Sen. Rand Paul votes to confirm Chuck Hagel: ‘I give the president some prerogative’

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s vote to confirm Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense stands out for a couple of reasons. First, only four Republicans voted yes to confirm Hagel, and earlier in the day Paul had voted, along with Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, against bringing Hagel’s confirmation to a vote. Paul explained that what might look like a flip flop isn’t necessarily so, and that he was hoping to delay the vote in order to pressure the administration for more information.

Following the vote, Paul told reporters in the Capitol Building, “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.”

Quite a few conservatives were disappointed to see Tea Party favorite Paul seemingly go the way of Chris Christie.

Though reaction ranged from anger to mere disappointment, some are sticking with Paul as their best hope for 2016.

  • Christian Heiens

    Rand Paul is a libertarian. He supports reductions to the military just like Hagel does (probably not as drastic as Hagel though). We shouldn’t be condemning him for voting yes and sticking true to his philosophical beliefs. I’m more worried about John Brennan as CIA director to be honest. He is a huge supporter of NDAA and using drones on US citizens. I’m pretty sure we all know that if Hagel messes up as Defense Secretary, Rand Paul will be one of the first people to call him out on it.

    • SpinMeNot

      But his mistakes are likely to provoke a war in the Middle East. We’ve got troops in the Sinai as part of the MFO … they are going to be caught in the middle of it. I hope BHO doesn’t have a speaking engagement the next day.

      Rand Paul and I have just parted ways. I will never support him again.

      • onegoodnathan

        Paul’s mistakes are going to provoke? the US government has been provoking wars and constantly intervening in the Middle East since WWII. Paul is an advocate of non-interventionism, how about the US brings it’s troops home?

        • SpinMeNot

          Paul’s mistakes in voting yes on Hagel. There is a reason Iran wants Hagel in SoD and endorse Obama. Does the name Neville Chamberlain ring a bell with you?

          Please try to stay focused, I know its hard.

          • onegoodnathan

            my focus is on you splitting hairs over this appointment and Paul’s vote, and the tone of your comment is that war would be a brand new introduction to the region. rhetoric aside, I suspect based on history, US warfare state policy will continue in the ME. US interventionism is the standard script regardless of the actors.

          • SpinMeNot

            You really don’t get history. You probably also believe if the west didn’t defend Israel, or their interests from terrorist Islamic Fascists, that they wouldn’t hate us.

            You need to stop drinking the kool aid. The only thing that has protected Israel in the last 20 years from repeat of the Yom Kippur War was Mubarak in Egypt and the US/GB. We’ve given control of Egypt to an Islamic group that states in their “charter” that their goal is to destroy Israel. Hagel, Kerry, and BHO will not raise a finger to defend Israel.

            You sir, are about as bright as @salvagesalvage. My statement is accurate. You should go back to humping your coconut.

          • Animal Kingdom

            What nasty rhetoric. Keep to ideas that matter not insults. Maybe BHO won’t raise a finger to help Israel but at least Paul believes as did his dad that Israel does not need the US’s permission to defend itself. The bankers simply want to fund both sides of any conflict so Obama is their guy.

          • SpinMeNot

            Animal, I agree with your final statement with regard to the banks in some respects. My point was that BHO demonizes “wall street” yet is happy to take their campaign contributions.

            Israel, indeed, does not need to ask any other nation to defend themselves. However, given the anti-Israel animus that pervades much of the world, they will probably need our help, either directly or indirectly when they are attacked in a fashion similar to the Yom Kippur war.

            I will not apologize for my “nasty” rhetoric. You can’t win a battle when your R.O.E prevents you from effectively fighting back. War is not pretty, it is not pleasant. The left wants to call names, I will call names. The lefty trolls get trolled back. IF a lefty wants to have a civil debate, I will behave in a civil fashion.

          • onegoodnathan

            wow, i guess anyone who dissents from the neo-con echo chamber viewpoint is automatically a leftist troll. straw men, ad hominem, and petulance abounds in the R vs D paradigm.

