Resistance is futile... we'll filibuster.

[devil_ad_vocate]

http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/indiana/coats-wont-vote-to-confirm-hagel
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/marco-rubio-chuck- ( Read more... )

Comments

[underlankers]

Republicans grandstand and pitch hissy fits over Obama appointee, news at 11!

[hardblue]

One would like to think that Hagel might get a little break for having soldiered with them for so long, but we have long known that the Republicans even feast on their own.

[devil_ad_vocate]

"You want a friend in Washington? Get a dog."

(OK, I can't remember who said it.)

[telemann]

Your entire states' Senate delegation voted against Kerry. Out of 3 who voted against him. What a bunch of mavericks. Ted Cruz is all kinds of crazy and he's only been in the Senate for a few weeks and has some Jupiter moon-sized balls to talk about Kerry being "anti military," when we all know Mr. Cruz's own sterling military service record. Ops, wait.....

[devil_ad_vocate]

Please, don't remind me. But I live in Austin; we are still a blue island floating in a red sea.

[fizzyland]

Are Republicans on the correct side on any issue, ever?

No ...

[unnamed525]

Not really.

[the_rukh]

When they were against slavery that one time waaaay back in the day. I guess that's why they keep bringing it up.

[fizzyland]

As if modern republicans have anything in common with Lincoln.

[dukexmachismo]

But... but... wouldn't having a SecDef who's actually fought in a war be breaking with tradition?

[geezer_also]

I know an awful lot of people who have fought in wars that are not qualified to be SecDef, not to mention that is a civilian post.

[dukexmachismo]

Point taken.

[telemann]

Or presidential candidates for that matter

[oslo]

What the Republicans seem to discovered - first in 2010, and then throughout the rest of Obama's first term - is that the politics of permanent conflict pays dividends. Dividends in the form of political donations, volunteer support, media exposure, etc

[oslo]

Well - I think there are two schools of thought running now through the Republican party, on "winning the future": One school thinks that they need to focus on their base, get them more riled up, more active, more willing to fund campaigns, than they've already been by the maker/taker theme, the anti-PPACA campaign, the "Thanks, Obama!" theme, etc. The other thinks they need to broaden the base and appeal to a wider diversity of voters by taking more moderate positions. (I think the latter also implicitly acknowledges the wealthy Republican "base"'s interests - I think there is real risk to the GOP in embracing the moralistically-derived fantasy economics that the TP prefers, since it so obviously is bad for business - and wealthy people know this

[gunslnger]

The problem isn't with his stances, it's that his stances are "flexible" and that he didn't even know things about our foreign policy that he should have known.