Today's Republican Party is....

[GGT]

No, I'm saying (R) ARE being obstructionist in holding up Hagel's nomination. They're pissed off that a 'fellow Republican' didn't support the Iraq war, the surge, or Bush.....even though we now know there were no WMD and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with AQ or 9/11.

The neo-conservative hawks and the 'military industrial complex' folks simply don't like Obama, even when his policies are aligned with theirs. They can't stand the notion that a *Democrat* is in the White House, in charge of national security, Commander in Chief. That's been the Republican party's main identity (along with fiscal restraint) for decades, even when they've failed.

So yeah, it looks to me like it's personal, and political party sour grapes.

[Enoch the Red]

No, I'm saying (R) ARE being obstructionist in holding up Hagel's nomination. They're pissed off that a 'fellow Republican' didn't support the Iraq war, the surge, or Bush.....even though we now know there were no WMD and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with AQ or 9/11.

The neo-conservative hawks and the 'military industrial complex' folks simply don't like Obama, even when his policies are aligned with theirs. They can't stand the notion that a *Democrat* is in the White House, in charge of national security, Commander in Chief. That's been the Republican party's main identity (along with fiscal restraint) for decades, even when they've failed.

So yeah, it looks to me like it's personal, and political party sour grapes.

Okay, fine. So had Democrats held up the nomination of a pro-war, neo-conservative hawk with ties to the military industrial complex, would they also be partisan obstructionists, or would they just be doing their job?

[GGT]

If someone doesn't think a nominee is qualified, they should just vote No. That would be doing their job.

[Loki]

And basketball players shouldn't shoot 3-pointers because that's unfair.

[GGT]

More like abuse of the shot clock to keep control of the ball without playing.

[Dreadnaught]

If someone doesn't think a nominee is qualified, they should just vote No. That would be doing their job.

And yet when they threaten to block the nomination, you suggest they are being improper.

[GGT]

Look, either a senator thinks Hagel is qualified, or not. Holding up the nomination and delaying the vote, in order to grandstand or air personal beefs, is what's improper.

[Dreadnaught]

Filibusters are the new "no" votes. This isn't unique to this particular issue. A few years ago it was Republicans who were talking about ending filibusters to prevent Democratic "obstruction" of Republican nominees.

It's one thing to accept a baseline level of hypocrisy from politicians. It's another to actually believe one group's hypocrisy.

[GGT]

Who's kidding whom? McCain and other Republicans have stated that Hagel "will undoubtedly be confirmed".

[LittleFuzzy]

It's not just about public grandstanding GGT. In making a major issue out of Hagel's nomination, even if they know they'll eventually confirming him, they're sending a message to Obama and to Hagel about how they intend to interact with the Department of Defense, just as Obama sent the Senate a message in choosing Hagel as his nominee in the first place. In selecting someone like Hagel Obama is seeking to avoid Congressional and specifically Republican-Caucus interference in his administration's defense policy and the Senate Republican Caucus is making it clear that they aren't going to go along with the "chummy Republican Senate buddy" card, that they intend to continue exercising Congressional influence over defense policy to its full extent.

[GGT]

Then why didn't they use the same tactic to exert their influence on diplomacy, especially as it relates to defense, during confirmation for Sec. of State Kerry?

[Loki]

Because they don't have a problem with Kerry's foreign policy record...

Kerry is also more capable of making friends with fellow senators than was Hagel apparently.

[Veldan Rath]

Free ketchup goes a long way it seems.

[GGT]

Because they don't have a problem with Kerry's foreign policy record...

Kerry is also more capable of making friends with fellow senators than was Hagel apparently.

By "they" do you mean those who don't have any problem regarding the Iraq War, and refuse to admit the mistakes made in that foreign policy/military policy debacle? Or is that a reference to Israel and Hagel's remark (as a private citizen) about 'the Jewish lobby' a decade ago?

Republican Senator Rand Paul has stated publicly that he'd like to end ALL foreign aid, including to Israel. I don't see any backlash for that statement, but he's on the grilling confirmation committee? See my confusion?

[Loki]

Hagel has said many things about Israel, Iraq, and Iran that are in full opposition to the preferences of most Republican Senators. I fail to see why you think it's somehow dirty for politicians to make life difficult for a nominee who doesn't share their views.