          • SpinMeNot

            Neo con rhetoric? What neo con rhetoric? Hagel is on record making numerous anti-Semitic, anti-Israel statements. This country has a number of treaties with Israel, and we just made a guy that has thrown Israel under the bus on numerous occasions responsible for the day to day management of those treaties.

            I never once called you a leftist troll, nothing in any of your posts has indicated you are a leftist. It was obvious to me that you are what I refer to as a Paulistinian, a rabid libertarian that doesn’t understand the bigger picture of national defense or the threat posed by Islamic tyranny. I did state that I don’t think you are that bright.

            How about the US stand by its obligations? Anyone that thinks simply bringing the troops home is going to solve anything has not clue one about life real world. I vehemently disagree with the nation building, but at this point, its moot. I remember Viet Nam, 1975. Simply bringing our troops home will result in exactly the same thing (with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan). Bush started two wars, blah blah blah. What Bush did wrong was to think that nation building was a good idea that could have a positive outcome. We should have simply gone in, kicked the crap out of the Bathists and the Taliban and said when you can learn to play nice with others, please come out.

            Do you family serving overseas? did you serve overseas, if not, don’t talk to me about “bringing the troops home”. I want my sons home, but believe in what they are doing. My parents wanted my brothers and I home, but they believed in what we doing. The same can be said for my father and his brothers, and my grandfather who enlisted in the US Army to fight in WWI just months after arriving here from Lithuania.

          • onegoodnathan

            aside from the 1a, I will continue to have an opinion about any state entity including the military where 1/3 of my tax $ is spent. also I would content that these ‘obligations’ and the state’s real motives and objectives are incongruent. a critique of the US militarism and foreign policy isnt an attack personally on anyone serving.

          • SpinMeNot

            Actually, the defense budget is roughly 20% — that is 1/5 not 1/3.

          • onegoodnathan

            you’re prob accurate. I did have 2 second generation dutch grandfathers, one was mostly pow at Tulagi–battle of coral sea, and my other Gpa drove a jeep for a Colonel in South Korea. my mom had 2 cousins conscripted for, and are on Vietnam wall. maybe I owe them an inquiry into US foreign policy. how do you justify our CIA trafficking billions of dollars of cocaine to our country’s streets to fund the Contra’s and basically manipulate and instal puppet regimes in our ‘back yard’? there were horrible atrocities committed in vietnam. lookup Chip Tatum on youtube and Mena, Ark as a drop point for CIA drugs. it’s us vs the state IMO

          • SpinMeNot

            I would never justify the CIA trafficking drugs.

            I am deeply sorry for the loss of your mother’s cousin’s in Viet Nam. It was an ugly place.

            I don’t have to look up anything about Viet Nam, I was there 3 times.

          • SpinMeNot

            I would never justify the CIA trafficking drugs.

            I am deeply sorry for the loss of your mother’s cousin’s in Viet Nam. It was an ugly place.

            I don’t have to look up anything about Viet Nam, I was there 3 times.

          • SpinMeNot

            And yes, I do agree that in recent years, it has been us vs. the state.

          • SpinMeNot

            And yes, I do agree that in recent years, it has been us vs. the state.

          • onegoodnathan

            bankers and military-industrial complex get rich while millions suffer, pretty standard operation of the state apparatus.

          • SpinMeNot

            For the record, my comment was not that war would be a brand new introduction to that part of the world. My statement was that we have an obligation to Israel and we’ve just ensured that that obligation will not be honored.

          • Animal Kingdom

            Why do you think Iran is getting ready to invade Israel….no way….!

          • SpinMeNot

            Eventually it will happen, only it won’t be an invasion, it will be scorched Earth, and it won’t be Iran alone.

        • TocksNedlog

          Gee, I wonder if you’re confusing Rand with his daddy.

