Rand Paul votes YEA on Confirming Hagel

[Cowlesy]

What a neo-con that Rand Paul guy is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/sarc


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/rand-paul-votes-to-confirm-hagel/

[Bastiat's The Law]

Well played.

[FrankRep]

That's going to hurt his nomination chances.

Such a shame.

[Bastiat's The Law]

That's going to hurt his nomination chances.

Such a shame.
Nobody will care. Have you ever heard of an election turning on a confirmation vote?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

That's going to hurt his nomination chances.

Such a shame.

:rolleyes:

Can you think of the last time a President's cabinet appointment mattered in a presidential primary, the other party's primary no less? Romney didn't even make issue of Holder.

[Brett85]

I guess this vote would help Rand in a general election, but will definitely hurt him in the GOP primary. I guess he just decided to do the principled thing even though it will kill his chances to win the GOP nomination in 2016.

[presence]

Senator Paul had said he believes in giving the president a fair amount of leeway in choosing his cabinet, and this vote is certainly consistent with that.



This shithead is as good as any shithead you'd choose.

[FrankRep]

Nobody will care. Have you ever heard of an election turning on a confirmation vote?

The conservatives will make this vote will known and refer back to it often.

[coastie]

I guess this vote would help Rand in a general election, but will definitely hurt him in the GOP primary. I guess he just decided to do the principled thing even though it will kill his chances to win the GOP nomination in 2016.


I'm not sure voting YEA to confirm someone who obviously believes he can use drones on the American public is very principled.

[Brett85]

I'm not sure voting YEA to confirm someone who obviously believes he can use drones on the American public is very principled.

I thought it was Brennan who believed that?

[Brett85]

Rand is already getting called a "Jew Hater" on the free republic.

[FrankRep]

I guess this vote would help Rand in a general election, but will definitely hurt him in the GOP primary. I guess he just decided to do the principled thing even though it will kill his chances to win the GOP nomination in 2016.

Getting through the GOP will be the tricky part. Rand put his head on the chopping block by being one of the very few Republicans to vote yes.

[Athan]

but will definitely hurt him in the GOP primary.

Doubtful. This is nothing like trying to grab a water bottle.

[supermario21]

Ken Gardner ‏@kesgardner
The winning 2016 GOP candidate would be some combination of Rand Paul on domestic policy, Reagan on defense, John Bolton on foreign policy.



Josh Bernstein ‏@jbc230mb
Rand Paul just voted to send a jew hating liberal Republican to become Defense Secretary. I guess we will need to find another person 4 2016


Doing a Rand Paul search on twitter reveals the most hilarious comments ever.


I didn't know voting against Medicare Part D and NCLB were liberal positions...

[ronpaulfollower999]

He voted Kerry for SoS. He's basically said he'll vote to confirm whoever the Prez nominates.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Not good.

[Brett85]

Not good.

Aren't you the guy who was openly anti Israel in the Israel thread that's in Hot Topics?

[Cowlesy]

The conservatives will make this vote will known and refer back to it often.

And 90% of those folks we probably wouldn't even classify as "conservative."

Let them squeal and cry all they want.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Aren't you the guy who was openly anti Israel in the Israel thread that's in Hot Topics?

What does that have to do with anything? Hagel isn't anti-Israel.

[presence]

Aren't you the guy who was openly anti Israel in the Israel thread that's in Hot Topics?



there were 42 of us last I counted...

I said:


Israel is a greater threat to world peace than North Korea, Syria, and Iran combined.

before adding 10 posts of infographics...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405536-The-final-opinion-on-Israel/page33

[Brett85]

What does that have to do with anything? Hagel isn't anti-Israel.

He's made all of the exact same comments about Israel that people here have made.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The conservatives will make this vote will known and refer back to it often.

Yeah, yeah, and McCain will never win the GOP presidential nomination because of his support for amnesty, and Romney will never win because of Romneycare. Both of which are about 1,000 times a bigger deal than Chuck Hagel.

[presence]

And 90% of those folks we probably wouldn't even classify as "conservative."

Let them squeal and cry all they want.



My expectation is that less than 2% of US voters could place Hagel's name on his picture.

[FrankRep]

And 90% of those folks we probably wouldn't even classify as "conservative."

Let them squeal and cry all they want.

Those technicalities won't matter when he loses the GOP nomination.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I guess this vote would help Rand in a general election, but will definitely hurt him in the GOP primary. I guess he just decided to do the principled thing even though it will kill his chances to win the GOP nomination in 2016.
Calm down and Paul on.

http://cdn.ientry.com/sites/webpronews/pictures/randpaulbookshelf_616.jpg

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

He's made all of the exact same comments about Israel that people here have made.

I don't think I've ever seen Hagel say Israel is a terrorist apartheid state (the truth).
I don't think I've ever seen Hagel say Israel should stop building illegal settlements.
I don't think I've ever seen Hagel say Israel shouldn't use white phosphorus chemical weapons on Gazan civilians.
I don't think I've ever seen Hagel say Israel should stop illegally occupying Syrian and Lebanese land.
I don't think I've ever seen Hagel say we should cut foreign aid to Israel.

Hagel isn't anti-Israel at all. He's not not pro-Israel enough for some.

[FrankRep]

Yeah, yeah, and McCain will never win the GOP presidential nomination because of his support for amnesty, and Romney will never win because of Romneycare. Both of which are about 1,000 times a bigger deal than Chuck Hagel.

