The Washington Post published a whip count this morning of where senators on the Armed Services Committee stand on Chuck Hagel’s nomination. By the afternoon, Bill Nelson had also joined the “yeas”–a key victory for Hagel supporters, since Nelson was seen as a Democrat who could have crossed over. That’s seven likely “no” votes and six likely “yes” votes so far.
Here the latest breakdown (the rest are undecided):
No votes: Lindsey Graham, Roger Wicker, Ted Cruz, David Vitter.
Leaning ‘no’: Jim Inhofe, John McCain, Kelly Ayotte
Yes votes: Bill Nelson
Near-certain ‘yes’ votes: Jack Reed, Mazie Hirono
Leaning ‘yes’: Carl Levin, Claire McCaskill, Joe Manchin
Democrats have the advantage, since there are 14 of them on Armed Services and only 12 Republicans. Still, it’s possible Hagel’s nomination could be killed in committee. If every GOP member and just one Democrat opposes him, there would be a deadlock and the nomination wouldn’t be sent to the floor. With Nelson backing Hagel, another possible crossover would be Kirsten Gillibrand, who is still undecided.
It’s hard to predict what will happen if the nomination does make it to the floor, because we don’t know what will come out during the committee hearings. Hagel’s entire record–his finances, board affiliations, meeting transcripts, associates, etc., etc.–will be picked over by the media and opposition researchers. He will likely have to answer uncomfortable questions during the hearings as well. There’s a chance no more damaging information will be uncovered, and he’ll respond to all the questions perfectly. But this is Washington. It’s much more likely he’ll come out looking worse in the end, not better.
Senate Democrats still haven’t rallied behind Hagel, while Republican opposition is growing. The longer the confirmation battle, the more potential pitfalls for Hagel — and if there is a filibuster, which is very possible, the administration will need to secure 60 votes to get the confirmation.
“If there’s nothing more that comes out, they might be able to squeak him across,” one senior Senate aide told me this afternoon, but noted there was “no room for error in this nomination fight.”
When does the Knesset vote on Hagel take place?
Hagel Hagel Bo Bagel Banana Fanna Fo Fegel Mi My Mo Magel, Hagel! n nbuddy, this is an American horror story not an Israeli one. n nThey'll deal with it when it shows up at their doorstep.
Good point. The "Jewish Lobby", controlled by the Knesset and the TriLateral Commission is going to prevent Hagel from getting appointed. Just like they prevented Obama from getting elected. n nOr is it that every time someone who is anti-Israel succeeds it is the Will of the American People, but if Pro-Israel members of Congress succeed, it is merely AIPAC and the Jew Lobby? Please explain.
Pjpaper, are you unaware that Hagel is nominated for a position in the US government, not the Israeli government, or are you unaware that US allies do not get a vote on who the US appoints to a position? n nOr are you implying that Americans who think his appointment would be bad for the US because of his bigotry, his willingness to turn a blind eye to terrorism, his lack of experience and his demonstrated stupidity in foreign affairs, are not REALLY Americans but are acting as agents for a foreign country? Because that would make you even more ignorant than either of the first two choices.
George Washington, 1796: n n"The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim." n n"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation." n n"As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter." n n"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests." n n
We live in a different world now. And for all his other skills, George Washington wasn't really all that good in either foreign policy or military tactics, he got his a** kicked during the French & Indian wars and historians tend not to mention that too loudly…
"Pjpaper, are you unaware that Hagel is nominated for a position in the US government, not the Israeli government, or are you unaware that US allies do not get a vote on who the US appoints to a position?" n nIt's amazing how irony is lost on some people.
Yes, TrollelA, it is truly amazing how irony is lost on some people. n nIf I wanted to state the obvious, I might point out that you are one of them, and that my repy to pjpaper employed an ironic device sometimes called 'missing the point on purpose' or 'pretending to miss the point', and that the final paragraph of my reply made that fact pretty obvious. And I might observe that pjpaper was employing not irony but sarcasm, name calling and not too subtle accusations of disloyalty (though more subtle than his Washington quote). n nAt the further risk of pointing out the obvious, it's amazing how often Obama and his cadres of TL's display Pudd'nhead Wilson syndrome — an unshakable belief that they are so much smarter than those they ridicule, even though the ridicule results from their lack of the common sense that would tell them what the targets of their ridicule were actually saying.