      • Christian Heiens

        You will never support the man again because he voted for something that you don’t disagree with? You’re never going to find a man who agrees with you on 100% of the things you believe unless you yourself are a Congressman. Rand Paul is a great man and a wonderful member of the United States Senate. He has a 100% life time score from the Club for Growth for crying out loud! He has a 99% rating from Freedomworks! He is a libertarian though, not a Neo-Conservative as most GOP members are. We can respect his viewpoint on foreign policy even if we disagree with them because in the end he is on our side. He is not the political enemy here, he’s a political ally and you will find no better friend of the Constitution, Freedom, and Liberty in general in the Senate than him and Mike Lee. But you must understand that his foreign policy views are different than most Republicans. He’s not a bad person or unfit for the Presidency or anything because of those views. I sincerely think you should look back at that decision you just told me you made :)

        • sarahrolph

          “foreign policy views” makes it sound like the issue is what he writes in op-eds. The issue is NATIONAL SECURITY. If Paul doesn’t understand that having Hagel at Defense will damage our national security, that is a dealbreaker.

          • BernardKingIII

            If you think the biggest threat to our national security are some north African Muslim nomads, and not our crippling debt, you are delusional.

          • SpinMeNot

            Your point is valid, but the two go hand in hand.

          • Animal Kingdom

            Double Amen bruthu

          • Christian Heiens

            I’m pretty sure our national security is already damaged with Obama in office…

          • SpinMeNot

            so making it worse is a good idea why? When Charlie gets into the wire, you blow the claymores, you do not serve him tea and rice cakes.

        • MsMoomMist

          Waiting for 9 am EST to see what the Blazetv has to say on this. Should be interesting, check it out http://theblazetv.com

        • Eric M

          He lacks the courage of conviction and his reasons are screwy for why he voted yes. Why anyone would vote for such a bad nomination? I still want his support, but this does rock my belief that he would be worthy to become President.

        • SpinMeNot

          He is a bad person, he betrayed our only ally in the Middle East. Where I come from, that is called leaving a man behind, and its unthinkable.

          I have nothing to rethink. Rand Paul just rolled over because he thinks BHO has a right to be treated with respect. He could not be more wrong. I have respect for the Office of the POTUS, the liar that currently occupies it deserves no respect. I will salute the rank of the POTUS, but never BHO.

          All 19 of the repubicans that voted for cloture and the 4 that then voted to approve Hagel have just generated financial support for any real conservative that stands against them in their next elections.

          EDIT: I left out one point. I am not a Republican. I am a conservative republican. Little ‘c’, Little ‘r’.

        • Animal Kingdom

          Amen brutha

  • peteee363

    apples and tree!

    • Glorious_Cause

      Rand is no different than his pappy…both are kooks.

    • Lady 12

      So it seems.

  • https://twitter.com/tweetyuo Tangchung

    Cancel all confirmation hearings and votes. Rand Paul thinks Obama is king.

  • Billie Slash

    Et tu, Senator Paul?? Careful.

    • Glorious_Cause

      Rand is a kook, just like his pappy.

      • Calcat36

        And apparently, an anti-Semite, just like pappy!

  • Michelle

    “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.”

    That’s right Randy – the President gets to choose the appointee, but it’s Congress’ job to decide whether or not it’s a good decision. That’s what those….confirmation hearings were all about. Have you read the Constitution, Randy? FFS you’re as wacky as your father.

    • almarquardt

      Agreed. Rand Paul seems to have forgotten the Constitutional idea of checks and balances.

      • Michelle

        Ha – Now that the shock has worn off, I realized Paul actually has it wrong. The President does NOT choose the appointee. The President chooses the nominee. Congress chooses the appointee. The process isn’t about appeasing Barry or giving him “leeway.” The Senate confirmation process is about, and only about, the Senators doing what they believe is best for the people who put them in office. Paul says he disagrees with Kerry and Hagel, so that means he should have voted nay. I think Ron Paul is outta his flippen skull, it appears the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

        • Christoph DeHaven

          Very sad to agree. Of the three branches of government, the legislature has always been primus inter pares. That’s why the Senate gets to have the final say on appointees. Otherwise, what he have is a King and his Privy Council, not President and Senate. Until now, I thought he’d be a viable presidential candidate in 2016. It’s not just the vote, but his ridiculous explanation, that has changed my mind.