McCain and Romney are establishment, Rand Paul is not. World of difference.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Yeah, yeah, and McCain will never win the GOP presidential nomination because of his support for amnesty, and Romney will never win because of Romneycare. Both of which are about 1,000 times a bigger deal than Chuck Hagel.
Perspective; let's embrace it together :D

[Bastiat's The Law]

McCain and Romney are establishment, Rand Paul is not. World of difference.
That's why Rand will succeed where they failed.

[FrankRep]

That's why Rand will succeed where they failed.

Not according to history.

[No Free Beer]

Go ahead and read what Glenn Beck's crows is saying.

Not good.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/hagel-confirmed-as-defense-secretary-by-u-s-senate/

[Brian4Liberty]

Mark Levin just complained about Rand on this vote. Singled him out. He added that "libertarians" don't follow the Constitution.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

This was an idiotic vote on Rand's part.

[Cowlesy]

Mark Levin just complained about Rand on this vote. Singled him out. He added that "libertarians" don't follow the Constitution.

Shocker. Shocker.

:P

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Mark Levin just complained about Rand on this vote. Singled him out. He added that "libertarians" don't follow the Constitution.

Oh my God...

You listen to Levin?

[Brett85]

Go ahead and read what Glenn Beck's crows is saying.

Not good.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/hagel-confirmed-as-defense-secretary-by-u-s-senate/

I think it's pretty clear that Beck's support of Rand will end effective tomorrow.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I think it's pretty clear that Beck's support of Rand will end effective tomorrow.

Another Beck-stabbing?

[matt0611]

I think it's pretty clear that Beck's support of Rand will end effective tomorrow.

LOL yeah probably.

I'm already seeing a bunch of "conservatives" attacking Rand for this on twitter etc

Can't believe how people write people off over one vote one way or another, this goes for both sides.

It depresses me.

[No Free Beer]

I think it's pretty clear that Beck's support of Rand will end effective tomorrow.

See, I don't think so.

He will have Rand on tomorrow and Rand will say, "listen, I don't agree with Hagel, I wanted to see more info on him, but I do think the President, more or less, should have power to pick his cabinet members." And everything will get cleared.

You must realize, Glenn Beck has (once again) re-branded himself. This time as a libertarian. He realizes that the younger generation, who consider themselves either conservatives or libertarians, are the future of the GOP. He wants to be a part of that. I don't think he will throw that away on just one vote.

Hell, he said on O'Reilly that he hasn't made up his mind on Rubio yet. Let me remind you, Rubio voted FOR NDAA and Beck BASHED him for it.

I think Rand will, in the long run, be fine.

As of right now, it's not good.

[supermario21]

4 GOP ayes did not seal the deal. It was sealed when cloture was invoked this morning with what, 17 Republicans. And Rand was not one of them.

[No Free Beer]

LOL yeah probably.

I'm already seeing a bunch of "conservatives" attacking Rand for this on twitter etc

Can't believe how people write people off over one vote one way or another, this goes for both sides.

It depresses me.

It's the media being the media.

With this type of attitude, our country is going down the drain. Both sides have gotten so polarized that they're not letting their politicians do their jobs anymore.

[KingNothing]

Per procedure and law, Rand did the right thing. This is totally consistent with his M.O. in Washington. Good for him for sticking to this.

[klamath]

Not according to history.
By all history Obama should have lost.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I'm already seeing a bunch of "conservatives" attacking Rand for this on twitter etc

Internet noise is just noise. If you believed it, you'd have thought Ron Paul would win in a landslide in 2008, that 'Snakes on a Plane' would be a blockbuster success and that Rand Paul was toast over his Civil Rights comments on Maddow's show in May 2010.

[thoughtomator]

That's going to hurt his nomination chances.

Such a shame.

Some perspective, please. In the rogue's gallery of the Obama administration, Hagel doesn't even make the second team.

[ronpaulfollower999]

This was an idiotic vote on Rand's part.

I didn't think you'd ever question Rand. Honestly, I see why he made the vote.

[anaconda]

This will not "hurt" Rand Paul one iota.

[ronpaulfollower999]

I think it's pretty clear that Beck's support of Rand will end effective tomorrow.

Damn. Guess I'll change my avatar now that Beckfest is over. :(

[ronpaulfollower999]

He will have Rand on tomorrow and Rand will say, "listen, I don't agree with Hagel, I wanted to see more info on him, but I do think the President, more or less, should have power to pick his cabinet members." And everything will get cleared.


Bingo. Rand has basically said, to the ire of Limbaugh, that he'll let Obama fall on his own sword.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Rand Paul: Obama has prerogative on appointees
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405667-Rand-Paul-Obama-has-prerogative-on-appointees)

[Brian4Liberty]

The conservatives will make this vote will known and refer back to it often.

You mean the Israel before USA crowd.


Oh my God...

You listen to Levin?

"I was told that I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to five..." ;)


4 GOP ayes did not seal the deal. It was sealed when cloture was invoked this morning with what, 17 Republicans. And Rand was not one of them.

Yep. Who were those 17? That sealed the deal, not the final vote.

[FrankRep]

Another Beck-stabbing?
Rand Paul shot himself in the foot. Glenn Beck has every right to denounce him.

[pcosmar]

Rand Paul shot himself in the foot. Glenn Beck has every right to denounce him.
Glenn Beck is a damn fool and so is anyone that listens to him.

btw,, Israel is back to beating the War Drums,, and Gas prices are climbing again.
Will go through the roof when they actually Attack Iran.

:(
.

[FrankRep]

Okay, I'm done complaining about it. These are the cards we are dealt.

I'm willing to fight the uphill battle against Rand's new opposition.

