Support NeoGAF

[HylianTom]

Why sweat Ginsburg. Kennedy and Scalia are 78 although I doubt they will retire under any circumstance unless they die or a republican is president.

You fear a Ginsburg death/retirement and a conservative nomination under a republican president and yet if the D's get the senate, they wont let a conservative walk away with it and vice versa if Hillary has to replace Ginsberg under a R senate. Tough option either way. Nor will a R senate let Kennedy and Scalia be replace by a liberal and vice versa with a R pres and D senate.

Best case is a D Pres and D Senate with Ginsberg retirement. Kennedy and Scalia aint going anywhere under a president hillary.

If there's a protracted Supreme Court vacancy, my best guess is that the voting public will end-up siding against the Senate. So if the President nominates #1 and gets rejected, #2 and gets rejected, #3 and rejected, and so on.. I'd be willing to bet that the President wins that public relations fight, especially after multiple rejections.

I also don't have much confidence that the Dems will keep the Senate after the 2018 elections. With lots of 2012-elected Dem senators facing a conservative midterm turnout crowd, hopes of defending a narrow majority aren't very strong.

Basically, I'd rather be the one nominating rather than playing defense.
(And you're absolutely right on Scalia & Kennedy.. as with Ginsburg, and as distasteful as this will sound, it's a game of waiting for Death to step-in.)

 

[NeoXChaos]

If there's a protracted Supreme Court vacancy, my best guess is that the voting public will end-up siding against the Senate. So if the President nominates Liberal #1 and gets rejected, Liberal #2 and gets rejected, Liberal #3 and rejected, and so on.. I'd be willing to bet that the President wins that public relations fight, especially after multiple rejections.

I also don't have much confidence that the Dems will keep the Senate after the 2018 elections. With lots of 2012-elected Dem senators facing a conservative midterm turnout crowd, hopes of defending a narrow majority aren't very strong.

Basically, I'd rather be the one nominating rather than playing defense.
(And you're absolutely right on Scalia & Kennedy.. as with Ginsburg, and as distasteful as this will sound, it's a game of waiting for Death to step-in.)

Sure and just look at the atmosphere now. We have already foiled 4 years of potential progressive policy even WITH a D senate and R house. Its not like hillary is gonna come in with a huge mandate that will get a R senate and house (if they keep it) to pass liberal legislation. I cant see THIS Republican party doing that. Hillary is going to have to triangulate with a R house(99% chance if she does not landslide 400+ EV, 55-42) and D senate( extremely likely and best case for 2 years, D lose it in 2018 very likely if midterm is bad/D's dont fix problem).

Our best hope is the dirty word our COWARD Speaker of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA Boehner hates to say, COMPROMISE for 4-8 years. That is IF he sticks around post 2017 which I doubt he will be.

and yet that I wrote does not TOUCH the daunting reality of state legislatures and governor seats up in 2016, 2018, 2020 and beyond that will be crucial to 2020 redistricting.

Look at our state for example, we aint getting medicaid expansion with a Governor Vitter or minimum wage on our ballot with a Republican legislature which our state desperately needs considering we are the highest ranked where we dont need to be(disease etc) and lowest ranked where we strive not to be(education, health care etc). We are talking another 4-8 years of Republican destruction.

 

[HylianTom]

Sure and just look at the atmosphere now. We have already foiled 4 years of potential progressive policy even WITH a D senate and R house. Its not like hillary is gonna come in with a huge mandate that will get a R senate and house (if they keep it) to pass liberal legislation. I cant see THIS Republican party doing that. Hillary is going to have to triangulate with a R house(99% chance if she does not landslide 400+ EV, 55-42) and D senate( extremely likely and best case for 2 years, D lose it in 2018 very likely if midterm is bad/D's dont fix problem).

Our best hope is the dirty word our COWARD Speaker of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA Boehner hates to say, COMPROMISE for 4-8 years. That is IF he sticks around post 2017 which I doubt he will be.

and yet that I wrote does not TOUCH the daunting reality of state legislatures and governor seats up in 2016, 2018, 2020 and beyond that will be crucial to 2020 redistricting.

Look at our state for example, we aint getting medicaid expansion with a Governor Vitter or minimum wage on our ballot with a Republican legislature which our state desperately needs considering we are the highest ranked where we dont need to be(disease etc) and lowest ranked where we strive not to be(education, health care etc). We are talking another 4-8 years of Republican destruction.

