Republicans don’t seem to be retreating from the battle over Chuck Hagel. Senator James Inhofe, the new ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has added his name to the list of Republicans opposing the defense secretary nominee. The question is, how far will the party be willing to go on this fight? There are other nominations it has an interest in fighting, including Jack Lew for treasury secretary, John Kerry for secretary of state, and John Brennan for CIA chief. In the end, it will only be able to choose a couple to focus on.
The point of battling Lew wouldn’t necessarily be to prevent his confirmation outright, because there is no indication that Obama would choose someone preferable. But threatening a fight could help bring attention to policy differences between the GOP and the White House, and hold Lew accountable for his slippery relationship with the truth.
Brennan is a different story. Republicans don’t necessarily have a problem with his nomination, but they want to block him primarily as leverage to uncover more information about Benghazi. This is less defensible than blocking a nominee because of concerns over competency, temperament, policy differences, etc. Democrats will frame it as political gamesmanship, and they will have a point.
There have been some rumblings about opposing Kerry, but none serious and he’s expected to get through easily.
At this point, the Hagel fight appears to be the most winnable one for Republicans. The fact that he disavowed his past positions suggests the White House realizes the political risks of having a big, public debate over Middle East and Iran policy. Senate Democrats seem willing to support Hagel, but are they really willing to fight for him? Not just during the confirmation hearings, but also if his confirmation ends up getting blocked? I can’t imagine they want this debate either, which, for Republicans, may be all the more reason to go ahead with it.
Thanks, Charelston. An awesome column by an always awesome writer. Here's another part that I liked: n n"Oh, and one last thing, if you are an American Jew and trying to figure out who to contribute your money to, here's a good litmus test: Hagel. Is organization X (say, for instance, AIPAC), voicing opposition to Hagel or are they supporting him, or are they sitting on the fence? If it's one of the latter two, tear up the check. n n nAnd no, this doesn't contradict my point about Israel not being the problem with Hagel. He is an anti-Semite. And for American Jewish groups to remain silent about his appointment is worse than irresponsible. It is treacherous. My point about Hagel being anti-American is that the groups that should be leading the campaign against him are the American Legion and the Veterans' of Foreign Wars not AIPAC and the ADL, not that AIPAC and the ADL should be silent. " n
I have been saying for some time that this is about America and not Israel… n
Maybe the better approach would be for Republicans to sit these fights out, and say, "Apparently President Obama feels that white men are best suited to run the country," and let the Left fight the President instead.
John Kerry is going to get a visceral opposition from the Vietnam Vets and I don't just mean the Swift Boat crew. He was with Hanoi Jane (Fonda) in some of the stuff, he said some stuff at the Winter Soldier hearings, n nThe Republicans will pick their fights — but I would worry about some of the Dems on Kerry — and then you might see some issues from the feminists as there were some issues in his first divorce and he now is largely a product of the Heinz fortune, having married the widow. There are a lot of states that vote Democrat but would have issues with Kerry on the war issue. n
I sure hope so
There is another big sleeper in all of this — Obama's new proposal to have Doctors inquire about guns in the home. Is this going to be an expansion of the domestic violence interrogation that the Joint Commission already requires medical professionals to subject patients to? n nAnyone who has had to go to a hospital emergency room recently with any form of traumatic injury — regardless of the cause and no matter how painful — has had to endure the questioning before they would do anything to abate the pain (which technically constitutes "torture" but I digress). n nI had gone to the ER with a workplace injury, in avoiding falling down them, I had twistted an ankle on a defective stair case. I was the inspector, I was already writing the letter to the landlord in my head and wisely edited out the "Fire & Brimstone" from what I actually sent him — but I had told the triage nurse exactly what had happened, where, and in what context — and had already given her one of my business cards because this was workers comp and I had said that. n nShe went into a series of open-ended questions about my "home life" that become (and likely are designed to be) endlessly frustrating when you are in pain. It got to the point where I bluntly stated: "Look, this happened because of a defective staircase – a staircase in violation of 105 CMR 410.600 and everything else I can think of between now and tomorrow morning — now why are you asking these questions?" She was a kindly older nurse and apologetically said that the Joint Commission requires them to inquire about domestic violence of everyone who comes into the ER, even if they personally have no doubt that it isn't domestic violence. And I still had to reveal my living situation, intimate personal life and everything else before she would do anything about the pain. n nSuch a question is not as innocent as it may sound….
