Rand Paul votes YEA on Confirming Hagel

[FrankRep]

Isn't The Blaze actually supposed to be a "libertarian" website?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/hagel-confirmed-as-defense-secretary-by-u-s-senate/

I just see a bunch of people denouncing Rand Paul and slamming Glenn Beck for supporting him.

 

[pcosmar]

Isn't The Blaze actually supposed to be a "libertarian" website?

 

[Shane Harris]

Why is it okay to confirm Kerry but not okay to confirm Hagel (who is no doubt better than Kerry)

 

[jmdrake]

Rand Paul shot himself in the foot. Glenn Beck has every right to denounce him.

Sometimes I wonder about you. Other times I really wonder. If you honestly think Beck has "every right" to denounce Rand for voting for Hagel then I never ever ever again want to hear you complain about those who attacked Rand for endorsing Romney. You no longer have the right to do that.

Edit: Just for clarification, you have the 1st amendment right to say whatever it is you want just like Beck. But if you think this vote somehow gives Beck some "special right" to denounce Rand than the "purists" among us have every right to denounce Rand and you are not being consistent if you criticize them for it.

 

[SilentBull]

Amazing how the media is able to push a button and get people to react exactly how they want. Republicans are upset at Rand for not getting in the way of some stupid appointment which doesn't even matter, since the policies will not change regardless of who he appoints. People are so stupid. 2016 is my last hope. I used to be optimistic about Rand's chances but apparently there is just no way to get these morons to unplug and think for themselves. They're as dumb as leftists.

 

[jmdrake]

Isn't The Blaze actually supposed to be a "libertarian" website?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/hagel-confirmed-as-defense-secretary-by-u-s-senate/

I just see a bunch of people denouncing Rand Paul and slamming Glenn Beck for supporting him.

Those douchebags aren't libertarians. Check this comment.

He votes no to help victims of hurricane sandy, he votes no to protect victims of domestic abuse in the VAWA, but this gets his vote! HAHAHA and this is the republicans best bet in 2016! Hill-Dogs got it in the bag!

So let's vote to borrow more money for federal bureaucracy in the name of "helping people", let's vote for more federal takeover of state law, but oh noes....you can't vote for someone that isn't lockstep with neocons on Israel!

What was that Beck was saying about the 80% rule? Does that only apply to certain things?

 

[jmdrake]

Amazing how the media is able to push a button and get people to react exactly how they want. Republicans are upset at Rand for not getting in the way of some stupid appointment which doesn't even matter, since the policies will not change regardless of who he appoints. People are so stupid. 2016 is my last hope. I used to be optimistic about Rand's chances but apparently there is just no way to get these morons to unplug and think for themselves. They're as dumb as leftists.

Which is why kissing up to certain groups is stupid. Instead of kissing up, we need to concentrate on waking up. People's paradigms need to be challenged.

 

[FrankRep]

Sometimes I wonder about you. Other times I really wonder. If you honestly think Beck has "every right" to denounce Rand for voting for Hagel then I never ever ever again want to hear you complain about those who attacked Rand for endorsing Romney. You no longer have the right to do that.

Edit: Just for clarification, you have the 1st amendment right to say whatever it is you want just like Beck. But if you think this vote somehow gives Beck some "special right" to denounce Rand than the "purists" among us have every right to denounce Rand and you are not being consistent if you criticize them for it.

I mean that Glenn Beck didn't want Chuck Hagel in office. Now Glenn Beck has a reason or justification for disliking Rand Paul now. I'm not sure how you could have misunderstood that.

 

[AuH20]

I mean that Glenn Beck didn't want Chuck Hagel in office. Now Glenn Beck has a reason or justification for disliking Rand Paul now. I'm not sure how you could have misunderstood that.

If Glenn Beck is that shallow, he has issues. I'll leave it at that.

 

[pcosmar]

I mean that Glenn Beck didn't want Chuck Hagel in office. Now Glenn Beck has a reason or justification for disliking Rand Paul now. I'm not sure how you could have misunderstood that.