Finally, Gillibrand has a tough vote. nBut, Angus King actually IS an Independent. n nStill, the Armed Services Committee will vote to send Hagel's nomination for what should be an upand down vote, no filibuster. n ntoo much hysteria, and, yes, I emailed that to ECI.
Angus King is a former Democrat and as Governor of Maine tended to act like a Democrat.
well, this is their thing. the tip of the spear. if not now when, etc.
I think we need to give the crazies their head so they can own their own problems, mistakes and nominations on their own. This is Obama's guy we're constantly scolded. Fair enough. Give the crazies the crazy they demand. When the world burns down we will then demand a coherent explanation from Man-God Obama on why precisely burning the world down was a great idea. As it is, Obama is abandoning Israel, Taiwan and South Korea. But he's in love with Burma, Egypt, Hamas, Iran and obscure parts of sub Saharan Africa. Ok, so when the Biblical plagues come I for one would love to hear Obama's defense of that.
Do not underestimate Kelly Ayotte — she's the one that upset the Susan Rice applecart and she is too new to the Senate to have become collegial with Hagel. She may well pry something loose from him the way she apparently did from Rice and as Ms. Goodman's source notes, there is no margin of error on this one, one or two more things of significance coming out will push it overboard. n nI think the gay issue is what is going to do it — I'm not quite sure why, but there are some gay groups really opposed to Hagel and it does raise the question of exactly why they are.
Hagel’s defense consists of smoke and mirrors; regurgitation of the same lies. The issue is more about Obama, that he would invest his political capital to have this one particularly stinking bloke.
Just wondering,wasn't Bill Nelson just re-elected Senator from Florida, home to hundreds of thousands of (liberal) Jews? Do you think any of those dunces who voted for him realize that he is no better than other garden variety Democrats, ready to sell out israel in a jiffy if it helps Obama and the democratic party? Let's see how big that pretzel becomes as they try to wiggle out of this one!
Obama wanted this nomination so let the Democrats go on record as "Aye" before a single GOP vote is cast in committee. If I were a GOP'er and had some damaging info, and likely after his years with the GOP there is some dirt, I'd wait to air it till the committee Dems vote. Love to see Gillibrand vote "yes" then have to defend a "no" vote on the floor.
I hope the Senate will vote no to this terrible choice. n nHagel has no natural constituency, except perhaps for those who want a foreign and defense policy that is tougher on Israel and softer on Iran. n nThe very serious harm a Hagel confirmation would have on any chance of Iran settling peacefully in negotiations is certainly reason enough to vote no. n nIsrael would be clear that Obama views the Jewish state with hostility. Iran would be clear that it has nothing serious to fear from the Obama administration. n nNothing else can explain this odd nomination. Team Obama tried to couch it as a bipartisan act, inasmuch as Hagel was a Republican Senator. But key Republican Senators have made it clear that they don’t want Hagel at the Pentagon. Key Democrats have also failed to express enthusiasm over that prospect. If there’s a bipartisan consensus around Hagel, it’s that Obama should nominate someone else. n nTen out of twenty-five members of the nSenate Armed Services Committee, Democrats, Republicans and Independents, nhave already expressed their concerns about him. n nHis policies have been anti gay (even now after his late and self serving apology he doesn't support equal benefits for gay military families. n nthere are many ways a Secretary of Defense could help gay military families no matter how DOMA is decided and Hagel has not come out in favor of any of these. n nReports to the contrary, LGBT equality is not yet a done deal in the military. There is still the matter of partner benefits. There still remain a handful of regulations that could be revised independent of the Defense of Marriage act that could bring some equity of compensation and benefits to gay and lesbian service members. but remain denied due only to Department of Defense foot-dragging: n nIncluded in the discretionary benefits currently denied are spousal identification cards, and shopping at the PX, the former cited in the Pentagon's own Working Group study as not requiring DOMA repeal to deliver. n nHis remarks about the Jewish lobby having too much influence would be seen as bigoted if you substitute any other minority group's lobby. Try NAACP or La Raza and see how long you would be considered. n nWith a 11/100 rating from NAACP and admires Strom Thurmond as a great role model. anti Woman (vs choice and contraception) nBy contrast, he has a 100% rating from the NRA. n nOf course, you could also easily believe that he is not a bigot, just someone very right-wing on minority groups and nas Missouri's Senator has said doesn't mind stepping on other people's toes. n n
