The GOP Lunacy Parade Continues ...

[RLENT]

America's own very own Likudniks (with many chickhawks in their ranks) continue their rather ill-considered attempt to ensure that the GOP remains in minority status for the foreseeable future:

GOP Farce at Hagel Hearings

By Jon Soltz | Huffington Post | View story in the original context
PUBLISHED: January 31, 2013

"Tell me I was right on Iraq!"

Essentially, that's what Sen. McCain said during most of his time in today's confirmation hearing for Chuck Hagel. And that sums up why the die had been cast on the Hagel nomination, before we even got to these hearings today, which I am currently at. This vote, I believed (and now believe more than ever) is a referendum on neocon policy, not on Chuck Hagel.

Chuck Hagel, one of the first Republicans to stand up to President Bush on Iraq. Chuck Hagel who opposed the surge in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, and is against preemptive wars as a first option. Chuck Hagel being confirmed would put a nail in the coffin of neocon military policy. And that drives senators on the right insane.

That's why instead of looking ahead to issues we urgently face, in terms of a readied military that can meet commitments, McCain tried to bully Senator Hagel into saying McCain was right on the war in Iraq, and on the surge there. Of course, McCain wasn't right on the war, and wasn't right on the surge. Iraq stabilized not because of our increased military presence, but because of the Sunni awakening. In short, Iraq stabilized when Iraqis finally wanted that. But that wasn't going to keep McCain from blowing up at Chuck Hagel for daring to challenge him and other neocons.

The end of neocon rule is why Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma spent his question time presenting a blog from ultra-conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin, a favorite of the neocon cabal.

(rlent editorial comment: "Jerusalem Jen" Rubin's "Right Turn" column at the Washington Post is a daily stop of mine - just for the laughs it provides - the comments section - which tends to be almost entirely critical and negative - are a real hoot.

Recently, Jen got taken to the woodshed and hung out to dry, as the commenters to her column documented - using the links that she herself provided - how Jen had thoroughly misrepresented and perverted the details surrounding a certain matter having to do with the Hagel nomination.

If you want to get an idea of how deep the neocommie obsession really runs on some things - and how low they are willing to stoop to smear good folks who they perceive as their "enemies" - scope out Jen's column ... and have a good hearty laugh

BTW, speaking of obsession, IIRC, since Hagel's name was floated for SOD (just a short while ago) Rubin has authored over 50 "hit" pieces on him ... which qualifies her as a rabid, fanatical zealot ...)

It's why Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama spent his time focusing on a paper that Hagel signed on tofrom Global Zero, a group which strives for the ideal of a world rid of nuclear weapons. That's a position of Ronald Reagan, by the way. But, yep, even supporting the ideals of "The Gipper" isn't sufficiently neoconservative, anymore. And so, Sessions argued that bilateral, negotiated, and verifiable reductions in the world's nuclear arsenal wasn't realistic, so it shouldn't be pursued.

Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, rather than focus on issues facing our troops, spent his time, in desperation, dealing with the false and offensive smear against Hagel, regarding Israel. If Wicker is interested in talking with a Jewish-American war veteran, I'm sitting right in front of him, and I wholeheartedly support Chuck Hagel. I'm not holding my breath on that, though, because we all know Wicker's line of questioning was only to serve the purpose of furthering false smears.

In short, Republicans have made a farce of these hearings. We know most of them are neoconservative, and therefore will vote against Hagel as a means to preserve their own influence and the influence of other neocons over our military. More reasonable senators (all of the Democrats and some Republicans), making up a majority, will vote for Hagel, precisely because he is a lot more measured and deliberate in his positions than Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld.

And so, all the money spent by the Sheldon Adelsons of the world, to sink this nomination, is a colossal waste. Chuck Hagel will be confirmed, and neoconservative influence over our military policy will finally, and thankfully, be dead.

(Note: I am live-tweeting from the hearings, at my Twitter page, linked below)

Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz

GOP Farce at Hagel Hearings | VoteVets.org

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Wait a sec here. We're still at war, yet Obama selects an anti-war Republican for SOD.

Just so I have this right now... Obama selects someone to head defense, while in a war that Obama CHOSE to stay in, and this guy was against it to begin with? Do I have that right? Talk about having your cake and crapping it too.

<in the tune of Galveston... >

Afghanistan, Afghanistan, I still see your poppy seeds growin'.
And Obama keeps a blowin'...
smoke up the voters' keester. (thought I was going to say something else, didn't you?)

