Feb

27

Heh: Obama Calls Hagel Confirmation Vote ‘Bipartisan’

Filed Under Politics | 35 Comments

Chuck Hagel was confirmed as defense secretary yesterday 58 to 41. Only four Republicans voted in favor of confirmation. Good enough for President Obama to refer to as “bipartisan”:

President Obama saluted the Senate vote:

“With the bipartisan confirmation of Chuck Hagel as our next Secretary of Defense, we will have the defense secretary our nation needs and the leader our troops deserve.

The Obama administration refers to the health care law as a “bipartisan bill,” so compared to that, the Hagel confirmation “yes” vote must seem like it contains a landslide of Republicans.

Obama likes to spread the phony “bipartisan” claims when he knows there’s a good chance the plan will go to hell quickly and he’s lining up future scapegoats.

Throw Iran’s thumbs-up on Hagel into the mix and Obama can tout the confirmation as really really bipartisan.

Comments

35 Responses to “Heh: Obama Calls Hagel Confirmation Vote ‘Bipartisan’”

  1. Truesoldier__ on February 27th, 2013 4:03 pm

    “With the bipartisan confirmation of Chuck Hagel as our next Secretary of Defense, we will have the defense secretary our nation needs and the leader our troops deserve."

    That statment speaks volumes. Considering all that we have found out about Hagel through his deeds and statments it really says more about how dear leader feels about the nation and the military,.

  2. Obama bin Biden on February 27th, 2013 4:22 pm

    Plus Hagel was endorsed by Calypso Louie Farrakhan on Sunday and not a peep from the neutered GOP.

  3. Truesoldier__ on February 27th, 2013 4:33 pm

    Speaking of the neutered GOP…..did you see where they are looking at ceeding Congressional power to dear leader by undoing the current sequestration cuts and giving dear leader the power to decide what to cut and where as long as it equals the amount of the sequestration cuts?

    The sad thing is one of the most vocal opponents of this idea is McLame. Of course his only concern is that he would not have as much power to weild as opposed to the fact that it is unconstitutional and against everything the founders stood for.

  4. Marshall_Will on February 27th, 2013 4:52 pm

    as long as it equals the…

    WTF?

    What's really ridonkulous in all of this.., even the [ mythical ] low information 'voter' has figured out the gimme's are totally unsustainable. Hardcore UNION pukes know their demands can't be met indefinitely! Gov. workers that have about 2-3 hours of actual responsibilities know they can ( and probably SHOULD ) be RIF'd!

    If there was a "peace dividend" we burned thru that like a crack addict's inheritance. They're not fooling ANYONE. We all know where the 'cuts' have to come from. If only to keep the nation from collapsing/sliding back into 2008. Again…

  5. Dexter_Alarius on February 27th, 2013 4:55 pm

    Just like the *opposition* to Obamacare was bipartisan.

  6. Marshall_Will on February 27th, 2013 5:02 pm

    If -0- Republicans voting for Doh'Care was 'bipartisan' than <10% supporting Hagel must be a love-fest?

  7. Truesoldier__ on February 27th, 2013 6:40 pm

    Speaking of public employee unions. You should see what the WA ST Senate has in the works (good news btw). One of the Democrats of the new majority coalition has taken the fiscal lead where the state GOP has been lacking a spine. This Dem has pushed forward with a plan that would remove all current state union employees under the age of 45 from the pension roles and switch them over to a 401k plan. He has said the current pension system is unsustainable and needs to sunset.

    Starting to look like the best thing that has happened to the GOP in this state is to form a coalition with 3 truly fiscally conservative dems.

  8. Dexter_Alarius on February 27th, 2013 7:11 pm

    Um, I was being serious. O'care got zero Republican votes, but a handful of Dems in both houses voted *against* it. Hence, the opposition was bipartisan. You never hear that, though.

  9. SignPainterGuy on February 27th, 2013 7:13 pm

    Well, speaking purely "technically", it only takes one R vote to make it "bi-partisan", SO, Barry got 400% of that. Wow, Love Fest indeed !!

    That he WAS confirmed is less surprising to me than learning today that Rand Paul voted FOR the confirmation ! He said "it`s his prerogative". OK, the Pres. "can" nominate anyone he wants, even a convicted felon, I suppose, but it`s the job of congress to confirm ONLY someone who`s good for the country ! Am I wrong ?

  10. SignPainterGuy on February 27th, 2013 7:16 pm

    Details, details ! The Devil`s in the details. We know that dims would NEVER be Devilish, right ?

  11. jeffythequick on February 27th, 2013 7:25 pm

    It would seem that the GOP needs to do a little reading…

    …like Articles I-II of the US Constitution.

    They are truly the party of stupid. Time to flush them down the toilet with the rest of the effluent, and build a real second party.

  12. Marshall_Will on February 27th, 2013 7:43 pm

    Much to our OR Dim rep's credit, they're starting a similar coalition in DC dubbing it "No Labels" and are working off a similar, fiscally sane platform.

    Amen, I just wish there was something we could do about all the OSP troopers that walked off at age 50 w/ 105% of their final paycheck we'll be covering in retirement for the next (3)+ decades?

    That is truly TRULY encouraging! And WA of all places..?

  13. Marshall_Will on February 27th, 2013 7:46 pm

    Dex,

    So was I. But Doug should have disclaimers any time he links articles just prior to the SCOTUS pulling the mercy plug on Obie Care! ( Any idea how deflating that is? )

    You're right though, it's more impactful when portrayed in the simple fashion it went down?