[Giuliani was there on 911]

I don't think I've ever seen Hagel say Israel is a terrorist apartheid state (the truth).
I don't think I've ever seen Hagel say Israel should stop building illegal settlements.
I don't think I've ever seen Hagel say Israel shouldn't use white phosphorus chemical weapons on Gazan civilians.
I don't think I've ever seen Hagel say Israel should stop illegally occupying Syrian and Lebanese land.
I don't think I've ever seen Hagel say we should cut foreign aid to Israel.

Hagel isn't anti-Israel at all. He's not not pro-Israel enough for some.

just being neutral makes you anti-israel by default

[cajuncocoa]

Rand took a principled stand tonight and people are freaking out. Good grief.

[EBounding]

When people notice that Israel still hasn't fallen into the sea 3 years from now, they won't really care about this and will want a Republican that can win.

[doremedia]

I am glad Rand Paul voted for Hagel and stood up to AIPAC. I do see conservatives I know writing him off...but hopefully he gained some libertarians he lost. :)

[AuH20]

This isn't a big deal. Relax.

[AuH20]

Go ahead and read what Glenn Beck's crows is saying.

Not good.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/hagel-confirmed-as-defense-secretary-by-u-s-senate/

Those people have lost their mnds. Hagel is a subpar choice but what do you expect him to do??

[Origanalist]

Neo cons are going nuts.

[AuH20]

Am I the only person perplexed by this entire hysteria???? And this applies to the Raimando Daily Pauliacs as well as the Israel Firsters???????????? How is this such a big deal when the country is unraveling before our very eyes??? Can someone explain to how this is an ultra important issue?????

[Origanalist]

Am I the only person perplexed by this entire hysteria???? And this applies to the Raimando Daily Pauliacs as well as the Israel Firsters???????????? How is this such a big deal when the country is unraveling before our very eyes??? Can someone explain to how this is an ultra important issues?????

No, I can't. But the neo cons are still going nuts....:). I'm not any kind of a fan of Mr. Hagel, but it's fun to watch. I hope it doesn't bite him in the ass further on down the road.
(Rand Paul that is)

[AuH20]

His facebook is under attack. WOW!!!!! Too many extreme pro military and Israeli firsters. Seriously. Let's say Hagel was discarded. You're probably going to get someone worse. This is Obama's choice, not necessarily yours.

[AuH20]

I will say this. Because of Ron's jaded history of clumsy comments, Rand is not getting the benefit of the doubt. That's the real travesty in all this. The sins of the father are being visited upon him.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I will say this. Because of Ron's jaded history of clumsy comments, Rand is not getting the benefit of the doubt. That's the real travesty in all this. The sins of the father are being visited upon him.

This one is all on Rand. He put his foot in the Cruz/Israel first water, jabbed libertarians and realists by strawmanning their positions, and then ultimately voted to confirm Hagel. Daniel Larison put it best: Rand managed to handle these votes and statements in a way that maximized annoyance with him from every side. If you're going to piss off your base, you better gain something from another base to make up for it.

In short, Rand was trying to play chess and got caught playing checkers.

[AuH20]

This one is all on Rand. He put his foot in the Cruz/Israel first water, jabbed libertarians and realists by strawmanning their positions, and then ultimately voted to confirm Hagel. Daniel Larison put it best: Rand managed to handle these votes and statements in a way that maximized annoyance with him from every side. If you're going to piss off your base, you better gain something from another base to make up for it.

In short, Rand was trying to play chess and got caught playing checkers.

I actually believe he is a pragmatist at heart, despite being Ron Paul's clone philosophically. I don't think this was done deliberately to appease one group or another. It's just that you have two crazed groups with little temperance or perspective fueled almost exclusively by emotion. That's the real problem. Both sides have been making mountains out of mole hills with this entire Hagel confirmation.

[tsai3904]

This one is all on Rand. He put his foot in the Cruz/Israel first water, jabbed libertarians and realists by strawmanning their positions, and then ultimately voted to confirm Hagel. Daniel Larison put it best: Rand managed to handle these votes and statements in a way that maximized annoyance with him from every side. If you're going to piss off your base, you better gain something from another base to make up for it.

In short, Rand was trying to play chess and got caught playing checkers.

Actually, it seems like some people spend too much time over-analyzing things.

Rand said from the beginning that the President has the prerogative to pick his Cabinet members. From day one, everyone should have assumed he will vote to confirm Hagel after he voted for Kerry.

The cloture votes were procedural and political in terms of getting support for his filibuster of Brennan, which Rand stated many times. Cloture votes don't really mean much as evidenced by McCain/Graham's vote for cloture but against nomination. However, for some reason, everyone wants to over analyze what cloture votes should represent.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I actually believe he is a pragmatist at heart, despite being Ron Paul's clone philosophically. I don't think this was done deliberately to appease one group or another. It's just that you have two crazed groups with little temperance or perspective fueled almost exclusively by emotion. That's the real problem. Both sides have been making mountains out of mole hills with this entire Hagel confirmation.

It would have been simple to play both sides on this one: don't vote for filibuster (deference for president's cabinet choices, meshes with his earlier statements), ignore the Cruz line of attack (this is part of what annoyed libertarians most), speak against Hagel as Secretary of Defense because of his voting record (would score points for playing with the team and opposing Hagel, and libertarians wouldn't have been upset by rejecting Hagel based on his record), then ultimately vote against him if he so wanted (score points with Republicans/Beckians/etc).

[Bastiat's The Law]

I actually believe he is a pragmatist at heart, despite being Ron Paul's clone philosophically. I don't think this was done deliberately to appease one group or another. It's just that you have two crazed groups with little temperance or perspective fueled almost exclusively by emotion. That's the real problem. Both sides have been making mountains out of mole hills with this entire Hagel confirmation.
+Rep plus they have a vested interest in seeing Rand fail so they will seek to perpetuate outrage even if none really exists in the streets.

