Republicans preparing the first filibuster of a DefSec nominee in American history.

[Direckshun]

We are even further into uncharted political waters.

Republicans are filibustering a nomination, something that's never, ever been done.

A former red state Republican war hero.

Because.... wait for it.........

He believes light exists between Israeli policy and American policy.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...medium=twitter

Hagel nomination hits a wall
By Domenico Montanaro, Deputy Political Editor, NBC News
4 hours ago

Chuck Hagel’s nomination just hit a major obstacle.

Hagel will not have the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster at tomorrow’s scheduled cloture vote, Republican leadership told Majority Leader Harry Reid Thursday, according to a Senate Democratic aide.

"My Republican colleagues had led us to believe they would not filibuster Senator Chuck Hagel's confirmation as Secretary of Defense,” Reid (D-NV) said in a statement released by his office. “But that has changed. Now, Senate Republicans have made it clear they intend to mount a full-scale filibuster, and block the Senate from holding a final passage vote on Senator Hagel's nomination. Make no mistake: Republicans are trying to defeat Senator Hagel's nomination by filibustering while submitting extraneous requests that will never be satisfied."

All 55 Democrats are supporting Hagel.

But just two Republicans have said they would vote for their former colleague, a Republican from Nebraska – Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Mike Johanns (R-NE). Hagel would need three more for his nomination to be able to proceed to an up-or-down vote, which Reid said would happen Saturday.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Roy Blunt (R-MO), and Susan Collins (R-ME) previously said they would not support a filibuster of Hagel, which would have given Hagel enough votes.

“I just do not believe a filibuster is appropriate, and I would oppose such a move," McCain said, adding, "I will try to make that argument to my colleagues.”

But McCain and Blunt have changed their tunes.

Republicans, like Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member on the Armed Services Committee that considered Hagel’s nomination, are arguing that what they are doing is not a “filibuster.” They just want more information, they say, on his finances and speeches -- despite the answers Hagel submitted to the standard Senate questionnaire, as well as his contentious hearing.

That's something that caused Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) to accuse Republicans of an "unprecedented" double standard.

McCain, for one, wants more information from the White House on the attacks in Benghazi.

On MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown last week, Blunt was asked if he would support a filibuster of Hagel’s nomination.

“I doubt it; I doubt it,” he said. “I think for somebody who’s going to be there the length of time the president serves, as opposed to a Supreme Court judge, that a majority in the Senate should be able to confirm. I wouldn’t intend to be a part of that majority, but certainly my strong inclination would be that this is a vote that should be done by a majority, rather than a 60-vote standard. And this person is going to leave the day the president leaves. That makes a difference.”

Yet, Blunt’s office contends Blunt’s current position is not a switch.

“He hasn’t changed his original position at all,” said Amber Marchand, Blunt’s spokeswoman. “He’s just pointing out that Senator Hagel and the Obama Admin have not produced all of the information that’s been requested, and there has not been time for a full debate in the Senate, therefore the Senate should not move forward on a vote this week.”

Reid argued Thursday morning on the Senate floor that Republicans were playing politics with national security.

“For the sake of our national security, it’s time to put aside this political theater,” Reid said, accusing them of being more concerned about primaries and the Tea Party.

He said opponents were seeking delay after delay, saying there's been "one stall after another."

Hagel would be just the third cabinet secretary to require the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. The other two were Dirk Kempthorne, George W. Bush’s nominee for Interior Secretary in 2006, and C. Williams Verity, Ronald Reagan’s pick to be Commerce Secretary in 1987, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Both, however, were easily confirmed and cleared the cloture hurdle, 85-8.

There has never been a cabinet secretary nominee who was successfully filibustered.

There have, however, been other high-level, non-judicial nominees, who have also required 60 votes.

For example:

2010- Ben Bernanke (Fed Chair, cloture invoked, passed 77-23)
2009- Hilda Solis (Labor, cloture invoked, but withdrawn)
2006- Dirk Kempthorne (Interior, cloture invoked, passed 85-8)
2005- Rob Portman (USTR, cloture invoked, but vitiated)
2005- John Bolton (US Amb to UN, cloture invoked, nomination rejected 54-38)
2005- Steven L. Johnson (EPA administrator, cloture invoked, passed 61-37)
2003- Michael Leavitt (EPA admin, cloture invoked but withdrawn)
1987- C. Willliam Verity (Commerce, cloture invoked, passed 85-8)

[stevieray]

....this must be the new placard on Defleckshun's "Wheel of Martyrdom"

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Shall we go over the historic obstructionism of the GOP under Obama?

Held the country's economy hostage in the 2011 debt ceiling debacle (unprecedented), established the universal filibuster threshold (unprecedented), filibustered a SecDef nominee (unprecedented), resistance to both Violence Against Women and the Voting Rights Act (first time in 20 and 50 years, respectively)...

I just don't see how this is good politics for the Republicans? Can someone enlighten me? Serious question, not trying to troll or get into a partisan conflict.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I just don't see how this is good politics for the Republicans? Can someone enlighten me? Serious question, not trying to troll or get into a partisan conflict.