 

[jmdrake]

I mean that Glenn Beck didn't want Chuck Hagel in office. Now Glenn Beck has a reason or justification for disliking Rand Paul now. I'm not sure how you could have misunderstood that.

Oh I understood what you said. It's just not valid. I'll explain below.

If Glenn Beck is that shallow, he has issues. I'll leave it at that.

Yes. AuH20 gets it. Beck went on this long rant about how libertarians were being "fascists" by saying he couldn't be one of them without "atoning" and that people should write off others who agree with them "80%" or "90%". Well one vote for someone Beck doesn't like is worth more than 10 or 20% of all the freaking issues Beck cares about? If Beck is going to throw Rand under the bus over this one vote then to hell with Beck. He's just proven himself (again) to be a liar. That said, I predict it's too early for a "beckstab".

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't care about Hagel...he's no more or less what I would expect from an Obama appointment. Actually, I think Obama could do a lot worse. But Rand gave his word that he would not stand in the way of presidential appointments, and for sticking to that, I applaud him.

Agree. It is a political appointment, and the nominee just does the bidding of the Administration anyway. Now a (Supreme) Court nomination is a totally different animal. That is a life long appointment, independent of the Administration, and supposedly independent of politics.

And if Hagel gets dismissed, who do you think he was going to appoint????? Back to square one. There was no leverage.

Yep. Probably wouldn't be a Republican next time, unless he nominated Lindsey Graham.

Why is it okay to confirm Kerry but not okay to confirm Hagel (who is no doubt better than Kerry)

Israel is the reasoning. In practice, it makes no difference. Which is why 18 GOP Senators voted for cloture (but not Rand), effectively making the Hagel confirmation a done deal. No outrage about that though.

Because they have been conditioned to "go nuts" over nonsense like this.

Amazing how the media is able to push a button and get people to react exactly how they want.

"The Ministry of Truth can turn on a dime, and the fury of the ignorant masses can be redirected at will."

Did you not see how the entire GOP took a stand against Hagel? That means the GOP will see Rand Paul as a traitor. That's not the best way to win the nomination.

No they didn't. 18 GOP Senators voted for cloture. The actual confirmation vote was just a formality after that. It was the cloture vote that really mattered.

Yes, if Rand wanted to cater directly to the Teo-con base, he could have voted against the confirmation. It may have been a better choice politically. It would have been business as usual, like 18 other Senators did. Vote to go along with the Administration, and then do a purely symbolic vote after it's a done deal.


We have heard a lot about how political appointments (as opposed to Court nominations) just do the bidding of the Administration, so they should be confirmed, absent extreme evidence that they are not fit.

Here are a couple of principals that have not been discussed:

- Voting for the filibuster (against cloture) is a vote for the power of the minority. This is extremely important, and it is a battle that Rand has been engaged in recently. The establishment from both Parties is attempting to consolidate power at the top, and remove power from minority and individual Senators. The filibuster is the last refuge of the minority. Did anyone notice how it was the establishment Senators that voted for cloture and against filibuster, which effectively sealed the confirmation?

- Voting for the nomination in this case illustrated three things. The first is that political nominations should generally go through. The second is that a "no" vote was purely symbolic. The third, and possibly the most important to Rand, is that he wanted more debate and more questions answered. The vote for cloture cut off debate. That was the important vote. After that, a "yea" vote on appointment emphasizes the fact that the deal was done with cloture, and the minority had no say after that point. We need more debate in the Senate, not less.

 

[seyferjm]

Isn't The Blaze actually supposed to be a "libertarian" website?

Maybe in Glenn Beck's infantile mind.

 

[sailingaway]

Maybe in Glenn Beck's infantile mind.

He is trying to change the definition of libertarianism in the public mind to the point where he can stand as a mouthpiece for it. He did it once with the tea party, and figures it is time to do again.

