[New Heights] For Sec. of State, Obama Appoints Decorated Vietnam Veteran

Good pick, and should be bipartisan support.

better credentials, in total, than Rice.

Not sure what there is to debate, unless someone starts trolling... Oh, well look at that other thread. Sure enough.

 

Hate to see his Senate seat given up.

 

The one and only true reason Republicans opposed Rice.

 

Deval Patrick is highly unlikely to nominate a Republican.

 

There will be a special election to replace Kerry. His replacement by appointment is only temporary.

 

Rand Paul really is Senator Honey Badger

No one in the ruling class is asked these questions, not by the press and certainly not by one of their peers.

Rand better watch his back.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_g7EA0MzPqc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

saw this on reason and was just getting ready to post. I really enjoyed the exchange. and Rand is right, we should demand congressional approval before committing troops or arms to war.

Kennedy (or LBJ) should have asked for a declaration of war in vietnam, and both Bush's should have done the same in the 2 gulf wars. the gulf of tonkin resolution, and the congressional approvals for the Gulf War & OIF were mere fig leafs for the admin(s) to hide behind.

 

I just despise John Kerry. He's just a douchebag with his windsurfing and sailing with the Kennedy's. The irony of so many people here that think people are handed things in life and then you have these kind of people that are the 1% that didn't even earn it. I will never respect some trust fund baby whose own trust fund wasn't enough to live their lifestyle.

I love these 'men' of the people guys like Kerry and Dominique Strauss Kahn that always marry older wealthy women.

I may not agree with Barack Obama's policies or even Bill Clinton's but I respect that they are guys that are self made. They have had success (politically) on their own and were not born into it.

I think a big problem in the Republican party is re-hashing these types of people the Bush's and Romney's (though his business success was truly his own as the capital markets don't care who mommy and daddy are) of the world as opposed to what made this country great....middle class people creating success and becoming the wealthy and not having it be so generational that we end up in a European style aristocrisy.

I just find it strange of many 'progressives' that are against the inherited wealthy and those that use trusts and such to hide their wealth, move their sailboats to lower tax venues etc. can support a guy like this?

 

REP for this comment.

The guy is an aristocrat, straight up.

 

Rand looked like an idiot recently at the Bengazi hearings.

 

It's much easier for a single individual to commit troops to a battle than a congress of individuals. For instance, upon Alexander Hamilton's levy of a whiskey excise tax, western settlers rebelled - refusing to pay the tax. As a result, president George Washington took troops, without the consent of congress, into battle to quell the rebellion. Although the rebellion did not lead to any war-like battle, our first president set into course of our history the precedent of declaring war without congress' consent.

Constitution?

 

I think many liberals look at his voting record.

However you are right, he isn't hanging out with guys like you and I, he is out eating steak dinners with the Kennedy's and Romney's of the world.

 

You're missing the point, this the guy that REPUBLICANS wanted to be SoS - SUsan Rice was the first choice, Cranky Old Man McCain pitched a hissyfit and refused to take his meds and kept throwing feces at his caregivers over fake Benghazi bullsh-t, so that he could end up with his bro-man Kerry...and voila, that's what happened.

That said he's probably a decent choice considering that the job consists of hobnobbing not with the common folk but with the elites and has nothing remotely to do with car elevators in your garage.

 

I don't even care. It's not like the Secretary of State is some independent voice who is going to drastically influence policy. He'll do what Obama wants him to do just like the last several did. I think Presidents should have the ability to pick almost anyone they want as long as there aren't glaring problems with the choice.

 

what difference does it make?

 

completely agree, I would approve Kerry and Hagel, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be grilled

 

I don't care about Republicans and Democrats and their political games and nonsense. McCain is a fool too that can only talk about tax credits and cold-war politics. He's big government and war guy which is bad on both fronts.

I don't care about Kerry's ability to hobnob with common folk either or if someone was born rich but what they've done for themselves. He's just a douche, and i'm surprised the guy with Forbes trusts and marrying into the Heinz fortunes with multiple homes all over isn't vilified as the tart that he is.

I understand that 'left' people are for progressive tax codes and trying to level the playing field with social services, I may disagree with the method but we all want the same results.

I just don't understand how leftists of the people can support these trust fund babies in office ?? They've been born and bred into politics which is the opposite of everything the left seems to stand for but guys like Kerry and the Kennedy's etc. get revered. Its just a bit mind boggling to me.

 

Don't get mad at us becuase your dumb**** assumptions about progressives are incorrect.