It seems to me the Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing for Chuck Hagel yesterday was looked upon as a credentials-burnishing and grandstanding opportunity, at least by the Republican Senators, rather than a serious attempt to determine whether he is qualified to run the Department of Defense. Why do I say that? Take heed of this:
At Hagel hearing, 136 mentions of Israel and 135 of Iran. Only 27 refs to Afghanistan. 2 for Al Qaida. 1 for Mali.
— Rajiv Chandrasekaran (@rajivwashpost) January 31, 2013
It seems to me that most of those questions, at least the ones about Israel and Iran, should more logically have been directed to John Kerry during his hearing last week for the job of Secretary of State. It’s that department which formulates foreign policy in conjunction with the President; the Department of Defense executes the military side of that foreign policy but doesn’t make it. It advises State and the Executive Branch about capabilities, but it’s a staff position without line responsibility for policy. Wars, now — Afghanistan is still a hot war with US fighters participating and Mali is a hot spot where USAF planes and crews are helping with logistics.
Show me that Senators Cruz, Graham and Inhofe were serious about their questions rather than just trying to score points with various constituencies.
They were trying to score points, of course. Hagel ticked them off back in the day, and they haven’t forgiven him for it, even though (or especially) subsequent events in Iraq suggest that he was dead right. I heard the exchange with John McCain and he sounded so childish that I actually wondered if he was becoming senile (as we used to call dementia)…
I tried to post a comment about the scoring points with constituencies on the other blog post, but it looks like it didn’t post.
???
Well, hopefully this one I won’t put anything in it that will delegate it to the spam trash. :o(
I see you have your dander up a lot about politicians playing to their audience. And yeah, I mean I understand that.
But could it not also be that they’re also crazy and really believe the things they say, and like saying them, and really think all sorts of B.S. is really important… because maybe they’re not logical people?
Just saying, I wonder about these things.
I’m sure that’s true of some of them. McCain, for example, is still furious that he lost to Obama in 2008 and took that anger out on his former friend Hagel. Cruz is a true believer in the Tea Party nonsense. Lindsey Graham is playing to a crowd at home in hopes they won’t run someone to his right in the primary in 2014.
I get that Graham might have serious issues of being contested by a tea party deluge.
But what makes it apparent to you that that really is the only thing behind his nonsense?
I have to say, it’s hard to really decipher anything about him… And maybe that is because he’s always been in that position?
Take for instance some politicians that are from my area (NE PA)…
Arlen Specter was (I think he died last year) one politician that totally flip flopped around (even jumping parties back & forth) for years. You never could figure what he really thought.
Some thought he was a moderate. But a true moderate might cross party lines to vote on issues in a particular way… but do they change their view from year to year on the same issues?
Then there’s Rick Santorum. OMG!
The man is sure a nutball I think.
BUT, I really think it’s over 50% playing to a fringe audience. Though in his case I don’t think there was a serious tea party threat, so much as he just wasn’t going to get any attention any other way. I think he would be called an attention seeker playing to an audience. He got votes from various quarters by calling attention to himself with extreme statements.
Glad to be rid of him.
Then we come to my US representative in Congress.
LOU BARLETTA!!
I do NOT believe he does or says much to gain political support in the area of fringe.
Because he often does things that would not appeal to them. Sometimes he does things that wouldn’t appeal to Republicans in general.
But as a Republican of course, I don’t think that overall, comprehensively, he’s a particularly extreme Republican, ironically.
But he has a very fixated obsession with immigration.
And that paints him as an extremist of course – because he is extreme about immigration!
It’s not a put on, and I think he’d pursue the issue even with no support at all. Seems personal with him.
Actually one of my sad hopes has been that if I write to him enough (and maybe if others do), regarding other important issues – that maybe he’ll bend on those other issues if he thinks there’s enough support for not going with the Republicans. (He did vote yes on the fiscal cliff deal.)
I think this is possible because I honestly think that he may do that, because the only issue that’s truly important to him is immigrants.