On a federal level, the very best progressives get to hope for is playing defense until the next decade. Depressing, but the first side whose voters give-up is the side that loses.

My secret hope is that Republicans freak the fuck out after losing the White House yet again. They know it's tough to hold the presidency for 3 consecutive terms, so if the Democrat wins against those odds (especially in lukewarm middle-class economic conditions).. yikes. How do they convince their voters - and their donors - that they can move forward on policy without ever taking away the veto pen?

On a state level? Not much faith at all. Anything pleasant that comes out of the capitol in Baton Rouge is purely by accident or an unplanned side-effect of idiotic policy. Other than the revenue that we produce down here, they wouldn't give a damn if we flooded or floated away. We exist and thrive despite them. What kills me is that we could be even better.

 

[thepotatoman]

If there's a protracted Supreme Court vacancy, my best guess is that the voting public will end-up siding against the Senate. So if the President nominates #1 and gets rejected, #2 and gets rejected, #3 and rejected, and so on.. I'd be willing to bet that the President wins that public relations fight, especially after multiple rejections.

I also don't have much confidence that the Dems will keep the Senate after the 2018 elections. With lots of 2012-elected Dem senators facing a conservative midterm turnout crowd, hopes of defending a narrow majority aren't very strong.

Basically, I'd rather be the one nominating rather than playing defense.
(And you're absolutely right on Scalia & Kennedy.. as with Ginsburg, and as distasteful as this will sound, it's a game of waiting for Death to step-in.)

Well, you can look at the borking of Robert Bork's confirmation and the more moderate Anthony Kennedy taking that spot, or you could look at Clarence Thomas getting confirmed in a senate with 56 democrats for examples going both ways.

In my view, usually the senate takes the blame unless they can give a good reason for denying a confirmation, and typically ideology isn't a good enough reason. Since the president gets to pick, it's not too hard to find a person that meets your standards while not having anything the public would revolt over.

It's also like the one thing where the public really doesn't like filibusters. Filibustering a bill is one thing, but filibustering confirmations to block the ability for the government to function is another. Sure no one cared about other smaller confirmations, but SCOTUS is kinda a big deal. You're going to need a really good reason if you're gonna filibuster it.

 

[Coriolanus]

It's the topic of SCOTUS that really pisses me off when people express complaints like, "Candidate X is waaay too moderate/corporatist. If he/she gets the nomination, I'm going to vote Green! No one is entitled to my vote!" I see comments like that and think, "gee, you have no idea how this works, do you? Either that, or you willfully don't really care about progressive causes - and you're outright lying when you claim that you do. Because enabling a Scalia-clone to replace any one of the liberal justices is a death sentence for every cause that you say you care about."

And now we've moved past from "if you don't vote you don't count" to "if you don't vote for my shitty candidate you don't count".

Keep complaining about the unmotivated millions instead of the dozens, mate.

 

[RustyNails]

Lindsey Graham, who has maintained a critical voice in the Benghazi controversy over the past two years, says it's "garbage" that the report finds no members of the Obama administration lied to cover up what happened in Benghazi.

"That's a bunch of garbage," Graham said. "That's a complete bunch of garbage."

Asked why the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee would be "buying a bunch of garbage," Graham simply replied, "good question."
Yesss

 

[Poodlestrike]

Asked why the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee would be "buying a bunch of garbage," Graham simply replied, "good question."
Yesss

And already, the cracks begin to appear.

 

[HylianTom]

And now we've moved past from "if you don't vote you don't count" to "if you don't vote for my shitty candidate you don't count".

Keep complaining about the unmotivated millions instead of the dozens, mate.

I can complain about both. There's plenty of ire/contempt to go around. That well isn't a zero-sum entity.

(to be read in Homer Simpson's mocking, sing-songy voice here Anyone wanting to hold hands and skip through a magical, mystical fairyland full of wonderment and lollipops and viable third parties is delusional and on another planet. You don't like the "shitty candidate" we might be going towards? Put-up a primary opponent. At least that's realistic.

Our system is structured to steer us towards two parties. Third partiers are like climate change deniers in how they deny mathematical reality. Tom Tancredo and Herman Cain might be crazies, but they're not mathematically illiterate.. which is why they run for the Republican nomination instead of the Constitutional Party nomination.

 

[Gallbaro]

Using the Thanksgiving holiday to complain about immigration

We're through the fucking looking glass people

There's just no sense of irony is there?

A small change of putting the family in NA Indian regalia while dressing the immigrants as puritans would have been perfect.