[Jon311]

Wow, reading some of the comments on his FB. Some people are just really messed up. I knew AIPAC had our politicians in their pockets, but they have seemed to efficiently brainwashed the masses as well.

"Rand, you let us down. You screwed Israel, God's people, our fine folks in the military, the Tea Party, The Constitutionalists, and all Conservatives. No more trusting you, ever."

"Sen Rand, the only reason I stay "liked" to your page is to really see how much you lie. I am a fiscal conservative. And YOU SIR, are a CELEBRITY. You voted to confirm Hagel. WRONG! I am glad that your father has retired and will no longer "pretend" in the dog and pony show that he is to represent my home district."

"YOU DIDN"T STAND UP FOR ISRAEL!! voting for this evil man"

"I was considering supporting you in '16 Mr Paul....not now....off with Mr Christie you go sir."

[tsai3904]

It would have been simple to play both sides on this one: don't vote for filibuster (deference for president's cabinet choices, meshes with his earlier statements), ignore the Cruz line of attack (this is part of what annoyed libertarians most), speak against Hagel as Secretary of Defense because of his voting record (would score points for playing with the team and opposing Hagel, and libertarians wouldn't have been upset by rejecting Hagel based on his record), then ultimately vote against him if he so wanted (score points with Republicans/Beckians/etc).

Voting for/against filibuster can mean many things and apparently to Rand, it has nothing to do with deference to President's cabinet choices.

As far as Cruz' line of attacks, what did Rand do? All I remember Rand saying is he heard some news reports and if true, they are troubling. His party wanted more info so he deferred to his party on procedure to delay the confirmation to get more info.

Speaking against Hagel...Rand did that by pointing out to libertarians that Hagel voted for the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and his support for the draft.

[AuH20]

Wow, reading some of the comments on his FB. Some people are just really messed up. I knew AIPAC had our politicians in their pockets, but they have seemed to efficiently brainwashed the masses as well.

"Rand, you let us down. You screwed Israel, God's people, our fine folks in the military, the Tea Party, The Constitutionalists, and all Conservatives. No more trusting you, ever."

"Sen Rand, the only reason I stay "liked" to your page is to really see how much you lie. I am a fiscal conservative. And YOU SIR, are a CELEBRITY. You voted to confirm Hagel. WRONG! I am glad that your father has retired and will no longer "pretend" in the dog and pony show that he is to represent my home district."

"YOU DIDN"T STAND UP FOR ISRAEL!! voting for this evil man"

"I was considering supporting you in '16 Mr Paul....not now....off with Mr Christie you go sir."

It was never this bad pre-9/11. We all essentially became Israelis after 9/11. Secondly, you have many military socialists, who will defend any military excesses to the grave.

[AuH20]

It would have been simple to play both sides on this one: don't vote for filibuster (deference for president's cabinet choices, meshes with his earlier statements), ignore the Cruz line of attack (this is part of what annoyed libertarians most), speak against Hagel as Secretary of Defense because of his voting record (would score points for playing with the team and opposing Hagel, and libertarians wouldn't have been upset by rejecting Hagel based on his record), then ultimately vote against him if he so wanted (score points with Republicans/Beckians/etc).

I don't think he went into this playing it political. This was a pragmatic approach, which is how he usually conducts himself. Both sides can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned.

[AuH20]

One man swimming in a sea of stupidity:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/02/chuck_hagel_confirmed_as_secretary_of_defense_rand _paul_s_flip_flop_on_the.html

[TheGrinch]

They're scared :D

[presence]

YOU DIDN"T STAND UP FOR ISRAEL!!

For a lot of us... that's a good thing.

[EBounding]

Am I the only person perplexed by this entire hysteria???? And this applies to the Raimando Daily Pauliacs as well as the Israel Firsters???????????? How is this such a big deal when the country is unraveling before our very eyes??? Can someone explain to how this is an ultra important issue?????

No, I'm baffled too. The most "reasoned" explanation I've seen so far is that Hagel was incompetent at the hearing. But most everything else has been "U ANTI-SEMITE MUSLIM TERRORIST NAZI!!!" :confused:

[Todd]

That's going to hurt his nomination chances.

Such a shame.

Where are you getting this. Not a chance.

[V3n]

John Brennan will be the interesting vote. This vote is such a non-issue and will be even less of a non-issue 3 years from now.

People are just freaking out because it's after football season and before baseball season. "Dancing with the Stars" comes on in a few weeks, and no one will even remember what a Hagel is.

[cajuncocoa]

This one is all on Rand. He put his foot in the Cruz/Israel first water, jabbed libertarians and realists by strawmanning their positions, and then ultimately voted to confirm Hagel. Daniel Larison put it best: Rand managed to handle these votes and statements in a way that maximized annoyance with him from every side. If you're going to piss off your base, you better gain something from another base to make up for it.

In short, Rand was trying to play chess and got caught playing checkers.I agree with this.


IMO, what's happening on Rand's Facebook (and in the comments section of the Blaze article) is exactly what I expected if/when Rand took an action that opposed what Beck/Hannity/Levin listeners thought he would due to the rhetoric he was/is using to attract those audiences to him.

I don't care about Hagel...he's no more or less what I would expect from an Obama appointment. Actually, I think Obama could do a lot worse. But Rand gave his word that he would not stand in the way of presidential appointments, and for sticking to that, I applaud him.

[dillo]

What was Rand thinking? Isnt this the Jewnited States of American-Israel?

