Expel Wayward Republicans from the Senate? (2 Viewers)

[Steve R.]

Three wayward Republicans Senators voted "NO" on Pete Hegseth's approval as Secretary of Defense. The three "lost" Republicans are: Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins. These three have not been reliable in terms of supporting the Republican agenda. Of course, there needs to be the obligatory disclaimer that they are free to make their own decisions. That is better than it is with the Democrats who all march in lockstep with the Democratic Party agenda. Nevertheless it would be profitable if all the Republicans would occasionally rally behind the Republican agenda after four years of extreme abuse and obstructionism by the Democrats. Moreover, there is also an implied mandate that the president gets his nominees approved by the Senate, unless there are significant shortcomings with the nominee. Nominees should not be simply rejected based on personal reasons and/or party affiliation.

It would take the vote of 67 Senators to expel a Senator from the Senate. Fifty Senators voted to confirm Hegseth. Hegseth was approved by the vote of Vance, as the vice-President as the 51st vote. So if those 50 Republicans were to push to expel any one of the three Senator who voted against Hegseth, it would take at least 17 Democratic Senators. This would lead to an interesting conundrum.

Democrats march in unison to obstruct Republicans, so wouldn't they support the expulsion of Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins? Unfortunately, in this case, Democrats would probably view wayward weak Republicans as beneficial to their anti-Republican mantra and would not support their expulsion.

Finally one is left with the impression that all the Democrats voted against Hegseth for purely political reasons. The continued obstruction of the Republican agenda. That is not a valid reason for the Democrats to vote against Hegseth.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I think Trump will use the Primary effectively where possible. Mitch is one fall away from being a footnote in history.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I haven't been watching the hearings. It always makes me want to throw things at the TV. It's worse than watching a football game.

WHY is Mitch McConnell still in the Senate. Didn't he promise to retire? Why can't the 50 Senators who are with us, force him out?

 

[Steve R.]

Why can't the 50 Senators who are with us, force him out?

Unfortunately, it would take 67 Senators to expel him. Given that, the Democrats (who go out of their way to obstruct Republicans on every occasion) would magically "support" McConnell in this instance, so that won't occur. His term ends in Jan. 2027. The Republicans need to come-up with an offer that McConnell can't refuse.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Somehow, McConnell ended up as Senate Majority leader YET AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!! Why didn't that get fixed when Congress reconvened in January? The Republicans are all feckless pieces of dog doo. WHAT does McConnell have on them that they are so terrified of voting in someone to replace him.

 

[Steve R.]

Somehow, McConnell ended up as Senate Majority leader YET AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!! Why didn't that get fixed when Congress reconvened in January? The Republicans are all feckless pieces of dog doo. WHAT does McConnell have on them that they are so terrified of voting in someone to replace him.

????

Republican John Thune of South Dakota is elected the next Senate majority leader

Republicans have elected South Dakota Sen. John Thune as the next Senate majority leader, completing a momentous shift in their leadership.

apnews.com

Republicans are replacing McConnell, the longest serving Senate party leader, as they prepare to take majority control of the Senate with the 53 seats they won in last week’s elections. It was the first competitive election for Republican leader in three decades and Senate Republicans’ first regime change since McConnell became GOP leader in 2007.

Thune’s election represents a major shift in the upper chamber’s GOP conference as many senators have been eager to move on from McConnell’s long and powerful reign. But it will also be a complicated test for Thune as he will have to manage a conference that is often divided over policy, navigate Trump’s demands of the legislative branch and secure policy wins for the president as he begins his second term.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Thanks I missed that. So far, I haven't seen Thune anywhere. But I have seen McConnell on TV. Seems like Thune is taking a back seat. Just the kind of "leader" the Republicans need. The invisible man.

 

[Isaac]

to be honest, I felt a bit of respect welling up in my thoughts, when I heard a few senators had voted against him - only because people ought to be voting their conscience, and not just whatever Trump says - to demonstrate that they have their own brain and not just yes-men to Trump deserves respect IMO, especially since sometimes poor consequences follow.

Hegseth can be said to lack experience of running a major outfit like that - and while I personally am OK with him being confirmed, I'll at least admit that it's a risk, a gamble, because of lack of experience - but his outsider-ness brings good results probably with it, too, that's why I'm OK with it. I don't fault them for voting no, tho.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

to be honest, I felt a bit of respect welling up in my thoughts, when I heard a few senators had voted against him - only because people ought to be voting their conscience, and not just whatever Trump says - to demonstrate that they have their own brain and not just yes-men to Trump deserves respect IMO, especially since sometimes poor consequences follow.

Hegseth can be said to lack experience of running a major outfit like that - and while I personally am OK with him being confirmed, I'll at least admit that it's a risk, a gamble, because of lack of experience - but his outsider-ness brings good results probably with it, too, that's why I'm OK with it. I don't fault them for voting no, tho.

They voted know because they don't like Trump not because of their conscience. Two of them voted Yes but waited until Trump wasn't around. They also voted for Bidens DEI choices for the cabinet and SCOTUS.

 

[RogerCooper]

Three wayward Republicans Senators voted "NO" on Pete Hegseth's approval as Secretary of Defense. The three "lost" Republicans are: Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins. These three have not been reliable in terms of supporting the Republican agenda. Of course, there needs to be the obligatory disclaimer that they are free to make their own decisions. That is better than it is with the Democrats who all march in lockstep with the Democratic Party agenda. Nevertheless it would be profitable if all the Republicans would occasionally rally behind the Republican agenda after four years of extreme abuse and obstructionism by the Democrats. Moreover, there is also an implied mandate that the president gets his nominees approved by the Senate, unless there are significant shortcomings with the nominee. Nominees should not be simply rejected based on personal reasons and/or party affiliation.