 

[ivysaur12]

Most Supreme Court justices will get through, because whatever party that wins the Senate will *usually* have enough moderates.

If Ginsburg dies in February, Murkowski, Collins, Kirk, and Toomey would probably not vote against a nomination, unless it was someone that's the ire of Conservatives like Stephen Reinhardt or if there's a Harriet Miers-type situation where whoever is nomination is universally thought to be unqualified. You'd probably get a few more on top of those four as well -- a Heller or someone like that.

EDIT: For Sotomayor, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins voted for confirmation (of R members still in the Senate). For Kagan, it was also Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins. Sotomayor had 9 R votes for her confirmation (though Obama was less toxic to Republicans than he is now) and Kagan had 5 R votes for hers. They could find 5 votes somewhere -- that's not a problem.

 

[NervousXtian]

Asked why the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee would be "buying a bunch of garbage," Graham simply replied, "good question."
Yesss

Well, the GOP has double-downed so hard on Benghazi for so fucking long trying to make some huge issue out of a horrible tragedy they just don't know what to do now that it turns out that it basically as just that.. a tragedy.

The Benghazi conspiracy BS from people is as stupid as truthers and birthers.

 

[Wilsongt]

Asked why the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee would be "buying a bunch of garbage," Graham simply replied, "good question."
Yesss

Of course Graham would be against it. He's always against it... However, I still stand by the thought he was the better senate choice compared all of those other fools in the primaries with him.

 

[HylianTom]

Anyone seen this New York Times article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/u...lects-divisions-in-age-and-ideology.html?_r=1

A Deep 2016 Republican Presidential Field Reflects Party Divisions

BOCA RATON, Fla. — Republican presidential primaries have for decades been orderly affairs, with any momentary drama mitigated by the expectation that the party would inevitably nominate its tested, often graying front-runner.

But as the 2016 White House campaign effectively began in the last week, it became apparent that this race might be different: a fluid contest, verging on chaotic, that will showcase the party’s deep bench of talent but also highlight its ideological and generational divisions.

As Democrats signal that they are ready to rally behind Hillary Rodham Clinton before their primary season even begins, allowing them to focus their fund-raising and firepower mostly on the general election, the Republicans appear destined for a free-for-all.

But here's maybe the most telling comment of the whole long article:

“You might argue [2012] was more divisive than it needed to be,” Mr. Friess said, adding that this time, “the donors are not going to let that happen.”

I'm sure the TP folks are going to looooove witnessing the purchasing of another party nominee that's too moderate for their liking. Hopefully they stay home in protest. Nose cuts, spite, and all that jazz.

 

[Oblivion]

Asked why the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee would be "buying a bunch of garbage," Graham simply replied, "good question."
Yesss

Wow, so Obama has Darrell Issa and the House Republicans on his payroll too? He's good.

 

[ivysaur12]

Wow, so Obama has Darrell Issa and the House Republicans on his payroll too? He's good.

He needs the money.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

R.I.P. Marion Barry, the original Rob Ford.

 

[Necrovex]

Asked why the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee would be "buying a bunch of garbage," Graham simply replied, "good question."
Yesss

And already, the cracks begin to appear.

I was curious to see how some of the Benghazi -crazed Republicans would react to the news. This is simply glorious.

Anyone seen this New York Times article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/u...lects-divisions-in-age-and-ideology.html?_r=1

At the very least, the Republican primaries will be interesting to watch. I had no doubts that Hilary would be the prime candidate for the Democrats, but I have no idea at all who the Republicans will choose. I doubt it will be Mitt Romney; he had his chance and lost.

 

[Mario]

Well, the GOP has double-downed so hard on Benghazi for so fucking long trying to make some huge issue out of a horrible tragedy they just don't know what to do now that it turns out that it basically as just that.. a tragedy.

The Benghazi conspiracy BS from people is as stupid as truthers and birthers.

Once again the Republicans created a monster that ran away on them and one which, like the Tea Party itself, will come back to bite them. A chunk of their base is going to demand Benghazi be a key point of attack against Clinton in 2 years time, when the rest of the population has already moved on (long ago).

Time and again Republicans have squandered the opportunity to score solid points with the wider population about "legitimate issues" such drone strikes, surveillance, whistleblowers, lack of pursuit of Wall Street misdoings etc because they are always swinging wildly going for the home run.

The Republican primaries are going to be a hilarious mess as the party, candidates, and base eat themselves alive.

 

[Jooney]

Is the ACA medical device tax going to be repealed in the next Congress? Seems like it has solid Democrat support as well.

