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)

[BigRedChief]

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.

Yes I did. As I have explained, in practicality the President gets to pick whoever he wants to serve in his cabinet, not whoever Congress picks for him.

[HonestChieffan]

Chuck is the BEST EVER. Damn those who oppose him!!!

[loochy]

screw israel

screw palestine too

[Brock]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Yes I did. As I have explained, in practicality the President gets to pick whoever he wants to serve in his cabinet, not whoever Congress picks for him.

If that's your viewpoint, it's an ignorant one. The president should have had his ducks in a row before he nominated Hagel. The reason this rarely happens is because it's usually a fate accompli before the hearing even happens. Plus, the guy sounded like an incompetent boob, and that's the major problem at this point. Nobody's outraged by this because all they have to do is listen to the guy not being able to string a sentence together at his hearing.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

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.

It's about petty politics, but it's also about a guy who looked like a dumbass when he got asked some pretty easy questions. I got no sympathy for him.

[Direckshun]

We need to stop pretending this is about petty politics.

What does Hagel fundamentally affect when he becomes SecDef?

Not Benghazi bullshit. Not drone warfare. Not the withdrawals.

Two potential areas where Hagel can have a huge impact: on the responsible reduction of the Pentagon budget, and on American influence on the Israel/Palenstine conflict.

Of those two, Republicans themselves have signed on to Pentagon spending cuts.

So that really only leaves the issue of Israel/Palestine, where the GOP has a vested interest, and the Obama administration has strayed far from the "no light" policy that the GOP literally follows and many in the DNP diligently ape.

Hagel as SecDef fundamentally changes what Israel can leverage with the United States with the respect to doing pretty much whatever they want with Palestine and tell the world to "**** off if you don't like it, America's got our backs." With Hagel on board, that's not as much of a guarantee as it used to be. Israel finds itself in a really difficult position right now. The country under the Likud has effectively isolated itself diplomatically as report after report comes out about the squalor the vast majority of Palestinians are forced to live under, whether Israel feels it's justified or not.

America, honestly, is the only tether left to plausible international support. With an Obama/Hagel run Pentagon, Israel may have to choose over the course of the next four years: continue their current path and risk greater isolation, or swerve from the path towards apartheid.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

We need to stop pretending this is about petty politics.

What does Hagel fundamentally affect when he becomes SecDef?

Not Benghazi bullshit. Not drone warfare. Not the withdrawals.

Two potential areas where Hagel can have a huge impact: on the responsible reduction of the Pentagon budget, and on American influence on the Israel/Palenstine conflict.

Of those two, Republicans themselves have signed on to Pentagon spending cuts.

So that really only leaves the issue of Israel/Palestine, where the GOP has a vested interest, and the Obama administration has strayed far from the "no light" policy that the GOP literally follows and many in the DNP diligently ape.

Hagel as SecDef fundamentally changes what Israel can leverage with the United States with the respect to doing pretty much whatever they want with Palestine and tell the world to "**** off if you don't like it, America's got our backs." With Hagel on board, that's not as much of a guarantee as it used to be. Israel finds itself in a really difficult position right now. The country under the Likud has effectively isolated itself diplomatically as report after report comes out about the squalor the vast majority of Palestinians are forced to live under, whether Israel feels it's justified or not.

America, honestly, is the only tether left to plausible international support. With an Obama/Hagel run Pentagon, Israel may have to choose over the course of the next four years: continue their current path and risk greater isolation, or swerve from the path towards apartheid.

Bullshit

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

America, honestly, is the only tether left to plausible international support. With an Obama/Hagel run Pentagon, Israel may have to choose over the course of the next four years: continue their current path and risk greater isolation, or swerve from the path towards apartheid.

LOL. Sure, Hagel was going to fundamentally change America's relationship with Israel. Good grief.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Zero chance republicans are actually this stupid.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Zero chance republicans are actually this stupid.

and yet they have done it.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Brock

LOL. Sure, Hagel was going to fundamentally change America's relationship with Israel.

Depends how you define fundamentally, I guess.

Hagel will change America's relationship with Israel. Of that, there is no doubt.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Depends how you define fundamentally, I guess.

Hagel will change America's relationship with Israel. Of that, there is no doubt.

No, he will not. At all.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Depends how you define fundamentally, I guess.

Hagel will change America's relationship with Israel. Of that, there is no doubt.

Come on man

Obama's foreign policy is the same as Bush's besides not getting us into unnecessary wars. Ending wars and torture.

But, as far as geopolitical approach to foreign policy, they are 95% the same.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Brock

No, he will not. At all.

Do you believe the Obama administration has changed the American relationship with Israel "at all"?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Come on man

Obama's foreign policy is the same as Bush's besides not getting us into unnecessary wars. Ending wars and torture.

But, as far as geopolitical approach to foreign policy, they are 95% the same.

The GOP position and the DNP position on Israel are distinct.