 

[RLENT]

Wait a sec here. We're still at war, yet Obama selects an anti-war Republican for SOD.

Just so I have this right now... Obama selects someone to head defense, while in a war that Obama CHOSE to stay in, and this guy was against it to begin with?

I wouldn't under-estimate the ability of the neocons and M-I-C-C to influence and manipulate anyone ... after all they sure did with the Big O's predecessor ...

Nevertheless, Obama bears personal responsibility for expanding the "War On Terror" sham worldwide to a far greater extent than Bush ... and a whole variety of other things (involvement in Libya, the NDAA, subversion of the right to due process by including Americans citizens on "kill lists", attempting to gun-grab, and on and on ... ad infinitum ...)

However, what he has done is move to wind down Afghanistan and resisted the temptation to get us involved in another large scale conflict (or two or three) with lots of boots on the ground ...

Just pray that the latter continues ... and use your imagination, if you find your having trouble envisioning how much worse things could be ...

Do I have that right?

I dunno ... do you ?

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I wouldn't under-estimate the ability of the neocons and M-I-C-C to influence and manipulate anyone ... after all they sure did with the Big O's predecessor ...

Nevertheless, Obama bears personal responsibility for expanding the "War On Terror" sham worldwide to a far greater extent than Bush ... and a whole variety of other things (involvement in Libya, the NDAA, subversion of the right to due process by including Americans citizens on "kill lists", attempting to gun-grab, and on and on ... ad infinitum ...)

However, what he has done is move to wind down Afghanistan and resisted the temptation to get us involved in another large scale conflict (or two or three) with lots of boots on the ground ...

Just pray that the latter continues ... and use your imagination, if you find your having trouble envisioning how much worse things could be ...


I dunno ... do you ?

I tend not to watch the news, or tv in general. What little news I get is from family members calling me, asking, "Did you hear...?" "No, silly. I don't pay attention to the news." LOL

 

[Monty]

This might be a good time to pay attention ..... Humpty Dumpty is about to fall off the wall. At least maybe you'd be able to move out of the way.

 

[witness23]

Wait a sec here. We're still at war, yet Obama selects an anti-war Republican for SOD.

Just so I have this right now... Obama selects someone to head defense, while in a war that Obama CHOSE to stay in, and this guy was against it to begin with? Do I have that right? Talk about having your cake and crapping it too.

Try tuning into the hearings and maybe you'll find the answers to your questions, straight from horses mouth.

 

[BobWolf]

The reason the Republicrats lost is because they choose weak asz canidates. Choose a politician with some testicular fortitude, honesty, grit, and the correct skin tone.
Oh yeah, the Republicrats had that canidate and when he didnt sit in the back of the bus they threw him under it. We need a STRONG AND SANE independant party and not the ones that circle themselves with tin foil hat wearing phych patients screaching civil war, etc. and mabey, mabey, they can get ridof the fuher and his replacements.

Bob Wolf.

 

[BobWolf]

I tend not to watch the news, or tv in general. What little news I get is from family members calling me, asking, "Did you hear...?" "No, silly. I don't pay attention to the news." LOL

Im of the same mindset. Its no longer news its opinionated cometary proaganda.
Bob Wolf.

 

[witness23]

Choose a politician with some testicular fortitude, honesty, grit, and the correct skin tone .

Huh........

 

[jaminjim]

Huh........

Herman Cain???

 

[jaminjim]

That OP was really a fair and unbiased account of the hearing <snort>. I particularly liked the comment "More reasonable senators (all of the Democrats and some Republicans)" Yep, a fair and balanced approach. That was kinda laughable.

 

[Brisco]

That OP was really a fair and unbiased account of the hearing.

You forgot to add the appropriate <enter sarcasm here> after this sentence.