It's a loudest possible show to the Likud that "we're doing everything we can on our end" without actually setting the precedent of filibustering SecDef nominees out of commission.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

It's a loudest possible show to the Likud that "we're doing everything we can on our end" without actually setting the precedent of filibustering SecDef nominees out of commission.

Your hatred for Israel is clouding your thoughts here. The fillibuster has much more to do with Bengazi, and the President's handling of that, than anything else. Senate Republicans have been asking the White House repeatedly for information, and have been ignored. Looks like they finally got the White House's attention.

Every story I have read on this indicate Hagel will eventually get confirmed, but the Senators do not like being ignored, a fact the White House should be keenly aware.

[chiefzilla1501]

It shows what kind of idiots we have in Congress right now.

The right should be choosing their battles. This is a move that makes them look like uncompromising dicks. I would rather they pick a fight about the economy than their defense secretary.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

It shows what kind of idiots we have in Congress right now.

The right should be choosing their battles. This is a move that makes them look like uncompromising dicks. I would rather they pick a fight about the economy than their defense secretary.

They have publicly stated that Hagel will get the votes when Congress comes back from recess. Obama is the master of not showing respect to Republicans, so when the White House stonewalled them, they sent a message.

CNN is saying Hagel will get confirmed after he turns over documents detailing his post-Senate income (which seems like a reasonable request to me).

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ion/?hpt=hp_t1

This is frankly much to do about nothing. If Leon Pinetta cannot keep the nation's defense together for one more week, maybe he should not have taken the job in the first place.

[Brock]

Unsurprising. The guy sounded like a dumbass.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Brock

Unsurprising. The guy sounded like a dumbass.

It's the Presidents call. He gets to pick who is in his cabinet, not the Senate. He is a dumbshit, its on Obama.

But, in this case I don't hear anyone saying its because he's a dumbshit. It's his position on Israel, Benghazi, gays etc.

It's just more unprecedented obstruction. This can't be playing well with independents that the republicans need to win national elections.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

It's the Presidents call. He gets to pick who is in his cabinet, not the Senate. He is a dumbshit, its on Obama.

But, in this case I don't hear anyone saying its because he's a dumbshit. It's his position on Israel, Benghazi, gays etc.

It's just more unprecedented obstruction. This can't be playing well with independents that the republicans need to win national elections.

Excuse me, but you are wrong. It isn't only the president's call. He doesn't get to pick whoever he wants.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Brock

Excuse me, but you are wrong. It isn't only the president's call. He doesn't get to pick whoever he wants.

Yes he does. SCOTUS is historically the only appointment where qualifications have been vetted.

But, thats not the point is it, no one is saying he's not qualified, are they?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Yes he does. SCOTUS is historically the only appointment where qualifications have been vetted.

But, thats not the point is it, no one is saying he's not qualified, are they?

We can move on to the next point when you admit you're simply wrong about the president being able to choose whomever he wants for a cabinet position. He cannot. Read the constitution and get back to me.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Yes he does. SCOTUS is historically the only appointment where qualifications have been vetted.

If that was the case he'd already be sworn in.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Brock

We can move on to the next point when you admit you're simply wrong about the president being able to choose whomever he wants for a cabinet position. He cannot. Read the constitution and get back to me.

I know what the constitution says, I'm talking about the practical reality of Presidential conformations. They always get what they want. How else do you explain Ashcroft as attorney general. The man lost this last election to a dead guy. How bad do you have to suck for that to happen?

How many have ever been rejected in the past? 0.001%? Thats getting what you want regardless of what the Congress wants. If it was any different it could create a constitutional crisis at some point, Congress dictating who the President can work with?

How many have been filibustered? none. wellll until today

[Brock]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I know what the constitution says, I'm talking about the practical reality of Presidential conformations. They always get what they want. How else do you explain Ashcroft as attorney general. The man lost this last election to a dead guy. How bad do you have to suck for that to happen?

How many have ever been rejected in the past? 0.001%? Thats getting what you want regardless of what the Congress wants. If it was any different it could create a constitutional crisis at some point, Congress dictating who the President can work with?

How many have been filibustered? none. wellll until today

You said "It's the president's call. He gets to pick who is in his cabinet, not the Senate". That is false. You now know what the constitution says, but you apparently did not earlier tonight.

If it's such a slam dunk under normal circumstances, it appears Obama made a really shitty pick, and maybe should have done a little vetting of his own before he did it.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Brock

You said "It's the president's call. He gets to pick who is in his cabinet, not the Senate". That is false. You now know what the constitution says, but you apparently did not earlier tonight.

If it's such a slam dunk under normal circumstances, it appears Obama made a really shitty pick, and maybe should have done a little vetting of his own before he did it.

True but this is all about petty politics. McCain spilled the beans tonight when he said they held up his nomination because Hagel was mean to Bush.

McCAIN: But to be honest with you, Neil, it goes back to there’s a lot of ill will towards Senator Hagel because when he was a Republican, he attacked President Bush mercilessly and say he was the worst President since Herbert Hoover and said the surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam War, which was nonsense. He was anti-his own party and people — people don’t forget that. You can disagree but if you’re disagreeable, then people don’t forget that.