  14. Marshall_Will on February 27th, 2013 8:12 pm

    One of the big BIG problems w/ any type of public pension, especially those provided with "Minimum Annual Return Guarantees" ( which was all of them ) is that they were never re-calibrated!

    If the State ( and I believe OR was an 8% benchmark ) had a 12 or even 14% RETURN, workers said, "Good for me, now go out and get us another 8% ( min. ) for next year!

    Had they listened to the actuarial guys, 6 + 12 = 18 *divided* By 2 = 9% ! ( Still ahead of the game! ) So they wanted to pocket the bang-up years but then a "top up" baseline guar. in lean years. Now you got zilch.

  15. SignPainterGuy on February 27th, 2013 8:34 pm

    Be careful of your support for the "No Labels" bunch. I heard about it when it was all fresh n new; it was billed as all-inclusive and well intentioned, but it is comprised of libs and mods who don`t like accurate labels stapled to their backs. After only a few months (can`t remember a mention this year), they faded away from prominent exposure. Don`t really know why !

  16. jeffythequick on February 27th, 2013 8:57 pm

    Yeah, the label they're all trying to avoid is "Progressive"

    The first Progressive President… Theodore Roosevelt (R)

    As much as I hate to say it (I love Ronnie, but he also had Prog leanings…), the last Conservative President: Calvin Coolidge. They all have been Progressive D or Progressive R's since…

  17. backwoodsconsr on February 27th, 2013 9:12 pm

    Bipartisan or bipolar?

  18. Truesoldier__ on February 27th, 2013 9:22 pm

    I think it was Woodrow Wilson that wa sthe first Progressive President and we all know just how much a failure he (and his League of Nations predecessor of the UN were).

  19. Granny55 on February 27th, 2013 9:31 pm

    That's pretty damn sad that the R's have to be upstaged by the D's on fiscal responsibility. Shows just how PC and low the R's have become. I want a new, purely conservative, political home with a 1000' fence around it that will never allow an R in it again!

  20. jeffythequick on February 27th, 2013 9:35 pm

    I thought that the guy that started the Progressive Party in 1912 would be considered the first one…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_%2…

  21. SignPainterGuy on February 27th, 2013 9:44 pm

    Teddy was the first to go public with it, thus getting the credit; WW was the first to give the ol` college try !

  22. Truesoldier__ on February 27th, 2013 10:12 pm

    Makes sense. Then again with the way dear leader loves to rewrite history it will only be a matter of time till he is listed as the first in the history books.

  23. Truesoldier__ on February 27th, 2013 10:15 pm

    You are correct. Perhaps Rand Paul needs to go back and look up just exactly what it means to "Advise and Consent".

    I was glad to see that Ted Cruz stuck to his guns on the Hagel nomination (and everything else so far). At the rate things are going we could very well see Ted Cruz emerge as a leader for a new Conservative party.

  24. SignPainterGuy on February 27th, 2013 10:26 pm

    I think it was Ramirez who did a cartoon of the famous "Washington Crossing the Delaware" w/ the Imposer-in-Chief in a director`s chair in the boat, giving orders …. under an umbrella, I think !

  25. SignPainterGuy on February 27th, 2013 10:29 pm

    "….Ted Cruz emerge as a leader for a new Conservative party." Now yer just teasin` me ! CUT That out !! ;-)

  26. SignPainterGuy on February 27th, 2013 10:31 pm

    In his case, can they be synonimoneous ?

  27. jeffythequick on February 27th, 2013 10:40 pm

    But Teddy was president in 1901-1909… WW was 1913-1921 (well… maybe 1919, and Mrs. Wilson took over, but that's another story…)

  28. Marshall_Will on February 27th, 2013 10:48 pm

    Granny,

    Absolutely. Would you think it was so much to ask?

    Never had a reason to doubt SPG and I'm not here either, where the "No Labels" label is concerned. All I can say is, in the interim, if I can USE these pukes towards MY end.., why the heck NOT?

    Anything that functions as a speed bump towards unabashed sew-shall-ism is more than welcome, even if it's temporary at best. And I think that's WHY Progs have wound up on top time after time is their loyalty is simply to The Agenda.

    We otoh seem to need an enduring 'identity' to have & hold. Not that it's a 'fault', like I say there's no reason commons sense needs a freaking MASCOT? But right now we're so close to the edge, an [inch] of breathing room helps.

  29. SignPainterGuy on February 27th, 2013 11:28 pm

    I cannot be held responsible for a memory I can`t count on ! My rememberator has a mind of its own !

    As my friends sometimes joke about my memory; "It`s not that I remember a lot, it`s that I remember the durndest things !" In this case, DURN my memory ! ;-)

  30. SignPainterGuy on February 27th, 2013 11:45 pm

    Spot on, Lad ! I just want you to "Be Careful" `cause that`s what I heard and surmised. Use `em and abuse `em, as they say ! ;-)

  31. Truesoldier__ on February 28th, 2013 1:32 am

    I remember hearing the same thing about 6 months ago. I believe Rush had a full run down of just who the "no labels" crowd was and why we need to watch them closely.

  32. SignPainterGuy on February 28th, 2013 1:46 am

    That`s RIGHT, it WAS Rush. It`s all coming back up on me now !

  33. jeffythequick on February 28th, 2013 11:09 am

    of course!

    I always work to respect my elders, even when they're younger than me!

  34. SignPainterGuy on February 28th, 2013 1:27 pm

    Neat ! I`m aging backward now !

  35. Joesph on March 22nd, 2013 10:47 pm

    the most recent voucher codes by the protein works
    protein works vouchers

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.