 

[iceroadtrucker]

Thursday, veteran broadcast journalist Geraldo Rivera is “truly contemplating” (his words) campaigning for a US Senate seat from New Jersey in 2014. He says he’d run as a Republican against either incumbent Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg, or Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who’d likely win the Democratic primary if Lautenberg decides to retire.Is he serious about this? After all, when non-politician celebrities talk about running for office, often they’re just looking for more attention, or have an ancillary product to sell.
But we must say that right now Geraldo seems like he’s really enthusiastic about a possible foray into politics. He’s already outlined some of his views on issues in an op-ed for Fox News, which is more than Ashley Judd has done after weeks of contemplating a Senate run in Kentucky. On a “Fox and Friends” appearance on Friday, Rivera elaborated on his ideology, saying that he’s a moderate Republican looking to revitalize the GOP.
RECOMMENDED: So you think you know Congress? Take our quiz.
Of course, with Geraldo it is hard to distinguish between genuine enthusiasm and sheer volume. The sound level on his butterscotch broadcast voice always seems to be set to “stun.”
But here’s another question: is he really a Republican?
Let’s go down the list of his positions on some-hot button issues. First, he voted for President Obama in 2012, according to his Fox News Latino essay. That’s going to be a problem right up front.
However, he attempts to dodge this by saying that he endorsed Mitt Romney’s economic platform. He decries the Democrats’ inaction on the federal deficit, and says the nation’s big entitlement programs need reform.
“Unfettered, theirs is a recipe for generational catastrophe,” Rivera writes.
He is a registered Republican, by the way. He signed up with the GOP in 2009, after previously been registered as unaffiliated with any party, according to a Newark Star Ledger story.
In the end River pulled the lever for Obama because of social issues. He’s (mostly) pro-abortion, as well as pro-gay marriage and pro-immigration reform. Also, he wants to normalize relations with Cuba and Venezuela. None of those are things that made their way into the 2012 Republican platform.
However, on the other side, he’s a law-and-order guy who wants New York City’s “Stop and Frisk” policing style imported to the Garden State. He says his political heroes have been moderate Northeast Republicans, from New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to former New Jersey Gov. Christie Todd Whitman and current Gov. Chris Christie.
“Democrats have a huge ... registration advantage in New Jersey,” Rivera said on "Fox and Friends." “But I really do believe, as a moderate Republican, there is a point of view that is unrepresented in states like New Jersey.”
OK, Democrats do lead Republican registrations in New Jersey by about 13 percentage points.
But we see what Rivera is thinking here. It doesn’t matter whether he voted for Obama or not in a state that went for Obama by a big margin. New Jersey will not elect a Republican who could pass muster with the House GOP caucus. They will vote – and have – for somebody like Chris Christie. So Rivera’s main hope is to attach himself to Governor Christie’s hip.
And you know what? That plan is so crazy it just might work. Christie is almost the most popular governor in the country. A recent Quinnipiac poll found his in-state approval rating to be an astounding 74 percent. A majority of New Jersey Democrats like the job their Republican governor is doing.
The Democratic Party can’t even find an A-list politician to take on Christie, who faces voters for reelection this November. Cory Booker passed so he could run for Senate instead.
That’s the advantage Geraldo Rivera would have if he makes a Senate bid. His positions mirror Christie’s. He could campaign with Christie. Basically, he’d probably attempt to get voters to see him as Christie’s first cousin. You know – the one with the big moustache, the Harley, and the radio and TV gigs he’d have to give up if he runs.

 

[iceroadtrucker]