Excellent reference to the inestimable Caroline Glick, whom Commentary should hire forthwith as their Israel expert so they will no longer write nonsensical and fantasy posts about the possibilities of a two-state final solution or a future "Palestinian" democracy.
I'd love to see her here but she has stopped writing columns for the JPost while she finishes writing her book — which I trust will be invaluable and will be the perfect gift to be appreciated by the knowledgeable and indispensable to give to the ignorant.
EPA and SecInterior are going to be far more important confirmation 'battles', in terms of whether anyone in America will still have any real job by 2016. n nI am surprised that Commentary keeps giving Jack Lew a pass. He is not qualified to be SecTreas. n
No, I think that Alana Goodman pointed out the objections to Jack Lew in a fairly objective manner. Add to what she wrote — please do — but she at least established a basis for not wanting him in that position… n..
Hagel's about-face has been seriously misunderstood by the Israel lobby. n nThis much is correct: it is proof that the lobby can get someone to change their public positions. n nBut it is much more than that. What it reflects more deeply is that the public strongly roots for Hagel, but understands that he must lie during the confirmation process to placate the lobby. The public supports and forgives this. And Hagel knows it. n nHe also knows that Obama and many legislators are equally understanding, although, amid the same environment, they cannot say so openly. This deep-seated support explains why so may are eager to "accept" his "retractions." This is why even many Republicans, except for a few diehards (blowhards?) will put up little more than token resistance. All these people loathe the Israel lobby, and if the first steps toward throwing off its yoke has to involve deception, so be it. It is patriotic deception, much like that aimed at a foreign enemy in wartime. n nThe public is sick of the Israel Lobby's "blame America first" rhetoric that blames America for everything that Iran does and everything that's wrong in the middle east, despite the massive yearly gifts from the American people to Israel. The public is sick of the "Israel First" position that insists that America must defer to Israel's desires at its own expense at every juncture of history. n nThe good news is that even at this late stage in the game, it is still possible to secure Israel's safety and interests through HONEST means.
Your post is very hateful and makes the assumption that your views represent the views of a majority of Americans. A majority of those who voted for Obama, maybe. But a solid majority of Americans, no. Americans are not fond of being pushed around by countries like Iran, or Russia for that matter. They do not blame America first. They Blame Obama first. Not the same thing.
"Blame America First" is the same charge routinely hurled at non-interventionists or realists, who could easily make the same counterargument: "No, I'm just blaming Bush, Clinton," etc., though that doesn't stop the charge from flying.
That does not change the hateful tone of your post by a single iota.
Weren't you the one that started out accusing me of anti-Semitism on another page for no reason? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. People who are routinely and baselessly smeared as anti-Semites, Blame-America-Firsters, etc., are not going to create posts full of love in the same environment where they received the smears. At least I did not launch ad hominem attacks on any particular person in my post, unlike some of your past posts.
You have the wrong dude. Never accused you of anything.
Sorry. You were the one that I was actually able to have a reasonable conversation with. I confused you with the other guy. n nIf everyone on this site were like you, I would speak much less coldly in my posts. Unfortunately, most people are like the other guy(s). I have been punched in the face physically by a right-wing Israel supporter.
If everyone, like you, who has trouble with Israeli policy at least acknowledge their uniquely tough situation and offered constructive advice instead of calling Israel supporters unpatriotic and worse, maybe you'd get more civil responses in return.
Believe me, I have tried to do what you say numerous times, I usually just get the same response. That I am an anti-Semite. I might get that response 2/3 of the time instead of 4/5 of the time. I'm sorry but that's the way it is. The Israel Firster, racist accusations were NEVER part of my vocabulary until I realized that getting called an anti-semite was just standard procedure. You have seen the way I spoke to you personally on the other web page. It used to be the way I spoke to everyone. In fact, I was nicer. n nYou don't believe me? Or perhaps my own memory is foggy? If you want, we can do an experiment right here. I can start again from scratch, pretend the past insults never happened, and just speak politely. Watch what happens. If you don't feel like following my posts to watch what happens, you can probably just check up on them at some later point. n nIf you want just a quick taste of what I'm talking about, examine the way even my mild statements during my conversation with you triggered the out-of-control rage of commenters like "Best2012." He is hardly an exception. But perhaps it's not the best example because I started the page with an angry statement about hypocrisy, which could have colored people's attitudes toward me.