 

[RustyNails]

Once again the Republicans created a monster that ran away on them and one which, like the Tea Party itself, will come back to bite them. A chunk of their base is going to demand Benghazi be a key point of attack against Clinton in 2 years time, when the rest of the population has already moved on (long ago).

Time and again Republicans have squandered the opportunity to score solid points with the wider population about "legitimate issues" such drone strikes, surveillance, whistleblowers, lack of pursuit of Wall Street misdoings etc because they are always swinging wildly going for the home run.

The Republican primaries are going to be a hilarious mess as the party, candidates, and base eat themselves alive.

I think Lindsey Graham and other GOP power brokers realize this. It's the last line of defense against Hillary's steamroll of a nomination. I am actually surprised Darrell Issa and Mike Rogers weren't in the same boat, as I always thought the benghazi pin the tail on donkey game was a concerted effort by the party.

Is the ACA medical device tax going to be repealed in the next Congress? Seems like it has solid Democrat support as well.

Try as they might, but I don't think Obama will let them touch his baby. Veto.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Nothing remotely new but some slightly optimistic "news" re: net neutrality and the whole reclassification bidniss

It won't be a surprise if the Federal Communications Commission gets sued when it issues net neutrality rules. In fact, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler expects it.

Since November 10, when President Obama called on the FCC to reclassify Internet service as a utility and impose strict net neutrality rules, the FCC has been urged to act quickly. But it appears the commission won't issue final rules before the end of 2014. When reporters today asked Wheeler when he'll act, he said he's taking his time because he wants to make sure the commission's net neutrality rules aren't overturned in court.

"We are going to be sued," he said in a Q&A after the FCC's monthly meeting. "That's the history. Every time in this whole discussion any time the commission has moved to do something, one of the big dogs has gone to sue... We don’t want to ignore history. We want to come out with good rules that accomplish what we need to accomplish, an open Internet, no blocking, no throttling, no fast lanes, no discrimination, and we want those rules to be in place after a court decision. So we want to be sure we’re thoughtful in the way in which we structure them and we're thoughtful in the way we present what will ultimately be presented to a court."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...e-sued-fcc-chairman-speaks-on-net-neutrality/

+ the DC Court of Appeals basically telling the FCC what they need (Title II) to do when Verizon sued and overturned some rules earlier this year (iirc?) has me slightly more optimistic than I normally am

 

[CygnusXS]

Once again the Republicans created a monster that ran away on them and one which, like the Tea Party itself, will come back to bite them. A chunk of their base is going to demand Benghazi be a key point of attack against Clinton in 2 years time, when the rest of the population has already moved on (long ago).

Time and again Republicans have squandered the opportunity to score solid points with the wider population about "legitimate issues" such drone strikes, surveillance, whistleblowers, lack of pursuit of Wall Street misdoings etc because they are always swinging wildly going for the home run.

The Republican primaries are going to be a hilarious mess as the party, candidates, and base eat themselves alive.

The Republicans aren't going to attack the Dems on those legitimate issues, because they agree with the status quo on them.

 

[thepotatoman]

Nothing remotely new but some slightly optimistic "news" re: net neutrality and the whole reclassification bidniss



http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...e-sued-fcc-chairman-speaks-on-net-neutrality/

+ the DC Court of Appeals basically telling the FCC what they need (Title II) to do when Verizon sued and overturned some rules earlier this year (iirc?) has me slightly more optimistic than I normally am

Tom Wheeler has always, always said he's for net neutrality. That has never changed.

The problem is he won't completely reclassify them to a Title II common carrier even though it's within his power to do. I have yet to hear a single good reason for this other than Tom Wheeler basically saying "that would open a can of worms" or trying to push blame onto republicans by providing hypothetical republican overreactions he's trying to avoid even though republicans clearly don't have that sort of power.

Wheeler's non-response to this proposal was enough for me to not trust him, but his recent proposal to classify text based internet services under title II while not providing the same protections to video streaming and online video games proves he does agree he has that power to classify anything as title II, he just wants ISPs to keep their power over video that they already built up as cable tv providers.

Is the ACA medical device tax going to be repealed in the next Congress? Seems like it has solid Democrat support as well.

Only if SCOTUS breaks the bill and Congress and public opinion gives him no other option than repeal.

They have enough Democratic support to get past a filibuster, but no way they have enough to get past a veto.