    • Joe W.

      Agreed.

  • aPLWBinAK

    Rand’s explanation for his yes vote falls into the category officially known as ‘chickenshit’…

  • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

    And this ladies and gentleman is why you cannot trust the Paul’s, none of them

    • Glorious_Cause

      Avoid the Paul family like the plague.

    • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

      Oh, I see we have some Paulbots doing some down voting lol

  • http://twitter.com/BlazePhoenix_ ✰Ҡℒăąẗμ βℜąḋⒶ Ñîḵẗø

    Freakin’ loving the RWNJ freak-out on this!

    • SpinMeNot

      Says the coconut humper with Che Guevara as a his “avatar”. One coward idolizing a mass murdering coward.

    • William J. Miller

      If that’s all you care about regarding important government decisions, how much it upsets conservatives; then you lead a sad existence.

    • operanerd1986

      Disappointment is not freaking out.

    • J. Cox

      Lovin that your hero Che died crying and sniveling to a lowly sgt who put a bullet in his head.Freak out on that coward.

    • TocksNedlog

      Yeah, ain’t it weird how we don’t make excuses when ‘our guys’ say or do stupid things?
      Integrity and personal responsibility. Pass it on!

  • http://twitter.com/SyndicationNetw Syndication Network
  • 24fan

    how many betrayals can we take before throwing the towel in?

  • $23629333

    Rand Paul – leader and/or spokesman for the GOP’s Gang of Four* – says that “the president gets to choose political appointees.” If Democrats agreed and acted accordingly when the president is a Republican, that would be one thing. But when that is not so, and – when Democrats are not given a taste of their own medicine when holding the White House, as a deterrent against obstruction – the impression is that too many Republicans are too willing to be agreeable and go along with the Democrats’ program. That’s why some of us see the Republican party as the political equivalent of the Washington Generals.

    (* the Republicans who voted in favor of Chuck Hagel)

    • SpinMeNot

      And there you have it boys and girls, it really is that simple.
      *hat-tip*

  • Mario Leone

    The last Republican in a non-war situation to be elected (GWB) was actually for a much more humble foreign policy than the one people are drumming up in order to bash Rand. Stick to true conservative principles, people..

    RAND 2016

    • SpinMeNot

      No, Rand is not a conservative — he’s a libertarian — there is a difference. Conservatives stand with their allies, libertarians apparently throw them to the wolves.

      • Mario Leone

        So Chuck Hagel is not a conservative? The guy voted against No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D among many other horribly fiscal policies of the Bush administration. You probably like Paul Ryan because he’s “more conservative,” yet he voted for both of those budget busters.

        • SpinMeNot

          Sorry you lost me — but no, Chuck Hagel is not a conservative. And making assumptions is a great tactic if you are a passive aggressive. Hagel is a bigot, his own words have proven that time and time again. He, like BHO believes the Israelis do not have a right to the land given to them by the beloved UN and refuses to recognize the threat posed by Islamic-Fascists.

      • goldwater89

        Rand isn’t a Libertarian. He’s pro-life and against gay marriage. Those aren’t Libertarian stances. Libertarians are actually real conservatives. When they say the want a small government they mean it, and that includes keeping the government out of the bedroom and out of a woman’s womb.

        • SpinMeNot

          And conservatives that say they want small government don’t mean it? I’ll give you that establishment Republicans don’t understand what small government really means.