It would take the vote of 67 Senators to expel a Senator from the Senate. Fifty Senators voted to confirm Hegseth. Hegseth was approved by the vote of Vance, as the vice-President as the 51st vote. So if those 50 Republicans were to push to expel any one of the three Senator who voted against Hegseth, it would take at least 17 Democratic Senators. This would lead to an interesting conundrum.

Democrats march in unison to obstruct Republicans, so wouldn't they support the expulsion of Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins? Unfortunately, in this case, Democrats would probably view wayward weak Republicans as beneficial to their anti-Republican mantra and would not support their expulsion.

Finally one is left with the impression that all the Democrats voted against Hegseth for purely political reasons. The continued obstruction of the Republican agenda. That is not a valid reason for the Democrats to vote against Hegseth.

You are calling for the expulsion of Senators for not supporting the President. That is a severe abuse of the expulsion power which is meant for criminal behavior (like the recent expulsion of Santos). Each of those senators was elected by the people of their state.

As for Hegseth, according to him, he got very drunk and had sex with an equally drunk woman. Both were married at the time. Getting drunk is normally seen as disqualifying for a post of that importance. He also has no managerial experience. I believe these constitute significant shortcomings.

Note the Democrats unanimously supported Marco Rubio for Secretary of State. What is the obstruction?

 

[Isaac]

I have a sincere question, did I really read somewhere that since you are technically "always on call" in a position such as Hegseth is being nominated for, then technically you can never drink? That sounds a bit silly, and surely no director of defense has ever satisfied it perfectly.
I doubt Hegseth will entirely stop drinking.
For that rule to make sense, you'd have to apply it across everything else and all other activities, too. What about taking a sleeping pill at night? Out of the question, then. Very unrealistic.

 

[RogerCooper]

There is a difference between drinking and being drunk. I think it is reasonable expectation that top security officials never get drunk in public. Senator John Tower withdrew as nominee for Defense Secretary when his public drunkeness was revealed. Adultery is also considered disqualifying for security positions, General Petraeus resigned after his affair was revealed.

Lloyd Austin was not fired after he took time off for surgery without telling the President (or anyone other than the assistant secretary). He should have been.

Yes, the defense secretary is always on call.

 

[Isaac]

Drunk in public, sure - but that's more of a prestige/image/dignity thing, and has nothing to do with military readiness.
I'm talking about the never getting drunk ever, public or not. If that is off limits then so such many medicines and sleeping pills. For that matter, why shower? You might be called upon naked.
They might as well just confirm him, all of the he said-she said accusations aren't going to get us any closer to knowing, really.

One thing I do like about Hegseth is that he is committed to turning the general emphasis of the military back to being strictly what it's supposed to be. I feel that is very necessary. And it might be worth his faults (which IMO an affair and getting drunk once is really nothing as to the position...But lack of experience IS).

 

[RogerCooper]

Hegseth paid money, so it is more than he-said/she-said.

 

[Isaac]

Hegseth paid money, so it is more than he-said/she-said.

Nope. Settling a claim with an accuser does not make it any more than he said she said. Every time someone rich or famous or gets nominated, tons of women claim they were all assaulted by him. Usually it pays off.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Gotta love the morality hawks waking up after a four year snooze

 

[Pat Hartman]

Getting drunk is normally seen as disqualifying for a post of that importance.

Only if you're on the other "side". I'm sure you've never gotten drunk though so you can throw stones. Guess that means Trump must be super qualified to be President. He doesn't drink at all

 

[Thales750]

Three wayward Republicans Senators voted "NO" on Pete Hegseth's approval as Secretary of Defense. The three "lost" Republicans are: Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins. These three have not been reliable in terms of supporting the Republican agenda. Of course, there needs to be the obligatory disclaimer that they are free to make their own decisions. That is better than it is with the Democrats who all march in lockstep with the Democratic Party agenda. Nevertheless it would be profitable if all the Republicans would occasionally rally behind the Republican agenda after four years of extreme abuse and obstructionism by the Democrats. Moreover, there is also an implied mandate that the president gets his nominees approved by the Senate, unless there are significant shortcomings with the nominee. Nominees should not be simply rejected based on personal reasons and/or party affiliation.

It would take the vote of 67 Senators to expel a Senator from the Senate. Fifty Senators voted to confirm Hegseth. Hegseth was approved by the vote of Vance, as the vice-President as the 51st vote. So if those 50 Republicans were to push to expel any one of the three Senator who voted against Hegseth, it would take at least 17 Democratic Senators. This would lead to an interesting conundrum.

Democrats march in unison to obstruct Republicans, so wouldn't they support the expulsion of Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins? Unfortunately, in this case, Democrats would probably view wayward weak Republicans as beneficial to their anti-Republican mantra and would not support their expulsion.

Finally one is left with the impression that all the Democrats voted against Hegseth for purely political reasons. The continued obstruction of the Republican agenda. That is not a valid reason for the Democrats to vote against Hegseth.

Are you thinking of a new career? You know, like Minister of Propaganda. That was Goebbels' title, he spoke in absolutes as well.

 

[AccessBlaster]

all roads lead to Hitlers bunker

 

[RogerCooper]

Nope. Settling a claim with an accuser does not make it any more than he said she said. Every time someone rich or famous or gets nominated, tons of women claim they were all assaulted by him. Usually it pays off.

Hegseth was not famous when he paid his accuser. And most famous men do not settle assault charges with payoffs.