and n nHagel has drawn additional heat from insiders who claim he lacks the credentials needed to manage a department as large and essential as the Pentagon. n n“Yes, Hagel has crazy positions on several key issues. Yes, Hagel has said things that are borderline anti-Semitism. But above all, he’s not a nice person and he’s bad to his staff,” said a senior Senate aide who has close ties to former Hagel staffers. n n“Hagel was known for turning over staff every few weeks—within a year’s time he could have an entirely new office because nobody wanted to work for him,” said the source. “You have to wonder how a man who couldn’t run a Senate office is going to be able to run an entire bureaucracy.” n nOthers familiar with Hagel’s 12 year tenure in the Senate said he routinely intimidated staff and experienced frequent turnover. n n“Chuck Hagel may have been collegial to his Senate colleagues but he was the Cornhusker wears Prada to his staff, some of whom describe their former boss as perhaps the most paranoid and abusive in the Senate, one who would rifle through staffers desks and berate them for imagined disloyalty,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq. “He might get away with that when it comes to staffers in their 20s, but that sort of personality is going to go over like a ton of bricks at the Pentagon.” n nMultiple sources corroborated this view of Hagel. n n“As a manager, he was angry, accusatory, petulant,” said one source familiar with his work on Capitol Hill. “He couldn’t keep his staff.” n n“I remember him accusing one of his staffers of being ‘f—ing stupid’ to his face,” recalled the source n nSources expressed concern about such behavior should Hagel be nominated for the defense post. With competing military and civilian interests vying for supremacy, the department requires a skilled manager, sources said. n n“The Pentagon requires strong civilian control,” a senior aide to a former Secretary of Defense told the Free Beacon. “It’s already swung back in favor of the military over the past five years. A new secretary of defense should push it back in its rightful place, but it’s doubtful Hagel would be that guy.” n n“It’s not clear that [Hagel] has the standing, the managerial prowess, or the willingness to gore some oxen,” said the source. n nOne senior official warned that Hagel is ill informed about many critical foreign policy matters. n n“He’s not someone who’s shown a lot of expertise on these issues,” said the source, referencing a recent Washington Post editorial excoriating Hagel’s record. “That [op-ed] was extraordinary.” n n“Only in Washington,” the official added, “can someone like [Hagel] be seen as a heavy weight. He’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer.” n nHagel’s reluctance to chastise Iran also remains a central concern. n nAs chief of the Pentagon it is expected he would avoid planning for a military intervention should Tehran refuse to end its clandestine nuclear enrichment program. n n“The military brass is already reluctant to offer up any military options on Iran even though it’s their job to have something on the books and to leave the options of the commander in chief open,” said the aide. “Hagel will only reinforce these worrisome tendencies.” n n“Chances are he’ll view any legitimate effort to talk about military options with Iran as some plot by the ‘Israel Lobby’ to box him in,” the source said. n nThere is no reason to believe his appointment would change Israeli policies except maybe pushing Israel towards an attack on Iran. n nAs one Mossad head has said Israel cannot live every day wondering if the Iranians are crazy enough to drop na nuclear bomb on Israel that day. n nBut there is a very strong likelihood that it would be a fatal blow to the chances of a negotiated settlement with Iran. n nIran would have to conclude that it doesn't have to fear finishing it's nuclear weapons program. In time if it doesn't start a nuclear war it will end up continuing towards ICBM's pointing at America. n nOther issues like massively cutting the Pentagon's budget, and how to nwithdraw from Afghanistan, could be handeled better nwith someone with nmore mangerial experience. n nDemocratic senators, several of whom have already voiced concern, should vote no on someone who's views on many major issues are opposite of the President's and who's language is not compatible with an effective manager, and instead insist he appoint a better person like Michelle Flournoy. n nFlournoy closely mirrors the previous stated policies of the President, the Democratic Party, and the American people.