          I disagree with the assertion that a libertarian is a true conservative. By your definition perhaps, but conservatism is about traditional values and fixing what is broken while not “fixing things that are not broken”. I will again grant you that large numbers of Republicans are not conservative. I know of number of committed libertarians that are Christian that are pro-life and against same sex marriages. They may not be as much of a libertarian as some people, but they are still libertarians.

        • Nutstuyu

          What you call Libertarians are actually Libertines: people who want to be able to do whatever they want to do no matter the consequences.

        • Christian Heiens

          That’s NOT libertarianism. You have your understand of thta very backwards. Libertarians don’t support any of that. They merely wish for the Government to be removed from those types of situations. They’re not in favor of abortion. They simply think that the issue is better handed on a more personal level than at a Federal one. They don’t necessarily support gay marriage, they just think the government should not define it or interfere in it at all. That’s libertarianism, not forcing your social views (left or right) on others as you described.

  • SAL

    And another one bites the dust… I fear we are running out of options.

    • Glorious_Cause

      Scott Walker.

  • CommieJuice

    When I read the roll call on the confirmation, it was a big WTF. Voting no on cloture, but yes on confirmation. Rand Paul 2013 fits in with this current bunch of Repubics. Hagel fits in with the current bunch of freaks in 0bama’s 2013 regime. Why waste senate time on the hearings when a democrat is president? Let Herr 0bama have whatever he wants. When a Republican is president again in 12 or 20 years from now, save the hearings for his/hear appointments, right?

    • SpinMeNot

      Not going to happen — the $18T in additional debt (6.2 for the first 4 years, another 6T for Obamacare according the latest GAO report, and the next $6T for the next 4 years) what remains won’t be salvageable.

      • SpinMeNot

        Wow, I got voted down for this … Somebody objects to me pointing out that BHO will add more to the debt than his 43 predecessors combined.

        Must be liberal. They should take some benedryl before coming to Twitchy, they might not get so cranky.

      • SpinMeNot

        Wow, I got voted down for this … Somebody objects to me pointing out that BHO will add more to the debt than his 43 predecessors combined.

        Must be liberal. They should take some benedryl before coming to Twitchy, they might not get so cranky.

  • jb

    Hi, Rand Paul: who was John Tower?

    • http://conservatives4palin.com/ Caribou “Dumped” Barbie™

      Who is Rand Paul?

      • jb

        hey– i’ve seen your tag on Breitbart a lot, no?

  • TheTweetest

    Looks like Ted Cruz just made General and Rand Paul was demoted to Colonel

    • Glorious_Cause

      Too bad Cruz was born in Canada.

  • descolada9

    Dammit, Rand, I don’t care if Obama is the President, when he appoints scum for offices, you need to stand firm against them. These effing libs will never return the favor, just ask John Bolton, Judge Bork, et al. Politics isn’t about inviting the other party members over for mint juleps, it’s about fighting for what is right. AAARRRGGGG!!!

    • Jim Russell

      Rand has a libertarian bent like his father. Libertarians have an isolationist bent like Hagel.

      Though Rand tries to couch his vote in “POTUS entitled to his nominees” excuse, he actually identifies with Hagel to some degree.

      • Bradley Hill

        The apples don’t fall far from the tree

      • Animal Kingdom

        I agree with that assessment….it is far more explanatory than most posts here.

      • Jim Russell

        Another likely motivator for Rand: he’s behaving like he may run for President in 2016, and wants to begin to look moderate…a ‘reasonable’ compromiser..

    • Bradley Hill

      Why don’t these people get it? We all hopelessly wonder

  • Howzah123

    Well there goes Rand Paul deep into irrelevancy

    Bye Bye Rand. Nice knowing ya.

  • http://www.facebook.com/james.m.yerian James Michael Yerian

    Welcome to the Senate club and the Potomac two-step, Rand. You’re just like all the other GOPers.

  • FreedomFighter

    Rubio is all we have now if Paul doesn’t somehow redeem himself. Even Rubio has baggage…..he drinks water.

    • Glorious_Cause

      Scott Walker.