 

[kehs]

Went to watch citzenfour, figured it's be bad, wow, what a piece of shit. The movie literally ended with a ripped up pice of paper saying potus.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/2...eclaration-of-war-against-isis.html?referrer=


Lol rand calling for a declaration of war against isis

 

[cooljeanius]

R.I.P. Marion Barry, the original Rob Ford.

Wait for real? What happened?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Went to watch citzenfour, figured it's be bad, wow, what a piece of shit. The movie literally ended with a ripped up pice of paper saying potus.

Is this the self congratulatory snowden film by Greenwald?

 

[PhoenixDark]

The thing about Benghazi is that it's just like nearly every other GOP freak out: an argument over process. Graham wants to yell and scream about talking points - not the attack, or the response to the attack, or the security lapses, etc...he wants to talk about shifting talking points and spin. Likewise with Obamacare there's a constant focus on how it was sold to the American people, the process in which it was passed, the spin on the number of people signed up; there's rarely a debate or discussion about what the law actually does.

Likewise immigration: the process of the executive action is the dominant subject, not the policy or their alternatives. It's the ultimate sign that they have no ideas, and no interest in presenting anything to the public outside of a few troll bills.

 

[kehs]

Is this the self congratulatory snowden film by Greenwald?

I don't know who filmed it, but it was a total flogging for snowden, that made him look like a bigger douchebag than he does now.

 

[Jooney]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/2...eclaration-of-war-against-isis.html?referrer=


Lol rand calling for a declaration of war against isis

Well, if there's going to be military operations against ISIS for the next few years, then at least a declaration of war is a statement of Congress's intent rather than the current shuffling to the Executive under the AUMF that is currently happening now.

Is this the self congratulatory snowden film by Greenwald?

Not by Snowden, but from one of the other three that went to visit him in HK. It's Laura Poitras film.

That ending does sound like sequel-bait, but I'm keen to see the film. I someone who thinks that what snowjob did had some value. But I won't re-litigate that here so let's move people, nothing to see here etc.

 

[kehs]

don't, seriously....don't.

 

[Jooney]

don't, seriously....don't.

See thoughtful edit above!

 

[kehs]

See thoughtful edit above!

I was half an half on his actions, and this movie doesn't help.

To be avoided.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Wait for real? What happened?

Cardiac arrest.

http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/dc/2014/11/23/marion-barry-dies-78-years-old/19437553/

 

[Mario]

The Republicans aren't going to attack the Dems on those legitimate issues, because they agree with the status quo on them.

They could quite easily speak in opposition to the Administration's actions around those issues while simultaneously doing nothing to change the situation. They do it all the time.

 

[Oblivion]

They could quite easily speak in opposition to the Administration's actions around those issues while simultaneously doing nothing to change the situation. They do it all the time.

Yup. See: medicare, net neutrality.

 

[CygnusXS]

They could quite easily speak in opposition to the Administration's actions around those issues while simultaneously doing nothing to change the situation. They do it all the time.

Yup. See: medicare, net neutrality.

I think it's more nuanced than that. I think there are some concepts they feel are settled in their favor, and I doubt they're willing to risk having those concepts contested in the public sphere. Launching their own criticisms on those issues could lead to challenges they simply don't want. The most you might see the party adopt a critical platform on that type of issue would just be over the particular degree of implementation of a policy.

Things like healthcare policy and entitlements are still being actively decontested so they're willing to launch critiques there.

 

[Mario]

I think it's more nuanced than that. I think there are some concepts they feel are settled in their favor, and I doubt they're willing to risk having those concepts contested in the public sphere. Launching their own criticisms on those issues could lead to challenges they simply don't want. The most you might see the party adopt a critical platform on that type of issue would just be over the particular degree of implementation of a policy.

Things like healthcare policy and entitlements are still being actively decontested so they're willing to launch critiques there.

I don't see how they would be in much of a different position than they are with Benghazi and Obamacare etc except they'd be speaking to more tangible and real issues. They could claim exactly the same "Presidential overreach" and violations of "freedom" and the Constitution that they are now but with real, documented examples. In that way they don't have to propose opposing policy, they just have to claim the President is abusing his station except with issues moderates care more about.

Even if they ended up being backed into a corner and had to walk back Presidential authority in one of these areas to save face, they'd at least be winning hearts and minds while doing it. Right now, they aren't winning over anybody because they are focusing on issues only their hardcore base cares about.

