January 30th, 2013

Why only three?

Only three Republican senators managed to muster up the guts to vote against John Kerry’s nomination: Ted Cruz and John Cornyn of Texas, and Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma. That was it. Should have been significantly more, despite the fact that the parties seem to be fusing into a solid whole. Still, only three?

There was never a moment’s doubt that Kerry would be confirmed. But how would it have hurt some of the other senators from strongly Republican states to have voted against him? If you’re going to prostitute yourself, why sell yourself for a penny?

This is taking collegiality a little far.

13 Responses to “Why only three?”

  1. Don Carlos Says:

    “If you’re going to prostitute yourself, why sell yourself for a penny?”
    Because that is all they are worth.
    I am not surprised by the wretchedly collegial McCain and Grahamnesty, but I am by Rubio and the other stalwarts-in-name-only. Only Bork, Clarence Thomas and other Conservs get borked?

  2. John Effing Kerry Says:

    Too far? You can never go too far in protecting the Club.

  3. George Pal Says:

    Republicans are our hope; we need more of them.

    Gov. Jindal:
    “We’ve got to stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults… We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. I’m here to say we’ve had enough of that.”
    Yes, THAT’s the problem – offensive and bizarre comments.

    Only one of the committee members questioning Ms Clinton confronted her, the rest rolled over.

    The “Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform” released on January 28, 2013 by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), John McCain (R-AZ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Lindsay Graham (R-FL), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Michael Bennet (R-UT), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), gives legal status to illegal aliens before controlling the border.

    Silvio Canto, Jr.
    Concervatives Should Give Rubio a Chance
    “Let me make it very clear. I hate illegal immigration as much as anybody. I am a naturalized US citizen and came to the US legally. The key difference between the US and much of the world is the “rule of law.”

    At the same time, hating illegal immigration or calling everything “amnesty” is not going to solve the problem. This is why I’ve always favored a plan that offers a path to legalization to people who are willing to do a few things.

    I said path to legalization NOT citizenship! A “work visa” is different than US citizenship in my mind.”

  4. Gringo Says:

    They didn’t want to vote against a fellow member of the Senate Club. And the Senate is rather clubby, I believe.

    Only 3 votes against a Secretary of State that compared US forces in Vietnam to Genghis Khan? Not good.

  5. Mike Says:

    As a small aside- The clubby Senate comittee that this clown was heading, also gave him a glowing recognition of how great he was in line with the likes of Henry Clay, Danial Webster , bla, bla, bla.
    The funny part of it is that it was passed when he was still the chairman of the committee. My question is Did he also write the recognition himself? In all of my blog reading I often wonder why these “leaders” could not be of the same caliber of those that blog, i.e. Neo, the anchoress, Levin, etc. But then I remember deep water is generally quiet on the surface while a 1″ babbling brook is very noisy.

  6. DirtyJobsGuy Says:

    This may be due to the Hillary Experience. She was an awful SecState even before Bengazi. Granted much of this was due to the awful policies of her boss, but even administratively she was a disaster.

    Kerry was exposed in the Bush Kerry race to little long term impact and has done nothing since then but spend Teresa’s cash. Why not send him off with a hearty well done and welcome in Scott brown in three months?

  7. Clayton Bigsby Says:

    “despite the fact that the parties seem to be fusing into a solid whole. ”

    Did you mean solid WASTE…..?

  8. Dan D Says:

    First, John Kerry had plenty of votes for confirmation anyway. Second, it’s appropriate to defer to the President on most Cabinet appointments, especially in this case where President Obama will continue to run his own foreign policy, and John Kerry, like Hillary Clinton before him, will be an ambassador-at-large rather than a true Secretary of State.

    Third and perhaps just as significant, who should not earn our thanks for voting to take John Kerry out of the US Senate?

    Three symbolic votes against him is sufficient in this case.

  9. Lee Says:

    I like to think that a number of them were deciding to pick their battle. That is, they let Kerry go easily because they are sharpening their claws for Hagel. That is the battle they want to fight. But I am not going to hold my breath. I am sure a large number of the weak-spined idiots will capitulate.

    Sign…

  10. neo-neocon Says:

    Lee: but no “battle” need have been involved. If something like ten or fifteen more senators had simply voted against Kerry, they would have stood on principle and there would have been no battle. Merely their recorded votes. It seems to me there was no cost to that whatsoever, and yet they still didn’t do it.

  11. Ymarsakar Says:

    Many of the Republican politicians and staff are on the payroll of the Left. Whether they get paid with bribes, favors, or the promise that this black mail material won’t be sent to the media, is harder to say.

    When the Left corrupts America, it’s not only the private citizens they destroy.

  12. Ymarsakar Says:

    “Kerry was exposed in the Bush Kerry race to little long term impact and has done nothing since then but spend Teresa’s cash. ”

    Wasn’t her cash to begin with. It was a Republican business owner, Heinz ketchup.

  13. Gringo Says:

    DanD:
    Third and perhaps just as significant, who should not earn our thanks for voting to take John Kerry out of the US Senate?

    Good point.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge