A couple of months ago when Bobby Jindal called the Republican's the party of stupid, I though, "Hey, someone gets it, maybe there really will be some change in the Republican ranks."

But what's going on with Chuck Hagel shows us the Party of Stupid is alive and well. The guy is a life-long Republican, veteran, former Senator. What does that mean to the current crop of Republicans? Absolutely nothing. They'd just as soon eat him; he's just fuel for their Fox News sound bites.

I agree that a few Republicans have been out of line, but I heard a little bit of McCain on the radio and his view seemed very reasonable to me. Many commentators (on both sides) agree that Hagel came accross as not very knowledgeable at the hearings. I'm not particularly concerned about the anti-Israel comments, but he is a dove on Iran and that does send the wrong signal at this particular time. I do like the fact that Hagel would willingly cut the defense budget.

By the way, so what that he is a former veteran. That's good, but it doesn't mean he is qualified to be defense secretary. Also, party registration and being a senator are also not necessarily qualifications for a particular job.

So George, should they simply give a nod of approval to whoever is nominated and keep their mouths shut on those they do not approve of? John Kerry went through with only mild complaints, so it's not like they are simply trying to stonewall any and every nomination now are they (as you seem to indicate). Yes they kept Susan Rice out, do you think that was wrong as well or was she just a pawn of "stupid"? do you really think she belonged? (and how smart of a nomination was she for Obama to make? Why no heat for dumb nominations???) And Democrats wouldn't do this sort of thing would they? (remember how Condoleezza Rice just squeeked by because of Democrats who refused to vote for her due to the Bush administrations failures on the war on terrorism? How about how they attempted to keep Clarence Thomas from the Supreme Court? Yeah, this is a Republican only issue isn't it? How quickly people forget!?

It is hard to believe that in the 21st century in the most powerful country on earth that opposition to the selection of a defense secretary is being driven by catering to the beliefs of evangelical Christians who support Israel because Israelii control of the Holy Land is a necessary step toward the end times.

What is your point Freeman2? Are you espousing the removal of Israel as a nation? Perhaps you are just copying Maher...

Hagel to me is not Defense Secretary material no because he said stupid things about Israel, but because his nomination hearing was a nightmare.

His nomination hearing was a job interview. His past military experience, government experience and personal life are all resume items. His job interview was without doubt, one of the worst. That is undeniable.

If anyone has the believe that they would get a job after such a horrid interview, then why have an interview at all? Let's just go on the facts in the resume then.

Face it, he blew it. Move on with another pick. Perhaps McCain. Isn't he more of a decorated combat veteran, his government experience is greater, and he is liberal. Why not? Let's see if he can make the interview.

(Plus it would get him out of the Senate and perhaps we can get a Conservative in his place)

I'm sorry, Brad, where in the heck did you infer that I somehow supported Israel's removal as a nation? Seriously, that's offensive. I have always supported Israel, though I think I try to be fair to the Arab point if view ,(though I am probably still biased in favor of Israel because their culture, politics , etc is more similar to ours).Please be more careful about reading into things that aren't there, particularly when the inference is so awful. In effect, you are creating a straw man by making extreme inferences that aren't there.

freeman2 wrote:I'm sorry, Brad, where in the heck did you infer that I somehow supported Israel's removal as a nation? Seriously, that's offensive. I have always supported Israel, though I think I try to be fair to the Arab point if view ,(though I am probably still biased in favor of Israel because their culture, politics , etc is more similar to ours).Please be more careful about reading into things that aren't there, particularly when the inference is so awful. In effect, you are creating a straw man by making extreme inferences that aren't there.

I think Brad did create a strawman, but so did you by saying that the only reason people oppose Hagel is that he appears anti-Israel. The opposition voiced so far on these pages concerns his hearing performance and his previous comments on Iran. The left wing is painting a strawman when they suggest this is all about the Israeli lobby.

sounded that way to me as well!
I would suggest you also be more careful in how you state something if you are so sensitive to the repercussions of what was said. You did say his confirmation was "being driven by catering to the beliefs of evangelical Christians who support Israel..." that sure sounds like an anti-Israeli position to me. And fyi, I would also claim your statement is off base regarding evangelical Christians, this was NOT a religious position, simply one of opposing someone who is not a very wise choice.

What exactly did Brad mean by asking whether I called for the removal of Israel as a nation? Genocide? All I did was point out how unbelievable it was that opposition to Hagel was motivated (at least in part) by catering to a significant part of the Republican base that believes that the end times are near.The Republicans were out to get Hagel before the hearings, so whatever happened during the hearing is not relevant for determining what motivated Republican opposition in the first place.
I am tired of hearing Senator McCain pontificate on anything. We're grateful that he fought for our country and endured so much in captivity. But I see nothing to indicate that he has demonstrated any great expertise in foreign policy. Right now, he just seems to want to remain in the public eye.

But Hagel indeed seems to be a bad choice, based on his nomination interviews anyways and should that not be a part of what determines his acceptance? or are we to simply rubber stamp anything Obama puts forward? Why is it when Obama is thwarted, it's a Republican evil tactic but when Dems did so it was perfectly acceptable? That whole Clarence Thomas issue was a complete Democratic sham attempting to discredit a fine candidate. Condolezza did a fine job and was perfectly qualified but she was a target of Democrat slander. Here we have what appears to be a bad candidate and it's a Republican issue??? It's a Evangelical issue? The "Conservative's" are blocking him, not the "Evangelicals"

I meant no offense, but I did not know what that had to do with ANYTHING that was written here before. The only place I had seen that was on Bill Maher's show.

I made my point clearly about why I oppose Hagel. It has NOTHING to do with religion.

To be clear, I don't think Hagel did well in the hearings, and a reasonable person might not vote to confirm because they don't think he's qualified, but what I'm talking about is the how you do it. You don't inflict cheap shots on one of your own, and I think McCain and Graham threw a few of those, but nothing compared to this ass Cruz:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50828649/

Party of Stupid!

yes;

Do you see the news media as complicit in this? The focus is now on Cruz where it really should be on Hagel. The Republicans exacerbate this trend for sure. But why aren't we focusing on the quality of the nominee instead of the side show?

Make note of Cruz, fine. But as stated, the real news is Hagel and that is not even glossed over but rather ignored completely, so let's instead focus on Marco Rubio drinking water? Fox is conservative in it's commentary but the rest of the MSM media is so blatantly liberal it's hard to believe most Americans simply don't realize it. Not a party of stupid but rather a nation of stupid!

I'm interested to hear your views on why the Republicans are behaving this way. Hagel is after all one of their own, so it's rather surprising they'd choose to go after him so aggressively. Is it just an attempt to punish anybody from their camp who might be willing to work with Obama ? I realise they didn't try the same with Gates, but that wouldn't have been very plausible since he was continuing in a post they'd already confirmed him in once.