 

[tsai3904]

Amazing how the media is able to push a button and get people to react exactly how they want. Republicans are upset at Rand for not getting in the way of some stupid appointment which doesn't even matter, since the policies will not change regardless of who he appoints. People are so stupid. 2016 is my last hope. I used to be optimistic about Rand's chances but apparently there is just no way to get these morons to unplug and think for themselves. They're as dumb as leftists.

I feel the same way after reading all the comments on Rand's facebook page. Almost 90% of comments on his page during the last 24 hours have been blasting Rand for voting for Hagel and being anti-Israel. Who are these people and why are they so easily manipulated?

 

[SilentBull]

He is trying to change the definition of libertarianism in the public mind to the point where he can stand as a mouthpiece for it. He did it once with the tea party, and figures it is time to do again.

Exactly. The whole goddamn thing is scripted and we've all read the script before.

 

[dillo]

Glenn beck is trying to do to libertarians what Fox news did to the tea party

 

[jmdrake]

Israel is the reasoning. In practice, it makes no difference. Which is why 18 GOP Senators voted for cloture (but not Rand), effectively making the Hagel confirmation a done deal. No outrage about that though.

You know what? ^That is all we need to remember. If some idiot wants to screw with Rand over voting for confirmation, we need to hammer home the point that Rand voted no when it mattered as opposed to the 18 who voted for cloture.

 

[Lucille]

Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty
Israel is the reasoning. In practice, it makes no difference. Which is why 18 GOP Senators voted for cloture (but not Rand), effectively making the Hagel confirmation a done deal. No outrage about that though.

You know what? ^That is all we need to remember. If some idiot wants to screw with Rand over voting for confirmation, we need to hammer home the point that Rand voted no when it mattered as opposed to the 18 who voted for cloture.

I was surprised to see NRO's McCarthy blame them:

hxxp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341655/gop-folderoo-hagel-confirmation-andrew-c-mccarthy

Chuck Hagel has reportedly been confirmed by a vote of 58 to 41. But the real action was on cloture, where — as Andrew reported — 18 Republicans voted to let a final vote on the nomination proceed. No matter how they parse it, these Republicans voted to make Hagel the secretary of defense. They will tell the folks back home that they just voted yes on the “procedural” matter but really opposed Hagel’s nomination. That will not be true. Since Democrats had the votes to confirm Hagel if the 60-vote barrier was surmounted, voting to surmount it assured that Hagel would be confirmed — and everyone knew it.

 

[jtstellar]

He is trying to change the definition of libertarianism in the public mind to the point where he can stand as a mouthpiece for it. He did it once with the tea party, and figures it is time to do again.

that's not the point.. the question is will libertarianism be so unpopular and weak that it falls right over to any attempt to mold it to some other definition, like ron paul did to LP, which i actually agree with ron paul more in terms of the focus of libertarianism, but the fact was LP was so weak ron paul was able to do it without a blip of resistance. but if it is that weak, glenn beck doesn't have a motivation in the first place, if that were true profit is all he's after, so that theory is full of contradiction to itself. i do think he has found libertarianism to be the real principle behind what he used to believe, but he's still at the inception phase and being the kind of person he is, he wants to do what in his mind helps the country but at the same time brings him some attention and profit. that's the same with all grassroots leader figures, rand paul or whomever. most people will seek a public office or start a popular website to collect advertising money or sell ron paul merchandise at the minimum, to find a long term means to support their venture, still feel good about themselves and possibly satisfy their personal ambition in the long run. there's nothing wrong with that.

it is problematic when some talent-less half-knows happens to be in the position and iterates the liberty message wrong though. the kind of junk articles circulated on dailypauls serve as a good reference, a reflection on michael nystrom. this movement is getting a little stagnant, i suspect it will get a change of blood if rand paul brings this main stage, and a lot of self professed grassroots leaders will be rendered irrelevant, dailypaul will gradually descend into a gossip site. i think people should always move to the front of things, leave the chattering irrelevance to people of old age.