jclalor 12 #1 February 18, 2013 Yet they claimed Sarah Palin was qualified to be the President of the United States. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/us/politics/senator-graham-says-hell-drop-hagel-opposition.html?_r=0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #2 February 18, 2013 Graham has such sweet little doe eyes. And McCain is a man's man. Clearly a coalition of the willing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #3 February 18, 2013 Hittin' .500 IS pretty good though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #4 February 18, 2013 Anyhow, jokes aside, McCain and Graham have missed a good opportunity to be intellectually honest, because this is a rare instance in which intellectual honesty not only will fly with the public, but won't hurt politically, either. By calling Hagel "unqualified", they're being dishonest, because of course he's qualified, probably well-qualified. But the Constitution clearly gives the Senate the "advise and consent" role on Cabinet nominations; so the Founding Fathers clearly appreciated that the confirmation process could (and likely would) be heavily influenced by politics. OK, fine; that was part of their overall formula of checks & balances. Now some opposition is just partisans opposing for the sake of opposing, but they're entitled to do that. And I have no doubt that this is at least partly motivated by McCain still stinging over being beaten by Obama in 2008, and then told to stop whining and suck it up; so this is a chance to get in a little "back-atcha" for a few days. But McCain and Graham could easily have been intellectually honest and simply said, "Ability to be competent isn't enough; Hagel is all wrong on policy, and as Senators we feel that that makes him wrong for the country in this post" - and that would have been totally within the scope of their Constitutional roles. Instead, they took the cheap sound-byte route, and in doing so cheapened their personal credibility and legacies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 February 18, 2013 This is far more about McCain being a sore loser than Hagel's qualifications. Previously McCain endorsed Hagel as being qualified for the job, but that was under Bush(43). McCain has as much as said this is all about Hagel not siding with the war in Iraq and this is payback. What the hell ever happened to McCain anyway? He used to be fairly middle of the road and an honorable man. Now he just seems childish.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #6 February 18, 2013 Quote What the hell ever happened to McCain anyway? He used to be fairly middle of the road and an honorable man. Now he just seems childish. Middle of the road doesn't get you fundraising money.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #7 February 18, 2013 Quote What the hell ever happened to McCain anyway? He used to be fairly middle of the road and an honorable man. Now he just seems childish. I believe that whole "middle of the road" thing was always way overstated w/ McCain. He did not always fall in line with the party but that is not the same thing as being middle of the road. Honorable and politician is a misnomer."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #8 February 18, 2013 QuoteWhat the hell ever happened to McCain anyway? He used to be fairly middle of the road and an honorable man. Now he just seems childish. To one extent I don't exactly blame him. During the 2000 primaries (for example in S. Carolina) he was defeated by a far, far less-qualified (and formerly draft-evading) George Bush by some of the meanest, filthiest campaign tactics used by any side in the history of presidential politics. He then sucked it up for 8 years displaying public loyalty toward a president whose guts he hated. Then to add insult to injury, he was again beaten in 2008 by an unknown 40-something whose experience in life and government were but a fraction of his. Has to have been galling. Guess he kinda snapped. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #9 February 18, 2013 Quote Honorable and politician is a misnomer. What system of governance do you propose in the alternative? (Demerits for tired cliches. Seriously.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 February 18, 2013 QuoteBut McCain and Graham could easily have been intellectually honest and simply said, "Ability to be competent isn't enough; Hagel is all wrong on policy, and as Senators we feel that that makes him wrong for the country in this post" - and that would have been totally within the scope of their Constitutional roles. Instead, they took the cheap sound-byte route, and in doing so cheapened their personal credibility and legacies. Well said. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #11 February 18, 2013 Quote...have missed a good opportunity to be intellectually honest... I like that one. That's a good one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