[K466]

Well if he voted for Kerry might as well vote for Hagel...

[FrankRep]

Well if he voted for Kerry might as well vote for Hagel...

Did you not see how the entire GOP took a stand against Hagel? That means the GOP will see Rand Paul as a traitor. That's not the best way to win the nomination.

[cajuncocoa]

Did you not see how the entire GOP took a stand against Hagel? That means the GOP will see Rand Paul as a traitor. That's not the best way to win the nomination.
Principles > Party

[FrankRep]

Principles > Party
Says 1% of the vote.

Do you support the "Principles" of Chuck Hagel?

[cajuncocoa]

Says 1% of the vote.

Do you support the "Principles" of Chuck Hagel?
See paragraph #3 of post #81.

[angelatc]

Says 1% of the vote.

Do you support the "Principles" of Chuck Hagel?


He isn't frothing at the mouth at the idea of going to war with Iran, and while he isn't one of us, he's certainly better than I had expected to get.

In that respect, I do respect the principles of Chuck Hagel. What were you hoping for?

[FrankRep]

Principles > Party

Says 1% of the vote.

Do you support the "Principles" of Chuck Hagel?


See paragraph #3 of post #81.
I can only assume that since you support "Principles over Party/nomination/winning" that "Principles" led you to support Chuck Hagel. Otherwise, "Principles" had nothing to do with your decision.

[FrankRep]

He isn't frothing at the mouth at the idea of going to war with Iran, and while he isn't one of us, he's certainly better than I had expected to get.

In that respect, I do respect the principles of Chuck Hagel. What were you hoping for?


The "Principles" of Chuck Hagel


H.J.Res. 114 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres114): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237)

S.J.Res. 23 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00023:@@@R): Authorization for Use of Military Force
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00281)

S. 1438 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN1438:): National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00369)

H.R. 3162 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR3162:): Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313)

H.R. 5005 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr5005): Homeland Security Act of 2002
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s249)

S. 1927 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s1927): Protect America Act of 2007
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2007/s309)

Chuck Hagel is a member (http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=H) of the Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0882791346/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0882791346).

Chuck Hagel scored a 44% on the Constitutional Voting Index (http://www.jbs.org/voting-index/download?id=18_4e72d649ea3d66fd1883cab0545fb042)

Endorsed by Zbigniew Brzezinski (http://www.omaha.com/article/20130104/NEWS/130109759)

Endorsed by Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel#Obama_administration_consideration)

[EBounding]

I guess I'm really out of touch with Talk Radio nowadays. I really don't understand why these people are going nuts.

[Bastiat's The Law]

One man swimming in a sea of stupidity:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/02/chuck_hagel_confirmed_as_secretary_of_defense_rand _paul_s_flip_flop_on_the.html
I love it when Rand fights back!


“Speaking for myself only, I do not support Rand Paul and have not for quite some time now,” said Ryan Langer, who leads the University of Northern Iowa’s Young Americans for Liberty chapter, a pro-Ron Paul organization. “In my opinion, while he may share his father's last name, he certainly doesn't share his principles, the Hagel vote just being further evidence of that.”

Rand Paul flat-out rejected that characterization. “I will say to anybody from the libertarian side who wants to believe that Hagel is the next coming of Harry Browne that they need to read a little more about his past,” he said. (Browne, the two-time Libertarian Party nominee for president, blamed 9/11 on an “insane” American foreign policy.) “Hagel’s been a promoter of the draft. Not a very libertarian idea. He’s been a promoter of U.N. peacekeeping troops around the world, and intervention. He doesn’t like unilateral intervention, but he’s fine with group intervention around the world. He voted for the PATRIOT Act. He voted for the Iraq War.”

[AuH20]

The "Principles" of Chuck Hagel


H.J.Res. 114 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres114): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237)

S.J.Res. 23 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00023:@@@R): Authorization for Use of Military Force
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00281)

S. 1438 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN1438:): National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00369)

H.R. 3162 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR3162:): Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313)

H.R. 5005 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr5005): Homeland Security Act of 2002
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s249)

S. 1927 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s1927): Protect America Act of 2007
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2007/s309)

Chuck Hagel is a member (http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=H) of the Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0882791346/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0882791346).

Chuck Hagel scored a 44% on the Constitutional Voting Index (http://www.jbs.org/voting-index/download?id=18_4e72d649ea3d66fd1883cab0545fb042)

Endorsed by Zbigniew Brzezinski (http://www.omaha.com/article/20130104/NEWS/130109759)

Endorsed by Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel#Obama_administration_consideration)

And if Hagel gets dismissed, who do you think he was going to appoint????? Back to square one. There was no leverage.

[cajuncocoa]

I can only assume that since you support "Principles over Party/nomination/winning" that "Principles" led you to support Chuck Hagel. Otherwise, "Principles" had nothing to do with your decision.
The principle in question is the one where Rand said he would not stand in the way of a presidential appointment. I don't care about Hagel (and I certainly never said that I support him...you're putting words in my mouth there). That said, if Hagel didn't get confirmed, Obama would likely send up someone even worse.

[AuH20]

I guess I'm really out of touch with Talk Radio nowadays. I really don't understand why these people are going nuts.

Because they have been conditioned to "go nuts" over nonsense like this.

[AuH20]

I view this entire debacle as the Free Republic's Iranian Sanction moment. Number one, you are not going to stop Hagel or someone like him appointed. Number two, the alternative could be much worse.

[vita3]

I guess I'm really out of touch with Talk Radio nowadays. I really don't understand why these people are going nuts.

Life must be good!

I'm convinced Talk Radio politics are all for unhinged people on either side of the isle.