Thursday, veteran broadcast journalist Geraldo Rivera is “truly contemplating” (his words) campaigning for a US Senate seat from New Jersey in 2014. He says he’d run as a Republican against either incumbent Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg, or Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who’d likely win the Democratic primary if Lautenberg decides to retire.Is he serious about this? After all, when non-politician celebrities talk about running for office, often they’re just looking for more attention, or have an ancillary product to sell.
But we must say that right now Geraldo seems like he’s really enthusiastic about a possible foray into politics. He’s already outlined some of his views on issues in an op-ed for Fox News, which is more than Ashley Judd has done after weeks of contemplating a Senate run in Kentucky. On a “Fox and Friends” appearance on Friday, Rivera elaborated on his ideology, saying that he’s a moderate Republican looking to revitalize the GOP.
RECOMMENDED: So you think you know Congress? Take our quiz.
Of course, with Geraldo it is hard to distinguish between genuine enthusiasm and sheer volume. The sound level on his butterscotch broadcast voice always seems to be set to “stun.”
But here’s another question: is he really a Republican?
Let’s go down the list of his positions on some-hot button issues. First, he voted for President Obama in 2012, according to his Fox News Latino essay. That’s going to be a problem right up front.
However, he attempts to dodge this by saying that he endorsed Mitt Romney’s economic platform. He decries the Democrats’ inaction on the federal deficit, and says the nation’s big entitlement programs need reform.
“Unfettered, theirs is a recipe for generational catastrophe,” Rivera writes.
He is a registered Republican, by the way. He signed up with the GOP in 2009, after previously been registered as unaffiliated with any party, according to a Newark Star Ledger story.
In the end River pulled the lever for Obama because of social issues. He’s (mostly) pro-abortion, as well as pro-gay marriage and pro-immigration reform. Also, he wants to normalize relations with Cuba and Venezuela. None of those are things that made their way into the 2012 Republican platform.
However, on the other side, he’s a law-and-order guy who wants New York City’s “Stop and Frisk” policing style imported to the Garden State. He says his political heroes have been moderate Northeast Republicans, from New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to former New Jersey Gov. Christie Todd Whitman and current Gov. Chris Christie.
“Democrats have a huge ... registration advantage in New Jersey,” Rivera said on "Fox and Friends." “But I really do believe, as a moderate Republican, there is a point of view that is unrepresented in states like New Jersey.”
OK, Democrats do lead Republican registrations in New Jersey by about 13 percentage points.
But we see what Rivera is thinking here. It doesn’t matter whether he voted for Obama or not in a state that went for Obama by a big margin. New Jersey will not elect a Republican who could pass muster with the House GOP caucus. They will vote – and have – for somebody like Chris Christie. So Rivera’s main hope is to attach himself to Governor Christie’s hip.
And you know what? That plan is so crazy it just might work. Christie is almost the most popular governor in the country. A recent Quinnipiac poll found his in-state approval rating to be an astounding 74 percent. A majority of New Jersey Democrats like the job their Republican governor is doing.
The Democratic Party can’t even find an A-list politician to take on Christie, who faces voters for reelection this November. Cory Booker passed so he could run for Senate instead.
That’s the advantage Geraldo Rivera would have if he makes a Senate bid. His positions mirror Christie’s. He could campaign with Christie. Basically, he’d probably attempt to get voters to see him as Christie’s first cousin. You know – the one with the big moustache, the Harley, and the radio and TV gigs he’d have to give up if he runs.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

This might be a good time to pay attention ..... Humpty Dumpty is about to fall off the wall. At least maybe you'd be able to move out of the way.

I find out what's going on here, and at other sites. I don't need to watch news, or hearings, as 3-ring circuses don't interest me anymore.

 

[witness23]

I find out what's going on here

Dude, that's the saddest and at the same time the funniest thing I've ever heard.

and at other sites.

Oh please, please, I'm begging you to share what those "other" sites might be.

I don't need to watch news, or hearings, as 3-ring circuses don't interest me anymore

News; especially cable news, couldn't agree with ya more. Hearings; I'd much rather watch and hear with my own eyes and ears and form my own opinion, rather than coming HERE, then forming an opinion. Hey, did you hear in here that they're tearing down Pres. Reagan's childhood apt. building to build a parking lot for Pres. Obama's Presidential Library? Yeah, crazy huh?

 

[RLENT]

These ***-clowns apparently have no idea whatsoever how absolutely delusional they look to relatively sane and rational folks:

Hagel Hearing: The War Party’s Waterloo

​

by Justin Raimondo, February 01, 2013
Print This | Share This

We have to be thankful to Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of our more theatrical solons, for dramatizing the way in which the Israel lobby intimidates members of Congress: by asking Chuck Hagel if he could name a single Senator who was so intimidated he merely underscored how thoroughly each and every one of them is cowed. The whole spectacle of this public interrogation, with its tiresomely repetitive demands for pledges of undying loyalty to Israel, brought home the truth of Hagel’s remark.

Of course Hagel couldn’t say that, but the ugly reality resonated in the immense silence that followed this exchange. Interestingly, Hagel didn’t back down: He said "I don’t know." As to what motivates any particular member of Congress on any specific "dumb thing" they do – well, he couldn’t know, could he? But of course, everybody knows about the Israel lobby: and if its power and vindictiveness were ever in danger of being forgotten, then surely the battle over Hagel’s confirmation has reminded us.

To anyone who lives outside the Washington bubble, there was something profoundly weird about the ritualistic invocations of undying loyalty to Israel, a country mentioned 135 times in the course of the hearing: Afghanistan only merited 27, while al Qaeda got 2 and Mali one. One would have thought Hagel had been nominated for Israeli Defense Minister instead of the top civilian in the Pentagon. As he faced the pro-Israel "inquisitors" – as Sen. Angus King put it – the educational value of this political drama was worth far more than all the books and articles one could possibly read.

