26 Feb

Rand Paul Explains His Surprise Vote For Chuck Hagel

Like Father like son….even McCain voted nay:

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said his support for a filibuster against Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel never meant that he would vote against Hagel’s confirmation.

“I voted no because I wanted more information and I think that part of what the Senate does is try to get information about the nominees,” Paul told reporters in the basement of the Capitol after Hagel’s confirmation Tuesday. “I’ve said all along that I give the president some prerogative in choosing his political appointees.”

“There are many things I disagree with Chuck Hagel on, there are many things I disagree with John Kerry on, there are very few things I agree with the president on, but the president gets to choose political appointees,” Paul said.

Asked if he ever got the information he wanted about Hagel, Paul said that he hadn’t.

Read more

       

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.

6 Responses to Rand Paul Explains His Surprise Vote For Chuck Hagel

  1. Petercat says: 1

    “but the president gets to choose political appointees,”
    And the Senate gets to say “yes” or “no” to those appointments.
    Rand Paul just rolled over and started waving his little paws in the air.
    I am so sick of this.

    ReplyReply
  2. retire05 says: 2

    but the president gets to choose political appointees,” Paul said.

    Perhaps Senator Paul should dig out that Constitution he is always going on about. It says that the Congress has the power of “advise and consent” when it comes to policital appointees. It does not say that deference should be given to an appointee due to the party that holds the Oval Office.

    ReplyReply
  3. Trent says: 3

    Well there’s another bullshit artist in the Senate. The only person who would have been a worse choice than Hagel would have been John Kerry. And they frickin’ love him in the Senate.

    ReplyReply
  4. bburris says: 4

    If it is simply a matter of the fact that the President gets to choose whom he wants (and get them), why bother with having confirmation hearings? Why not just have the 1930′s Reichtag rubber stamp?

    ReplyReply
  5. ThunderGod says: 5

    How many Paulbots’ heads just exploded?

    ReplyReply
  6. mathman says: 6

    To advise: to offer counsel or advice.
    Good advice: Hegel is a bad choice.
    Bad advice: confirm him.
    D’Oh.
    Rand Paul is no longer a candidate for ANYTHING.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site