Lindsey Graham is not dumb guy. I don't agree with him on every point, but I don't think he's unsmart. And I don't disagree with you on two points. First, I do think that "advise and consent" has become synonymous with "Senate veto," which it was never meant to be. Second, I do think that the president, whoever it is, should be given deference for his nominees. That said, you'd be purposely ignoring the obvious if you didn't also recognize that the nominees will now wave their junk in the Senate's face by giving generic, and sometimes misleading, answers. Treating the process as just something you need to survive, as opposed to an open investigation of a nominee. Chuck Hagel has conspicuously avoided full disclosure. Even as a rubber stamp review, that shorts the advise and consent process.
I actually saw Triumph at the Nassau Coliseum in the '80s and in fact made it out with my panties intact as I recall.
They strike me as a band like Great White - probably still kicking around somewhere, but you'll only know it when you hear how tragedy struck when a dozen people were trampled in a Manitoba nightclub "during a performance by the 80's band, Triumph."
Chuck Hagel has a huge public profile at this point. It used to be that a Senator would never be denied access to confirmation for a cabinet post unless there was an active scandal involving him, as in John Tower in the late 80's. To suggest that Hagel needs further vetting is ridiculous. He was a US Senator for two terms, ran numerous public companies that required disclosure and has had a very high public policy profile even when not in the government. The idea that his confirmation should be filibustered because of events that occurred overseas when he was a professor at Georgetown University is absurd. It's the latest shot across the bow of a President that the Republicans hate with a passion and will not deign to effectively govern in partnership with. This is the two-party system coming apart in front of our eyes Jack, and it's coming apart because the Republicans have somehow forgotten that the thing that makes a two-party system work is a loyal opposition. Can you imagine where America would be right now if the Democrats had fought President Bush tooth and nail over Iraq, the War on Terror, de-regulation, the tax cuts, the deficit, the prescription drug plan, etc? Can you imagine where we'd be if they had refused to allow him to confirm his cabinet appointees and Supreme Court justices? Being in a two-party system implicitly creates a need to co-govern with the opposition. When President Obama went half way on almost every issue of consequence in his first term the Republicans should have gladly met him in the middle, secure in the knowledge that they weren't being taken for a ride by a left-wing socialist claiming a mandate. The health care plan was RomneyCare for god's sake. It left health insurance in private plans and even created subsidies to help the health care industry make the plan work. The Republicans backed away from the need to co-govern and turned the federal government into a battlefield for open warfare. They took every opportunity to reaffirm the value in effective government and instead turned it into a slap in the face for the person they need to co-govern with for America to work. This isn't going to work at this point. We don't have a parliamentary system in which deals can be made to get a working majority on board to make sure the trains run on schedule. Now we're going to have to have that wave election to sort things out and the odds are pretty good it's going to create one party rule for the forseeable future. Stacking the deck and then going into the trenches created a small tactical advantage for the Republicans but it has created an enormous strategical disadvantage for them and we're all going to pay the price for that at some point.
A couple points that might not be structured very well, but I want to avoid one of those long, multi-quote posts. If you're telling me that the system is "broken," you'd get no fight from me. If you're also trying to tell me that it's broken because those nasty 2008-2012 Republicans broke it, I'd stop right here and discredit everything else you wrote. But since I don't think you're saying that.... You know how I know that most of this is all just bluster? Because we have the brief Senate career of Barack Obama to work with. Where once it was perfectly acceptable to vote against raising the debt limit (and, in fact, it was "unpatriotic"), suddenly, in the Democrat world, the opposite is true. Where once GWB was "bushitler" for things like rendition, interrogation with waterboarding, and Gitmo; now, targeted killing of American citizens overseas are perfectly acceptable. Oh, and by the way, Gitmo isn't all that bad a place. Where once Barack Obama defended the Senate filibuster rule so passionately; now, it's the worst thing imaginable. Where once it was a good idea to try mustering votes to filibuster and vote against two Bush Supreme Court nominees; now, we should give deference because he "needs a SecDef." As if there were no one steering the ship. Where once Barack Obama vigorously defended the separation of powers and decried the executive order; now, the executive order is his preferred means of governing. And the Iraq War? Where once Bill Clinton advocated for it and a huge majority in the Senate voted in favor; and, where "regime change" was the priority, when public opinion turned, GWB was suddenly a "liar" and you'd be hardpressed to find a single Senator who would acknowledge he or she (Hillary, for one) ever spoke in favor or voted in favor of military action. And a despicable creature like Ted Kennedy couldn't wait to call Iraq "the new Vietnam," and Harry Reid was deeming the cause "lost." With troops in the field. Yes, let's talk about atrocious Senate conduct. I could go on. But the point is, these things that you now tell me are examples of Republicans torturing the system, these are the exact same things that Democrats once found perfectly acceptable. Barack Obama as much as anyone. More, in many cases. For my part, I'm one who thinks that congressional gridlock is a good thing. I want Congress to do less, not more. Although, as I've said many times, Barack Obama and Democrats do more for my business interests than Republicans. If the government is going to be in the business of choosing millionaires, I'm eager to be among the chosen ones.
Picking this review as an example of that doesn't pass the smell test. It's pretty clear from McCain's dumb remarks that Hagel was held up as pay back. The fact is Hagel was right about Iraq the surge has done nothing except cement Iraq as a place stable enough for Iran to use as a stagging ground to ship weapons to terrorists they support. At the end of the day the Defense department is the biggest employer in this country and Republicans are scared to death that their districts are going to sufer in order to get the budget in order something they pretend to support. I've been pretty vocal in my none support for the President but the loyal opposition is anything but loyal and as far as opposition they have done a pretty poor job. The President, who is at best a mediocre leader of his own party has pretty much won ever single legislative battle while Republicans continue to lose political support around the country.
So how are Republicans going to deal with the fact that the sequester is in effect and for 2013 the majority of the deficit fixing has been taxes on the very wealthy and cuts to the military? I cannot believe that this thing went through the way it did. You'd think Republicans would have preferred a more rational set of choices, like raising taxes across the board and cutting entitlements as part of the solution.
You really thought the Republicans could ever compromise? This group of Repugs would rather die than ever make a deal with any Democrat.
It looks for all the world like they've got their hands clasped together crouched around the grenade and it's just a question of when the pin gets pulled.
Obama is used to handouts, he is just waiting for someone to hand him a good idea. He has never worked a day in his life much like his constituency who voted him in to office.