Speaking of motivation, Graham’s grandstanding was preaching to the choir: the wingnuts in his party don’t think he’s right-wing enough, and this is his way of compensating for what the Tea Party types consider sellouts on immigration and other issues dear to their hearts.

However, it was John McCain’s confrontation with his now ex-friend, the former Senator from Nebraska, that was most telling, insofar as it tells us what this whole brouhaha really is about: the country’s verdict on the Iraq war, and the lingering power and influence of those who lied us into it.

Enraged by Hagel’s observation that the "surge" prefigured the single most disastrous episode in US foreign policy since the Vietnam war, Mad John’s eyes practically popped out of his head. Hagel, sitting there calmly, replied somewhat bemusedly that we’ll "let history judge" who was right about that one.

McCain’s impotence was palpable as he ranted and railed, his red-faced fury assailing Hagel’s stony defiance. If, as one suspects, history’s judgment of the Iraq war will be as harsh as the American people’s, then McCain and his fellow Iraq war dead-enders will be the ones "on the wrong side of history," as the Arizona Senator had the nerve to intone in his scolding lecture – odd coming from such a spectacularly failed presidential candidate. If indeed history has a side — a dubious proposition, at best — at least we can say McCain is on the wrong side of recent history: the American people wanted out of Iraq, they want out of Afghanistan, and they don’t want us meddling in Syria. Yet the tone deaf McCain actually brought up Syria at the hearing, haranguing Hagel and asking "How many more have to die?"

There was a lot of competition as to which Republican senator gave the craziest performance, but I think the prize has to go with the one who came with exhibits, three of them – two of them clips from an Al Jazeera, which Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) helpfully described as a "foreign network, engaged in propaganda." That this was said by someone whose talking points were written by propagandists for another foreign power – namely, Israel – is the kind of irony a wingnut like Cruz is utterly deaf to.

In any case, Cruz presented a severely edited clip of Hagel’s anodyne answer to a question from an Al Jazeera viewer about "moral leadership," which was of no significance – but, according to the esteemed Senator, it was evidence that Hagel believed Israel had committed "war crimes." Go here to look at the entire answer to the question, and the context – which was US-Russian relations, specifically the prospects for nuclear disarmament – rather than the radically abbreviated version played by Cruz. The Al Jazeera announcer intervened in the midst of the questioner’s long disquisition, asking "what is your question about the subject we are discussing, which is nuclear weapons." The questioner then went on to ask about the "lack of moral leadership," and it is clear from the context that Hagel was saying, yes, we need more moral leadership on the issue of nuclear leadership: he said nothing about Israeli war crimes. And while this may be unfortunate, Cruz’s attempt to twist Hagel’s words is contemptible, to say the least.

Citing the same interview, Cruz took the next question from a viewer out of context, averring that Hagel agreed with a caller who said that the "perception and reality" of the US as the "world’s bully" stood in the way of an agreement between the US and Russia on further dismantling of nuclear arsenals. Yet he said nothing about the US being a bully, let alone the world’s bully, and simply went on to utter a harmless bromide about the need to "reach out" and "engage."

Clearly Hagel walked back some of his past positions, in my view unnecessarily – after all, he wasn’t going to convince Sen. Cruz in any event, and it’s important to get the truth on the record. For example, Hagel backed down when Cruz went after his description of Israel’s last attack on Lebanon as a "slaughter," and tried to spin it as a condemnation of Israel. Yet if you look at the entire speech – as Dave Weigel has – it was no such thing. There’s nothing subtle about Cruz’s cherry-picking: it’s crude, and brazen. Not that he cares. A blustering bullying opportunist, whose physical resemblance to Joe McCarthy is an act of justice on Nature’s part, the Republican Senator from Texas cares only about getting that sound-bite on Fox News. In the second round of questioning, Cruz reprised his McCarthyesque performance by declaring that he had "a list of anti-Israel comments" purportedly made by Hagel.

I have in my hands a list! To the irony-proof Cruz, this was a zinger. To the rest of us it was more proof – if that were needed – of the man’s thuggishness.

