin on the facts. Aren't the committe members just trying to state thier view of  the issue.
I'll take an obstructionist over a progressive "liberal" any day.
I think what frustrates me about the fools like +John Shepard, is he is not pushing for the GOP to make a stand, but to simply act like petty children throwing a temper tantrum.

What you SHOULD be screaming for John, is the GOP to all vote NO, if they dont accept the pick, not saying they will vote "Yes" anyways, but want to delay a week, just to delay a week.

It is the do nothing but scream and cry (the delay DOES NOTHING), that is currently shooting the GOP in the foot.

WTF happened to standing up for what you believe in? What happened to standing for a POV? The delay AFTER the GOP stated they will vote YES shows the GOP is doing neither. They stated they would vote "yes", and just want to bitch about it for another week, rather than actually DOING something.

A worthless and irrelevant delay, is DOING NOTHING. It is not standing up for what the GOP claims to represent. It is not finding out more info. It is being childish and petty, instead of being leaders the GOP voters can stand up and point to as whom they should support again next election.

Sad state of affairs, and a primary example of why the GOP is recently unable to win any elections on a national level, and why they are facing massive difficulties even winning on regional levels.

I voted for Bush over Obama, because at the time the GOP, IMO, showed they actually stood up for all America and its future. Now, the GOP only stands for bringing down the other party, no matter how costly to the US, and no care if their actions are in the best interest for ALL Americans.

Nothing makes this more clear, than the same GOP members screaming about lack of security at US embassies, screaming for the sequestration to go through, even though it will gut funding for the very US Embassy security they are blasting the WH over not having enough of.
You are calling me a fool, yet you say you voted for Bush over Obama. Hmmm. Considering they didn't run against one another, what does that make you?

You would love for the gop to allow the vote because the guy would win, and you're missing the point. The point is to use parliamentary procedure to ensure you get cooperation from the majority party.
+John Shepard  LOL.. meant McCain... was in the middle of 3 conversations, laughing at fools that cling to the BS idea that Gore was robbed in 2000 ;)

Again.. you missed the point. You say "The point is to use parliamentary procedure to ensure you get cooperation from the majority party.", and if that was what they are doing, I could agree, and would have no issue with their actions, but it is NOT what they are doing. They are putting forth a delay, for no reason but to delay. No gains, no negotiations , no consideration, nothing, but delay for the sake of a delay. They ALREADY said they will vote yes, as such, the delay is for no other reason but to act little immature children.

Or can you list a single example of what the delay gains or brings forward for them?
Noel: I believe it is a little more complicated. As you may know , the Hagel appointment has met with a great deal of concern on both sides of the isle, in fact it was even suggested the appointment be withdrawn. The delay,with congress at home,where the people could voice there objections before returning to Washington to vote would bring some Democratice no votes. The Repulicans know a straight vote along party lines wil confirm. The delay was a hope to bring pressure to bear on the Democratic Majority.
+Ken Foster That makes good sense, but also ignores that the GOP members have already stated they would vote "Yes". Had the GOP members stated they would vote "no", and stated they were working to convert more to their POV, what you put forth would be correct, and IMO, how things should go, but that was not the case.

By saying already they will vote "Yes", there is no pressure brought to bear, no drive to convert others to vote "no", just a delay for the sake of a delay.

So either the "delay" was foolish, or the "we will vote yes after the delay" was foolish, but either way, BOTH actions show very poor judgement by the GOP members, deserving of ridicule and are deeply frustrating.
I'll leave you with your ridicule and frustration! Perhaps the best thing for you?
Seriously, I don't know why he insists on name calling. If either of us were to address him as Jack ass every time we spoke to him, I think he would get it.
+Ken Foster You dont need to leave me with it, the GOP is doing a great job of that all by themselves.

+John Shepard Name call away, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. You know, believing in that free speech and all, kinda leads to having thick skin and a belief in everyone's right to say whatever the F they want to. ;)

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all"

Besides, I tend to call it like I see it, and dont choose to live in a FOX News fantasy world. There is a reason everyone on FOX News was stunned by Romney's loss, they refused to accept anything that didn't fit "their" reality. And this denial of any reality that doesn't get FOX News approval, is a large reason the GOP is STILL in a very sad state of affairs, and is constantly taking one Hypocritical stance after another, like calling for sequestration to go through, while blasting the cut backs on US embassy security.
Aside from all the media theatrics he'll get the job.
Add a comment...