      Rubio = amnesty.

  • Robert Kluver, Sr

    Another one bites the dust, we need a new list of conservative Presidential prospects. Rand Paul, Chris Christe and Marco Rubio are not an option.

    • rinodino

      If you don’t choose Christie consider the party dead for another four

      • J. Cox

        Ya,we will take your advice under consideration,right after I fall 30 stories to my death.

    • Lady 12

      Neither is Paul Ryan. On the list are Ted Cruz, Allan West, Bobby Jindal, and the doctor whose name escapes me.

      • https://twitter.com/tweetyuo Tangchung

        Dr. Ben Carson :-p

        • Lady 12

          Thank you!

      • blueniner

        And Sarah Palin……

        • Lady 12

          Much though I respect her, I don’t think she stands a great chance at winning. Neither does Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, or Rick Santorum.

  • Maxx

    It used to be “check and balance” government. Now, it’s just one man writing the checks and the balance is zero.

    Sorry Rand…you went 0-4 today on this one. Still like your fight but be careful…we don’t want you getting sucked into the Capital black hole where everything has to be a “compromise,” which usually means everyone gets screwed. I’m a retired Navy intelligence fella and Hagel’s performance in front of that committee was frighteningly incompetent. If you can’t even prepare for your own nomination, how in hell can you lead an entire military fighting force? I see shoal waters ahead, sad to say.

    • Bradley Hill

      Took the words right out of my mouth with your post! I solute you!

  • nc

    Can someone please explain to me why there are “confirmation hearings” in the first place if oh well, the President gets to pick his cabinet (no matter what)?

    And Senator, what would have been the cost of your “no” vote?

  • TocksNedlog

    Shark jumped.

  • rinodino

    Wow !!! seriously guys its not even funny anymore joking about how in disarray the far right is

  • Raymond

    Wish I had a tweet account, but unfortunately I have a life. To all of you chastising Sen Paul for his voting, seriously pull back and think for a moment. If all the Republicans did was deny the POTUS anything including nominations then our government would be a complete failure because all the Democrats would do is pretty much the same. With our government doing as little as it is right now, I don’t think we as a country can afford them doing EVEN LESS! Sen Paul said it best, by noting that this is the President’s appointee. This is someone the President wants, so what difference does it make if Congress doesn’t approve of it? Wake the F**K up and see Sen Paul’s real intention, and that was to get more information about drones and THE FRICKIN KILLING OF AMERICANS from the White House! All of you criticizing Sen Paul for his voting ways, and ignoring his reasons for doing so are just as bad as the Liberals who went to town on Marco Rubio for drinking water. WAKE THE F**K UP AMERICA AND START VOICING YOUR OPPOSITION ABOUT WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON, instead of every little petty thing you “think” politicians are doing instead.

  • crawfordsrevenge

    He voted against Hagel before he voted for Hagel ; sounds a lot like John Kerry to me.

  • sqeptiq

    There was little sense in Republicans trying to block Hagel. Whoever became secdef would carry out Obama’s agenda, after all. Also, Hagel was probably the best secdef Republicans could reasonably hope for (from their point of view). He’s mostly a conservative Republican who just opposes the most bellicose neocons. As a liberal, I’d have preferred a reliable liberal Democrat with military experience. Joe Sestak was my ideal candidate for the job.

  • Thomas Sullivan

    Pauls Vote Shows his willingness to reach across the Isle. People we had better start learning to meet in the middle on things that are NOT against our core values. Hagel would have made it anyway, but by doing this, Paul showed liberal voters that he is Willing to work. Stop Bitching about the things we don’t agree about and come to the effort of fixing what we can agree upon. Paul played this smart. Stop thinking The right is just going to take over, it’s not. The world has gone Too secular. We must find the Balance of the constitutional liberties in the middle. We don’t have to agree with the far left. But why not try to work with the middle to stop extremeism on both sides.