[EBounding]

Because they have been conditioned to "go nuts" over nonsense like this.

It really is like a switch was flipped and they truly believe Israel/America is headed for imminent collapse now. It's kind of scary.

[seyferjm]

LOL reading the comments at The Blaze, what a bunch of unhinged wingnuts. ZOMGOSH teh muzzies are gonna take over!111!11 Our military will be gutted! When 2016 rolls around, these people will be painted as fanatics while Rand will look sane and moderate for having voted to confirm Hagel.

[Brett85]

LOL reading the comments at The Blaze, what a bunch of unhinged wingnuts. ZOMGOSH teh muzzies are gonna take over!111!11 Our military will be gutted! When 2016 rolls around, these people will be painted as fanatics while Rand will look sane and moderate for having voted to confirm Hagel.

Isn't The Blaze actually supposed to be a "libertarian" website?

[FrankRep]

Isn't The Blaze actually supposed to be a "libertarian" website?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/hagel-confirmed-as-defense-secretary-by-u-s-senate/

I just see a bunch of people denouncing Rand Paul and slamming Glenn Beck for supporting him.

[pcosmar]

Isn't The Blaze actually supposed to be a "libertarian" website?

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000338641/polls_omg_1500_692862_poll_xlarge.jpeg

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly2syqYKgT1qc4v9ro1_500.gif

[Shane Harris]

Why is it okay to confirm Kerry but not okay to confirm Hagel (who is no doubt better than Kerry)

[jmdrake]

Rand Paul shot himself in the foot. Glenn Beck has every right to denounce him.

:rolleyes: Sometimes I wonder about you. Other times I really wonder. If you honestly think Beck has "every right" to denounce Rand for voting for Hagel then I never ever ever again want to hear you complain about those who attacked Rand for endorsing Romney. You no longer have the right to do that.

Edit: Just for clarification, you have the 1st amendment right to say whatever it is you want just like Beck. But if you think this vote somehow gives Beck some "special right" to denounce Rand than the "purists" among us have every right to denounce Rand and you are not being consistent if you criticize them for it.

[SilentBull]

Amazing how the media is able to push a button and get people to react exactly how they want. Republicans are upset at Rand for not getting in the way of some stupid appointment which doesn't even matter, since the policies will not change regardless of who he appoints. People are so stupid. 2016 is my last hope. I used to be optimistic about Rand's chances but apparently there is just no way to get these morons to unplug and think for themselves. They're as dumb as leftists.

[jmdrake]

Isn't The Blaze actually supposed to be a "libertarian" website?


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/hagel-confirmed-as-defense-secretary-by-u-s-senate/

I just see a bunch of people denouncing Rand Paul and slamming Glenn Beck for supporting him.

Those douchebags aren't libertarians. Check this comment.

He votes no to help victims of hurricane sandy, he votes no to protect victims of domestic abuse in the VAWA, but this gets his vote! HAHAHA and this is the republicans best bet in 2016! Hill-Dogs got it in the bag!

So let's vote to borrow more money for federal bureaucracy in the name of "helping people", let's vote for more federal takeover of state law, but oh noes....you can't vote for someone that isn't lockstep with neocons on Israel!

What was that Beck was saying about the 80% rule? Does that only apply to certain things?

[jmdrake]

Amazing how the media is able to push a button and get people to react exactly how they want. Republicans are upset at Rand for not getting in the way of some stupid appointment which doesn't even matter, since the policies will not change regardless of who he appoints. People are so stupid. 2016 is my last hope. I used to be optimistic about Rand's chances but apparently there is just no way to get these morons to unplug and think for themselves. They're as dumb as leftists.

Which is why kissing up to certain groups is stupid. Instead of kissing up, we need to concentrate on waking up. People's paradigms need to be challenged.

[FrankRep]

:rolleyes: Sometimes I wonder about you. Other times I really wonder. If you honestly think Beck has "every right" to denounce Rand for voting for Hagel then I never ever ever again want to hear you complain about those who attacked Rand for endorsing Romney. You no longer have the right to do that.

Edit: Just for clarification, you have the 1st amendment right to say whatever it is you want just like Beck. But if you think this vote somehow gives Beck some "special right" to denounce Rand than the "purists" among us have every right to denounce Rand and you are not being consistent if you criticize them for it.

I mean that Glenn Beck didn't want Chuck Hagel in office. Now Glenn Beck has a reason or justification for disliking Rand Paul now. I'm not sure how you could have misunderstood that.

[AuH20]

I mean that Glenn Beck didn't want Chuck Hagel in office. Now Glenn Beck has a reason or justification for disliking Rand Paul now. I'm not sure how you could have misunderstood that.

If Glenn Beck is that shallow, he has issues. I'll leave it at that.

[pcosmar]

I mean that Glenn Beck didn't want Chuck Hagel in office. Now Glenn Beck has a reason or justification for disliking Rand Paul now. I'm not sure how you could have misunderstood that.

http://impacthiringsolutions.com/careerblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/fish_flop_hg_wht.gif

[jmdrake]

I mean that Glenn Beck didn't want Chuck Hagel in office. Now Glenn Beck has a reason or justification for disliking Rand Paul now. I'm not sure how you could have misunderstood that.

Oh I understood what you said. It's just not valid. I'll explain below.


If Glenn Beck is that shallow, he has issues. I'll leave it at that.

Yes. AuH20 gets it. Beck went on this long rant about how libertarians were being "fascists" by saying he couldn't be one of them without "atoning" and that people should write off others who agree with them "80%" or "90%". Well one vote for someone Beck doesn't like is worth more than 10 or 20% of all the freaking issues Beck cares about? If Beck is going to throw Rand under the bus over this one vote then to hell with Beck. He's just proven himself (again) to be a liar. That said, I predict it's too early for a "beckstab".