 

[CygnusXS]

I don't see how they would be in much of a different position than they are with Benghazi and Obamacare etc except they'd be speaking to more tangible and real issues. They could claim exactly the same "Presidential overreach" and violations of "freedom" and the Constitution that they are now but with real, documented examples. In that way they don't have to propose opposing policy, they just have to claim the President is abusing his station except with issues moderates care more about.

Even if they ended up being backed into a corner and had to walk back Presidential authority in one of these areas to save face, they'd at least be winning hearts and minds while doing it. Right now, they aren't winning over anybody because they are focusing on issues only their hardcore base cares about.

I'm not saying that what they're doing makes complete rational sense, just that they're following their ideology. And they don't care about Presidential overreach (libertarians aside?), that's just a framing mechanism to delegitimate policies or ideas they object to.

 

[Necrovex]

I'm curious to read who most of you get your political news from? I usually listen to Rachel Maddow, Dan Carlin, and started reading Economist, Rolling Stones, and The Atlantic for my politics (and overall news). I wouldn't mind expanding my catalog a little bit.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Personally I think there has been too much Gingsburg love instead of a focus on her being selfish. She should have retired.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Personally I think there has been too much Gingsburg love instead of a focus on her being selfish. She should have retired.

Selfish?

 

[Diablos]

AP: Hagel is resigning.

That was a surprise...

 

[Wubby]

AP: Hagel is resigning.

That was a surprise...

Yeah this is a surprise... I wonder what's really going on here.

 

[B-Dubs]

AP: Hagel is resigning.

That was a surprise...

Maybe he wants to run in 2016? If he's even considering it he'll need to start distancing himself from Obama now.

That or we're about to get a huge bomb dropped on us concerning military corruption.

 

[Chichikov]

Personally I think there has been too much Gingsburg love instead of a focus on her being selfish. She should have retired.

Agreed.
I don't like the way that game is played (and fuck, I don't like most of the things about the way the Supreme Court is set in this country) but as long as we have this system, you got to think of the greater good.
You get another conservative on the bench, and man, it would be tough to get anything done.

 

[PhoenixDark]

But now “the next couple of years will demand a different kind of focus,” one administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. He insisted that Mr. Hagel was not fired, saying that he initiated discussions about his future two weeks ago with the president, and that the two men mutually agreed that it was time for him to leave.

But Mr. Hagel’s aides had maintained in recent weeks that he expected to serve the full four years term as defense secretary. His removal appears to be an effort by the White House to show that it is sensitive to critics who have pointed to stumbles in the government’s early response to several national security issues, including the Ebola crisis to the threat posed by the Islamic State militant group.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/u...ing-down-as-defense-chief-under-pressure.html

Pathetic. Throwing a friend under the bus to appease the rabble rousers. What threat does ISIS pose that they even deserve a shift in foreign policy.

 

[Diablos]

Sounds like a leadership/optics thing:

The officials described Mr. Obama’s decision to remove Mr. Hagel, 68, as a recognition that the threat from the Islamic State would require a different kind of skills than those that Mr. Hagel was brought on to employ. A Republican with military experience who was skeptical about the Iraq war, Mr. Hagel came in to manage the Afghanistan combat withdrawal and the shrinking Pentagon budget in the era of budget sequestration.

But now “the next couple of years will demand a different kind of focus,” one administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. He insisted that Mr. Hagel was not fired, saying that he initiated discussions about his future two weeks ago with the president, and that the two men mutually agreed that it was time for him to leave.

But Mr. Hagel’s aides had maintained in recent weeks that he expected to serve the full four years as defense secretary. His removal appears to be an effort by the White House to show that it is sensitive to critics who have pointed to stumbles in the government’s early response to several national security issues, including the Ebola crisis and the threat posed by the Islamic State.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/u...ing-down-as-defense-chief-under-pressure.html

How stupid. Like getting rid of Hagel is going to change ISIS and Ebola.
Maybe he just wanted out and did not get along with Obama's cabinet.

 

[Tamanon]

Eh, Hagel always seemed like an old school military guy. Our military isn't that way any more. We're not about finding a place on a map and putting together an army there.

It's a tough job for an old-school guy, there are no wars to win. Nobody wants to send troops anywhere, but they want to blame you for anything that happens overseas.

Lindsay Graham is the next Republican up for it now!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/u...ing-down-as-defense-chief-under-pressure.html

Pathetic. Throwing a friend under the bus to appease the rabble rousers. What threat does ISIS pose that they even deserve a shift in foreign policy.

Did you not read the rest of the article. Where the white house got pissed at him for overblowing isis?