  • Beth Larsen

    Checks and Balances aren’t there to grant the president some prerogative.

  • $41378716

    Wait. WHAT? Rand! What the?… Rand, Rand, Rand. :::sigh:::

  • Wells Farr

    Hey Rand, what the hell do you think “Advise and Consent” means? It’s the peoples’ protection from the president making some crackhead choice. If you imbicles (apologies to Moe Howard) are going to give Soetoro carte blanche to destroy the country, then I firmly believe we don’t need to spend the money to employ the Senate to approve it.

  • MsMoomMist

    Scum for the scum, wtg Senator! Just hope it doesn’t backfires! Those commies are pretty shifty, next up the Converted Muslim!

  • justlittlolme

    The pResident doesn’t ‘deserve’ a flippin’ thing, Paul! What about the People who sent you there? Do you think they ‘deserve’ to have the most qualified person in office, or do you think they ‘deserve’ to be screwed over by someone the thought they could trust?

    BTW – the ‘perogative’ is for the NOMINATION, not the confirmation, you MORON!

  • Ronald

    Quick! Attack Rand because he’s actually thinking about the long game! When a republican president is in office and gets to choose political appointees this move will look as strategic as it is.

  • grayjohn

    Get used to it. There isn’t one so called Republican that won’t do exactly the same thing when push comes to shove. They are all RINO’s and stealth liberals imho.

  • EastValleyConservative

    Bad move on his part….proving he is falling prey to the establishment. We can’t afford any more RINOs, especially considering he is supposed to be a libertarian.

  • E Quilibrate

    I’ve been moving toward support of Rand Paul, now WTF?

    • blueniner

      Randy in like his daddy, all over the map, a Liberaltarian…….

  • Michael

    If the President gets to “choose political appointees” as Rand Paul states, then perhaps he can explain why the founding fathers found it necessary to have an advice and consent clause in the Constitution.

    Perhaps they were concerned that a future totally incompetent President might appoint a totally incompetent Cabinet officer.

  • http://www.righthook38.com righthook38

    I’m totally confused on this one. Rand Paul was the last person I expected to vote yes. And to say the president has some leeway on nominations? What’s the point of the whole confirmation process if the president’s automatically going to get his way? Makes no sense. Very disappointed in Rand Paul.

  • http://www.righthook38.com righthook38

    Since when does being a Republican = bend over and grab your ankles?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Justin-Mars/1021563074 Justin Mars

    Way to stick by your guns. PFFFT Pathetic.

  • Bradley Hill

    Why don’t we go in another direction? How about keeping it black on black and vote for Dr. Benjamin Solomon Carson as President 2012 VP Allen West

    • SpinMeNot

      Works for me, both honorable men.

  • Suzanne Stewart

    Rand Paul did the right thing. RAND PAUL 2016!!!!!!

  • podunk1

    Can’t trust any of them – pathetic

  • Christian Heiens

    Guys, we all know Rand Paul is our friend. He’s one of the greatest people in the Senate when it comes to promoting small government, liberty, and personal and economic freedom. Would I have voted for Hagel? No. But just because Paul did does not make him our enemy nor mean he is unfit for the Presidency because frankly, we all know that there’s no way HE would have nominated Hagel if he were the President. You will never find a man who agrees with you 100% on everything but Rand Paul probably agrees with you and I on 99% of the issues we face as a nation. I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt and agree to disagree on the way he handled that but realize that he was not voting “yes” as a sign that he supports him (as he explained) but was merely misguided in the way he thought the process was supposed to go. Rand Paul is one of the only senators who voted to preserve our constitutional rights to a fair trial and our rights to not be executed by the President via Drone strikes. :)

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

    Why are Republicans giving consideration to this President and Democrats in general when they never EVER get the same? We have the term ‘Borking’ in our lexicon for a reason.

    Vote them out. Rand too.

  • sentforth5

    I doubt there will be an election in 2016, but if there is, Randy just Xed his chance.