No Fighting In the War Room: Pete Hegseth Confirmation Hearing Livestream Edition

Related Post Roulette

24 Responses

  1. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    Every Senator needs to ask him how he would lead the Pentagon in fighting a two front war against Russia and China. DoD thinks that’s coming and once it starts, the rest probably doesn’t matter.Report

  2. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    The hearing includes vocal opposition from Code Pink in the gallery and at least two senators have loudly and vigorously questioned him about DEI/Social Hot Button issues instead of pentagon policy.

    My assumption is that they’re trying to get him nominated.Report

  3. InMD
    Ignored
    says:

    The guy seems like the epitome of a lot of what’s wrong with the MAGA movement. I’m sympathetic to various criticisms of the administrative state and the permanent brass, including some that come from the right. What I’m not sympathetic to is ‘What if we solved those problems by putting a drunken Fox News personality in charge?!’

    Of course to me the emphasis by Democrats on the committee of these alleged sexual misdeeds illustrate their own fundamental lack of seriousness and failure to adapt. How many times do we need to trot out some he said she said innuendo that probably can’t be proven one way or the other, as if that has ever once worked (to say nothing of backfiring)?

    The real questions are about what qualifies a creature of conservative media and think tank activism to run such a massive and important institution, and whether he will be drinking on the job.Report

    • Philip H in reply to InMD
      Ignored
      says:

      Questions about sexual assault allegations speak to his character – which is especially important given the continued “revelations” of ongoing sexual assault problem in the military. Allegations of drinking on the job and financial mismanagement get to the same issues from different angles. None of them should be washed under the rug, and he should not get a pass on them.Report

      • InMD in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        Yea in theory that all makes a kind of sense but in practice there is limited time and resources to hopefully get the GOP to think twice about what is clearly the most questionable nomination now that Gaetz has withdrawn. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong this time but fifty bucks says whatever these allegations are will be so murky and difficult to substantiate that they won’t change anyone’s mind on anything. The fact that there has not been a prosecution indicates that whatever the story is a prosecutor didn’t feel able to convict in the extremely deferential to authority environment of the criminal justice system.

        Doesn’t mean he didn’t do something bad but does mean the chances of this avenue uncovering a smoking gun sufficient to flip a few GOP Senators are extraordinarily low. So you take the time to focus on things that might. Unless of course your goal is to be written up as really verbally sticking it to the patriarchy or MAGA or whoever in the papers, as opposed to maybe actually keeping some clown show out of an important position.Report

        • Philip H in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          I have seen absolutely no interest in the part of the GOP in keeping the clown show out of the circus. So might as well confront him with the ugly truth, even if it doesn’t move a single vote. At least that maintains integrity.Report

          • InMD in reply to Philip H
            Ignored
            says:

            I don’t see any integrity in that. Not if they dont have the goods.Report

            • Philip H in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              You don’t believe the women do you?Report

              • InMD in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                No, but nor do I not believe them. I don’t know what happened, and doubt anyone other than Hegseth and his accusers do. I am confident that you don’t know either and neither does any Senator, regardless of what they profess to believe.

                In the case of the Senators they believe whatever they feel is in their interest to believe and unless whatever is presented stands a chance of altering those interests then it’s a waste of time.

                What I do know is what I said above, which is that it is going to take way more than this to derail his confirmation.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to InMD
      Ignored
      says:

      Are they bad at this?
      Are they fundraising?

      There aren’t a whole lotta options.Report

    • John Puccio in reply to InMD
      Ignored
      says:

      Counterpoint: You don’t have to enjoy alcohol to run the DoD, but it sure helps.Report

    • Marchmaine in reply to InMD
      Ignored
      says:

      Look, we can’t always nominate people with a perfect resume like Donald Rumsfeld, but we do what we can…

      More seriously, I think there’s more than enough ‘ammunition’ to challenge whether he has the experience and institutional savvy to navigate DoD.

      A better approach to derailing the nomination is to have shadow candidates (as part of the ‘advise’ portion of the advise and consent) who expose Hegseth for the over extended nominee that he is. This is just another example of political malpractice — it feels better, but isn’t effective.Report

      • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
        Ignored
        says:

        I agree.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Marchmaine
        Ignored
        says:

        The GOP isn’t going to do that, and the Dems don’t have the votes to do that.Report

        • Marchmaine in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          It isn’t about the votes, entirely. It’s about losing a fight in a way that sets you up to win the next one… or, even though the Dems don’t have the votes, arguing that there are better Republican options is the way to get Republicans to get nervous about voting for lesser options and start to talk about better options.

          Or… the Dems lose the vote on Hegseth having proposed a better approach to DoD and can bank that for future campaigns.

          That’s why I call it political malpractice… it isn’t about always getting *your* guy or *your* way when you don’t have the votes… it’s about making the other team pay a prices for getting *their* way.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine
        Ignored
        says:

        They should have Lloyd Austin come in and explain the difference between a trustworthy SecDef and an untrustworthy one.Report

  4. Burt Likko
    Ignored
    says:

    The Department of Defense is the largest, most complex bureaucracy in the world. It has an annual budget of a trillion dollars. Hegseth has demonstrated an inability to successfully administer a charity, and when accused of personally running that charity into the ground failed to meaningfully defend himself. His resume certainly does not suggest any appreciable level of executive competence or achievements. He didn’t even make LTC before leaving active military service. There is no reason to think he’s going to be competent at the job he’s been nominated to do.Report

Leave a Reply

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