I think you'd find that Rand Paul would face just as much GOP opposition if he were to be nominated to be Secretary of Defense (though even he's much better than Hagel at avoiding the enmity of fellow Senators; there's something to be said for having an amicable personality).

[GGT]

That doesn't make sense, Loki. McCain and Hagel used to have a collegial relationship, until Hagel voiced his opposition about the Iraq War. And McCain isn't exactly known for his mild mannered, "amicable personality".

[Loki]

It was collegial only as long as Hagel was in the Senate. I think the fact that he's getting opposed by a vast majority of Republicans tells you all you need about how much he was liked by his fellow senators.

Last I checked, McCain's foreign policy views are pretty mainstream in GOP circles (the only exception being his occasional support for humanitarian intervention).

[GGT]

But the President was duly elected, based in part on his foreign policy/defense positions. Not McCain or Romney (hard as they tried). The President's cabinet nominees reflect policy positions, not personalities.

Last I checked, Republican foreign/military policies were roundly rejected by a majority of voters. They might be "mainstream" among the GOP and its hawks, including McCain who thinks we should still have troops in Iraq and is itching to bomb Iran, but that doesn't mean squat.

Republicans can't agree on much, even within their own party. Their role in the confirmation process only highlights those disagreements, as they bleed into public view. It's no longer about what's best for the US, but what trigger they can pull to activate their dwindling party "base".

Seriously, is that any way to govern a first world nation? Let alone a "superpower", or "exceptional" nation?

[Enoch the Red]

But the President was duly elected, based in part on his foreign policy/defense positions. Not McCain or Romney (hard as they tried). The President's cabinet nominees reflect policy positions, not personalities.

Last I checked, Republican foreign/military policies were roundly rejected by a majority of voters. They might be "mainstream" among the GOP and its hawks, including McCain who thinks we should still have troops in Iraq and is itching to bomb Iran, but that doesn't mean squat.

Republicans can't agree on much, even within their own party. Their role in the confirmation process only highlights those disagreements, as they bleed into public view. It's no longer about what's best for the US, but what trigger they can pull to activate their dwindling party "base".

Seriously, is that any way to govern a first world nation? Let alone a "superpower", or "exceptional" nation?

Do you advocate a complete policy 180 by the opposition whenever a new president is elected, or is it only when the shift happens to coincide with your views? After all, Bush was elected twice, much to Gore and Kerry's chagrin, why should any Senator oppose his policy when he was given such a clear mandate by the voters?

[GGT]

Do you advocate a complete policy 180 by the opposition whenever a new president is elected, or is it only when the shift happens to coincide with your views? After all, Bush was elected twice, much to Gore and Kerry's chagrin, why should any Senator oppose his policy when he was given such a clear mandate by the voters?

I like to think my views are based on factual evidence, even when new factual evidence proves my previous position was based on false facts. How about you?

[Enoch the Red]

I like to think my views are based on factual evidence, even when new factual evidence proves my previous position was based on false facts. How about you?

I'm not sure I'm following.

[GGT]

You asked if my opinions are based on party positions or Presidential platforms, right?

Hagel's confirmation hearings were dominated by McCain re-litigating Iraq, and challenging Hagel's opinion that the surge was as big a mistake as the Viet Nam War. I agree with that, in context.

Secondarily, other Republicans grilled him about alliance/allegiance to Israel. That might fly if he were nominated for Sec. of Defense for Israel, but that's not the main focus for Sec. of Defense for the US.

*And in case I haven't been clear, I'm also uncomfortable with the Obama administration's use of drones.

[LittleFuzzy]

Then why didn't they use the same tactic to exert their influence on diplomacy, especially as it relates to defense, during confirmation for Sec. of State Kerry?

Because A) the relevant Congressional committees have way less power and influence over policy formulated at Foggy Bottom than they do over what comes out of the Department of Defense, and B) since Kerry isn't a Republican there is no expectation or possibility for him playing the "old caucus buddy" card on GOP Congress-critters. Seriously, I just said B in the first post how did you not even notice it? Or is it that acknowledging what I said won't let you continue merrily on your way with your false imagined narrative about how the Kerry and Hagel nominations are and should be exactly identical?

