Trump World Grab-Bag--A Collection

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Chuck Hagel Confirmed--Which I Think We Expected, Right?

Okay, maybe not everyone did, and maybe the filibuster (because yes, that's what we call it) made it seem dubious--but what exactly, was all the to-do about? Sen. McCain called Hagel "unqualified" (now, wait one Palin-picking minute!) and Sen. Graham used the confirmation hearing as yet another opportunity to grandstand about Benghazi; newly-minted Sen. Ted Cruz busted out his McCarthy impression (never too soon in your career to do that, IMHO) and the self-appointed "vetters" went Google-diving for evidence that the nominee had unorthodox opinions--except for when they apparently didn't bother to Google at all! 

From my humble-blogger perspective, it kind of looks to me like results had nothing to do with the opposition to Hagel. It was a drill with blanks in the chamber. We've got a group of people (Republicans) who will oppose anything the president supports because they feel obligated to by their intended audience. Their intended audience is neither as big as they think it is, nor as influential as they hope it is. If it were either of those things, would Obama have won re-election? (I think I would like to assign that particular essay to Jen Rubin of the Washington Post, if I could.)

(This is why I don't really feel like the sequester is a thing that's going to go through either, close as we're going to cut it. Because of Big Business, state governments, and a good handful of House Reps figuring out who is actually getting the blame. Reality has to intrude. This is probably the one I'll be wrong about, but still. Something will give.)

2 comments:

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

Who you mean oui?

"SKREE! SKREE! SKREE!
~

Vixen Strangely said...

Heh, Rubin is a really tough case if she hasn't yet figured out the correlation between her not making good predictive analysis of things like the 2012 elections or the Hagel confirmation and having a deeply biased worldview. But she wasn't alone on this.

But I ponder over this gem from the column of hers you've linked:

Let’s be clear: We have two parties: the Hagel Democrats and the pro-Israel Republicans. Only one party considers national security serious enough to place it above loyalty to the White House.

Is she under the impression that only by being her definition of "pro-Israel" is one adequately serious about US national security? That's....quite something.