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't care about Hagel...he's no more or less what I would expect from an Obama appointment. Actually, I think Obama could do a lot worse. But Rand gave his word that he would not stand in the way of presidential appointments, and for sticking to that, I applaud him.

Agree. It is a political appointment, and the nominee just does the bidding of the Administration anyway. Now a (Supreme) Court nomination is a totally different animal. That is a life long appointment, independent of the Administration, and supposedly independent of politics.


And if Hagel gets dismissed, who do you think he was going to appoint????? Back to square one. There was no leverage.

Yep. Probably wouldn't be a Republican next time, unless he nominated Lindsey Graham.


Why is it okay to confirm Kerry but not okay to confirm Hagel (who is no doubt better than Kerry)

Israel is the reasoning. In practice, it makes no difference. Which is why 18 GOP Senators voted for cloture (https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00023) (but not Rand), effectively making the Hagel confirmation a done deal. No outrage about that though.


Because they have been conditioned to "go nuts" over nonsense like this.


Amazing how the media is able to push a button and get people to react exactly how they want.

"The Ministry of Truth can turn on a dime, and the fury of the ignorant masses can be redirected at will."


Did you not see how the entire GOP took a stand against Hagel? That means the GOP will see Rand Paul as a traitor. That's not the best way to win the nomination.

No they didn't. 18 GOP Senators voted for cloture. The actual confirmation vote was just a formality after that. It was the cloture vote that really mattered.

Yes, if Rand wanted to cater directly to the Teo-con base, he could have voted against the confirmation. It may have been a better choice politically. It would have been business as usual, like 18 other Senators did. Vote to go along with the Administration, and then do a purely symbolic vote after it's a done deal.


We have heard a lot about how political appointments (as opposed to Court nominations) just do the bidding of the Administration, so they should be confirmed, absent extreme evidence that they are not fit.

Here are a couple of principals that have not been discussed:

- Voting for the filibuster (against cloture) is a vote for the power of the minority. This is extremely important, and it is a battle that Rand has been engaged in recently. The establishment from both Parties is attempting to consolidate power at the top, and remove power from minority and individual Senators. The filibuster is the last refuge of the minority. Did anyone notice how it was the establishment Senators that voted for cloture and against filibuster, which effectively sealed the confirmation?

- Voting for the nomination in this case illustrated three things. The first is that political nominations should generally go through. The second is that a "no" vote was purely symbolic. The third, and possibly the most important to Rand, is that he wanted more debate and more questions answered. The vote for cloture cut off debate. That was the important vote. After that, a "yea" vote on appointment emphasizes the fact that the deal was done with cloture, and the minority had no say after that point. We need more debate in the Senate, not less.

[seyferjm]

Isn't The Blaze actually supposed to be a "libertarian" website?

Maybe in Glenn Beck's infantile mind.

[sailingaway]

Maybe in Glenn Beck's infantile mind.

He is trying to change the definition of libertarianism in the public mind to the point where he can stand as a mouthpiece for it. He did it once with the tea party, and figures it is time to do again.

[tsai3904]

Amazing how the media is able to push a button and get people to react exactly how they want. Republicans are upset at Rand for not getting in the way of some stupid appointment which doesn't even matter, since the policies will not change regardless of who he appoints. People are so stupid. 2016 is my last hope. I used to be optimistic about Rand's chances but apparently there is just no way to get these morons to unplug and think for themselves. They're as dumb as leftists.

I feel the same way after reading all the comments on Rand's facebook page. Almost 90% of comments on his page during the last 24 hours have been blasting Rand for voting for Hagel and being anti-Israel. Who are these people and why are they so easily manipulated?

[SilentBull]

He is trying to change the definition of libertarianism in the public mind to the point where he can stand as a mouthpiece for it. He did it once with the tea party, and figures it is time to do again.

Exactly. The whole goddamn thing is scripted and we've all read the script before.

[dillo]

Glenn beck is trying to do to libertarians what Fox news did to the tea party

[jmdrake]

Israel is the reasoning. In practice, it makes no difference. Which is why 18 GOP Senators voted for cloture (https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00023) (but not Rand), effectively making the Hagel confirmation a done deal. No outrage about that though.


You know what? ^That is all we need to remember. If some idiot wants to screw with Rand over voting for confirmation, we need to hammer home the point that Rand voted no when it mattered as opposed to the 18 who voted for cloture.

[Lucille]

Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty
Israel is the reasoning. In practice, it makes no difference. Which is why 18 GOP Senators voted for cloture (but not Rand), effectively making the Hagel confirmation a done deal. No outrage about that though.


You know what? ^That is all we need to remember. If some idiot wants to screw with Rand over voting for confirmation, we need to hammer home the point that Rand voted no when it mattered as opposed to the 18 who voted for cloture.

I was surprised to see NRO's McCarthy blame them:

hxxp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341655/gop-folderoo-hagel-confirmation-andrew-c-mccarthy


Chuck Hagel has reportedly been confirmed by a vote of 58 to 41. But the real action was on cloture, where — as Andrew reported — 18 Republicans voted to let a final vote on the nomination proceed. No matter how they parse it, these Republicans voted to make Hagel the secretary of defense. They will tell the folks back home that they just voted yes on the “procedural” matter but really opposed Hagel’s nomination. That will not be true. Since Democrats had the votes to confirm Hagel if the 60-vote barrier was surmounted, voting to surmount it assured that Hagel would be confirmed — and everyone knew it.