But the President was duly elected, based in part on his foreign policy/defense positions. Not McCain or Romney (hard as they tried). The President's cabinet nominees reflect policy positions, not personalities.

Foreign policy and defense policy played almost no part in the Obama campaign and it did not play a major part in the GOP campaigns. The last election was heavily focused on domestic matters.

[GGT]

Because A) the relevant Congressional committees have way less power and influence over policy formulated at Foggy Bottom than they do over what comes out of the Department of Defense, and B) since Kerry isn't a Republican there is no expectation or possibility for him playing the "old caucus buddy" card on GOP Congress-critters.

Seriously, I just said B in the first post how did you not even notice it? Or is it that acknowledging what I said won't let you continue merrily on your way with your false imagined narrative about how the Kerry and Hagel nominations are and should be exactly identical?

Your replies were duly noted. I maintain the hearings were mostly GOP grand-standing (particularly from McCain, Graham, and Cruz) that had less to do with actual policy than politicking. Talk about critters....

Foreign policy and defense policy played almost no part in the Obama campaign and it did not play a major part in the GOP campaigns. The last election was heavily focused on domestic matters.

The fact remains that every POTUS has the right to nominate their cabinet choices, to implement their policy goals, after congressional hearings and confirmation. IMO those hearings weren't related to policy at all.

[GGT]

Bump. Now that there's another CPAC convention underway, with "conservatives" doing a post-mortum evaluation of failed National Republican policies and/or politics, while trying to forge their way into the future....

wouldn't it make sense for the GOP leadership *and grass-root activists* to encourage splitting into two (or more) parties?

[Veldan Rath]

For you maybe.

[LittleFuzzy]

Bump. Now that there's another CPAC convention underway, with "conservatives" doing a post-mortum evaluation of failed National Republican policies and/or politics, while trying to forge their way into the future....

wouldn't it make sense for the GOP leadership *and grass-root activists* to encourage splitting into two (or more) parties?

Sure, if your point of view excludes the first fundamental reason a political party exists in the first place, organization for the furtherance of the members views and policies in the relevant political arenas. One of the parties splintering will do absolutely nothing to further the splintering member's views and policies. The Republicans have been the minority party (by as much as a 40:60 margin at times) since the Great Depression and have only in the last 20 years really started to make inroads in changing that. Splintering would only make sense if something approaching a plurality of public opinion could coalesce around a new interest point or set of interest point that neither party was doing a decent job of addressing and the demographics would suggest the Democrats would provide the better model for that, among other reasons because despite GOP growth the Dems are still the majority party. Of course historically, the Republicans ARE the party that splinters and reforms into a new party. The Democratic Party may slough off members and interest groups or absorb new ones and it has shifted from being the conservative party to the liberal one and back and forth repeatedly but it has only really splintered once (and the relatively new Republicans did then as well though to a lesser degree) and that was when the country's politics were sundered across a singular non-partisan line, slavery.

[GGT]

It's that furtherance of views and policies....with political relevance....that I'm wondering about. "Establishment" Republicans are up against the extreme fringe groups within the GOP, not just to define their principles or goals, but the leading up to the primary process too.

Same thing happened the last couple of presidential election cycles, when candidates took hard right turns to appease CPAC, then tried to tack back to the middle for the general. I find it odd that GOP organization doesn't push against CPAC influence since they don't technically represent the (R) party, and leads to more in-fighting between factions. It's especially weird to see McCain rightly refer to some members as crazy nuts (which includes his former running mate Palin) --- while she's dissing the old guard and insider DC operatives like McCain --- while the GOP is holding conventions trying to figure out what went wrong.

[GGT]

Time for another bump.

Seems there are more bifurcations brewing within the GOP: Christie vs Paul. Both have arguments about which direction the Republican Party should go, moving forward. But they're also principally at odds.

Christie uses the term "Libertarian" as a slur. Paul uses the term "Taxation" as a slur. There's no clear way to distinguish budget hawks from military hawks, when they can't agree on the role of government in the first place. It's not even clear what the Republican "Establishment" or the Republican "Base" means, or how voters identify with either.

[LittleFuzzy]

Since almost all voting is done for local representatives and the few bits that aren't are still running for individuals, does it really matter? Again, you don't seem to really grasp the function of parties in the US system.