This entire process has been enormously helpful to those of us who have been trying to open the eyes of the public to the inordinate influence the Israel lobby exerts on Congress and on US foreign policy. A visitor from Mars might imagine he’d landed in the midst of a show trial conducted by some totalitarian regime, with the prisoner in the dock forced to confess and engage in "self-criticism," as the inquisitors looked sternly askance at his recantation.

The Israel Firsters really went out on a limb, this time, and in the end they’ll wind up having sawed it off. Because Hagel is going to be confirmed in spite of their hysterical hate campaign, and what that means is that their power is broken.

No, the Israel lobby isn’t going away: what’s ended, however, is the myth of their invincibility – not to mention the myth of their nonexistence. Remember, it is supposed to be a hate crime of some kind to even mention the Israel lobby, and up until this point the lobbyists and their shills have stoutly maintained that it is a "conspiracy theory" to believe such a thing exists (and also "anti-Semitic"). Now we have Sen. King, independent from Maine, who got in the last word at the hearing when, asking Hagel if he knew who was behind the ads attacking his nomination. Yes, Senator, wouldn’t we like to know!

Among the many darkly comic moments of the hearing, a real howler was introduced at the beginning when Senator Jim Inhofe inquired as to know why Hagel hadn’t bothered replying to a letter sent to him by the resident wingnuts on the committee, listing every organization he’d ever been affiliated with (save the USO) and demanding to know if any of them were recipients of funding from "foreign nations, foreign sovereign funds, [or] foreign corporations."

This is rich, considering the source. While we don’t know exactly where the money for the wide array of anti-Hagel television spots and full page newspaper ads came from – at least $1 million, according to Jim Lobe – many suspect it was due to Sheldon Adelson’s well known generosity when it comes to "pro-Israel" causes. Adelson – who once said he regrets the uniform he wore when he served in the military was American and not Israeli, and whose wife is a dual Israeli-American citizen.

In their effort to "expose" Hagel, the Lobby and its shrinking band of loyal foot soldiers only succeeded in exposing their own weakness. And that is a big step forward for opponents of the War Party. Because it is the Israel lobby that is, today, the main force agitating for war with Iran, and US military intervention in Syria. The Israel lobby is leading the pushback in response to the prospect of big defense cutbacks – because if the American Empire is now contracting, then Israel can no longer huddle under the eagle’s wing. As we have seen in Hagel’s case, it is these lobbyists on behalf of a foreign power who are most aggressive in "policing" the policy establishment in Washington, determined to block those who fail to toe the party line from getting anywhere near the levers of power.

In the past, they might have pulled it off – as they did with Charles Freeman, whom Cruz tried without success to link to Hagel – but not this time. The country has changed: the dark days of the Bush era, when smear campaigns aimed at anyone who challenged the Lobby’s dominance usually ended in the target’s political destruction, are over. The fury and energy of the anti-Hagel campaign only served to underscore its complete impotence and irrelevance: the country has moved on, even if Bill Kristol hasn’t. If the Iraq war didn’t succeed in totally discrediting Kristol and his fellow neocons, then this hearing – with all the vindictiveness and sheer hate of these people on full display – is their Waterloo.​

Hagel Hearing: The War Party
​

 

[RLENT]

Separated at birth ? (Left: Ted Cruz, R - Whackjob and right: Old Joe ...)

 

[cheri1122]

Anyone who doubts that the GOP has gone completely around the bend has only to read the latest [in a long series] howler: Massachusetts Repubs are suggesting that John Kerry's Senate seat be filled by - [I LOVE this, lol] Ann Romney.
Because she fought multiple sclerosis, and people liked her speech at the convention.
Yep, that's the whole list of her 'qualifications'.
Every time I think they just can't get any more loony tunes, they do - and I am, again, just gobsmacked.
Knowing nothing about Hagel except that the Repubs don't like him, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, and that's pretty sad.

 

[muttly]

Anyone who doubts that the GOP has gone completely around the bend has only to read the latest [in a long series] howler: Massachusetts Repubs are suggesting that John Kerry's Senate seat be filled by - [I LOVE this, lol] Ann Romney.
Because she fought multiple sclerosis, and people liked her speech at the convention.
Yep, that's the whole list of her 'qualifications'.
Every time I think they just can't get any more loony tunes, they do - and I am, again, just gobsmacked.
Knowing nothing about Hagel except that the Repubs don't like him, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, and that's pretty sad.

I think it is pretty sad that you would point out she has multple sclerosis as a "qualification" for being a senator.