[jtstellar]

He is trying to change the definition of libertarianism in the public mind to the point where he can stand as a mouthpiece for it. He did it once with the tea party, and figures it is time to do again.

that's not the point.. the question is will libertarianism be so unpopular and weak that it falls right over to any attempt to mold it to some other definition, like ron paul did to LP, which i actually agree with ron paul more in terms of the focus of libertarianism, but the fact was LP was so weak ron paul was able to do it without a blip of resistance. but if it is that weak, glenn beck doesn't have a motivation in the first place, if that were true profit is all he's after, so that theory is full of contradiction to itself. i do think he has found libertarianism to be the real principle behind what he used to believe, but he's still at the inception phase and being the kind of person he is, he wants to do what in his mind helps the country but at the same time brings him some attention and profit. that's the same with all grassroots leader figures, rand paul or whomever. most people will seek a public office or start a popular website to collect advertising money or sell ron paul merchandise at the minimum, to find a long term means to support their venture, still feel good about themselves and possibly satisfy their personal ambition in the long run. there's nothing wrong with that.

it is problematic when some talent-less half-knows happens to be in the position and iterates the liberty message wrong though. the kind of junk articles circulated on dailypauls serve as a good reference, a reflection on michael nystrom. this movement is getting a little stagnant, i suspect it will get a change of blood if rand paul brings this main stage, and a lot of self professed grassroots leaders will be rendered irrelevant, dailypaul will gradually descend into a gossip site. i think people should always move to the front of things, leave the chattering irrelevance to people of old age.

[twomp]

I was surprised to see NRO's McCarthy blame them:

hxxp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341655/gop-folderoo-hagel-confirmation-andrew-c-mccarthy

Yup! At least Rand Paul has some cover for this. On a side note, if he makes it to the general election in 2016, this vote can be used to his benefit. Well at least to some of the people who actually know who Hagel is. The anti-war people.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I feel the same way after reading all the comments on Rand's facebook page. Almost 90% of comments on his page during the last 24 hours have been blasting Rand for voting for Hagel and being anti-Israel. Who are these people and why are they so easily manipulated?

The GOP base. Second answer is conditioning of fealty to Israel, from family, churches, and media.

[angelatc]

I guess I'm really out of touch with Talk Radio nowadays. I really don't understand why these people are going nuts.

It's the Israel lobby, creating drama.

[PaulConventionWV]

Nobody will care. Have you ever heard of an election turning on a confirmation vote?

People really overestimate their own knowledge of what does and does not affect an election around here.

[angelatc]

The "Principles" of Chuck Hagel


H.J.Res. 114 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres114): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237)

S.J.Res. 23 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00023:@@@R): Authorization for Use of Military Force
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00281)

S. 1438 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN1438:): National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00369)

H.R. 3162 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR3162:): Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313)

H.R. 5005 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr5005): Homeland Security Act of 2002
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s249)

S. 1927 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s1927): Protect America Act of 2007
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2007/s309)

Chuck Hagel is a member (http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=H) of the Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0882791346/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0882791346).

Chuck Hagel scored a 44% on the Constitutional Voting Index (http://www.jbs.org/voting-index/download?id=18_4e72d649ea3d66fd1883cab0545fb042)

Endorsed by Zbigniew Brzezinski (http://www.omaha.com/article/20130104/NEWS/130109759)

Endorsed by Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel#Obama_administration_consideration)

Why the War Party Fears Chuck Hagel (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-the-war-party-fears-chuck-hagel/)


My original comment still stands. He was the best we were going to get.

And I might point out that if he had voted No on any of those items that you're desperately throwing around, the GOP base would have been even more against him. So I'm not sure what your point actually even is.

[angelatc]

Nobody will care. Have you ever heard of an election turning on a confirmation vote?

Exactly right. Heck, the TEA Party was in Allan West's corner after he sold them out and called them names.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Yup! At least Rand Paul has some cover for this. On a side note, if he makes it to the general election in 2016, this vote can be used to his benefit. Well at least to some of the people who actually know who Hagel is. The anti-war people.

It's not going to hurt Rand Paul in the primary or the general, nor will it help him. Nobody is going to base their vote over Hagel in 2016.

[anaconda]

So, does Glen Beck's "new libertarianism" fall short of restraining foreign interventionism and imperialistic warfare in the middle east? Beck's "new libertarianism" should have him jumping through hoops for Hagel.

[anaconda]

BTW I hope Rand includes some of Pat Buchanan's recent talking points on neocons and Iran when he appears on Beck's show tomorrow. Then Beck can officially begin his condemnation of Rand and we can go back to normal.

[Brian4Liberty]

Forum hiccup.

[Brian4Liberty]

So, does Glen Beck's "new libertarianism" fall short of restraining foreign interventionism and imperialistic warfare in the middle east? Beck's "new libertarianism" should have him jumping through hoops for Hagel.

Pastor Beck's "new" libertarianism supports whatever is perceived to be in the best interest of Israel. But is that new, or just an existing strain of libertarianism? Opinion on what is actually in the best interest of Israel breaks that sub-grouping down even further.

All Democrats got behind Hagel, so his nomination was acceptable to them, which indicates that the Hagel controversy was more a Democrat vs. GOP battle in reality. If Hagel was truly "anti-Israel" as some pundits have been screaming for months, he wouldn't have received any support from the majority of Democrats either.

[itshappening]

The defense secretary does not run foreign policy or have anything to do with Israel and its relationship with the U.S

Surely these "conservatives" in the media are smart enough to realize that.

Hagel is going to be kept busy enough with the day to day management of the Pentagon which is a huge department and has a huge budget which is out of control.