A couple of months I was talking with a friend about just how crazy Donald Trump's cabinet appointments might get. I argued that there was an outer boundary, especially in roles that Republicans really care about. "For example," I said, "plenty of Republicans on the Armed Services Committee are serious about the military. There's a limit to who they'll put in charge of the Pentagon."
This hasn't aged well. Today Pete Hegseth had his confirmation hearing and it was a dog's breakfast. Democrats attacked Hegseth as a drunken philanderer while Republicans praised him as the second coming of George Patton. There was nothing approaching seriousness in the entire five hours.
But here's what really gets me. Put aside his history of heavy drinking. He says he's put that behind him. Put aside the accusations of sexual assault. They're unproven. Even put aside the fact that he's a TV talking head whose only management experience is running a couple of nonprofits into the ground. The Secretary of Defense isn't truly a management role, after all. It's mostly a policy and leadership role.
But even if you put that all aside, you'd still want to know his views on important defense issues. What does Hegseth think of NATO? How critical is the Columbia class submarine program? Should we still be building new supercarriers in an era of massive drone fleets and cheap cruise missiles? Are we putting enough effort into our own drone programs? Do we still need manned fighter jets? Can we defend Taiwan if it comes to that? Should military troops be used for policing jobs in the US? Are there specific areas of military procurement he wants to reform? Are we putting enough money and effort into AI development? Nuclear modernization? The F-35? Critical raw materials? Recruiting? Cybersecurity? Readiness?
I didn't watch the hearings, but based on news reports I gather that none of these issues were raised. Not one. The only thing we really know is that Hegseth doesn't much like trans people and plans to root out DEI and wokeness in the military. That's it.
Wasn't there a time when senators cared about the substantive views of a nominee for defense secretary? There was, and it spanned the entire postwar era through Lloyd Austin's confirmation four years ago. But now that Donald Trump is about to take office for a second time, it's over. No one even pretends to care anymore about serious military issues. What does that say about the upcoming administration?
They're folks who care more about domestic culture war fights and looking good on conservative media than anything else - or to put it more bluntly, people who can't imagine any bad consequences happening due to their lack of competence, etc. Surely they'll work out somehow!
We've been here in a milder version before, and it's how you end up with a horse breeder mismanaging FEMA after Hurricane Katrina. More generally, it's been the cycle of events for the past 30 years - Democrats run a competent show and leave behind a good economy and working government, which Republicans then ruin only for the Democrats to have to take power to fix their messes. I wouldn't be shocked if 2028 has an economy in shambles and a massive blow-out election in favor of a Democratic trifecta that has to once again clean up their messes.
Amen to all that. The old GOP might have cared about military policy. The new GOP is only interested in venerating Braxton Bragg. Fine then. This is what voters want is this what they will get and deserve to get, a Pentagon in chaos brought to you by people who just love this shit!
Sadly, the loss of three last incumbent Red State Democratic Senators has put control of the chamber out of reach for Democrats. Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Ohio, West Virginia, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Flotida are completely unreachable for Democrats.
They total twenty-five states, or half the Senate and NOT ONE offers Democrats opportunities for victory, either because they are bottom-shelf refuges for wanna-be Confederate slave owners or outright Theocracies. In almost all of them Republicans win by ten points or more, while Democratic Senators who win elections in "Swing States" do so by slim margins.
In addition, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Maine each have one Democratic and one Republican Senator at this time. The Democratic Senator in Pennsylvania is sounding like a potential party-changer every day, and Senator Susan Quisling from Maine is almost certain to be re-elected.
It is still possible for Democrats to win The House of Representatives by a few seats, but a "Tri-fecta" is out of reach for a decade.
N. Carolina is within reach.
If the Governor of Kentucky is a Democrat, I fail to see how the US Senate is out of reach there.
Because it's a state race instead of a federal race.
Alaska is definitely a possibility. They elected a Democrat to the House, twice, although there is now a Republican in the seat. If a Democrat can be elected in a statewide race for a House seat, a Democrat can be elected in a statewide race for a Senate seat.
The horse show guy mismanaged FEMA before Katrina. It just went unnoticed until there was an actual emergency. Incompetent management doesn't notice that the fire extinguisher has lost internal pressure until there's a fire and you need it. The incompetence at FEMA was the fire extinguisher losing internal pressure. Katrina was when we needed a competent agency, not one where the primary concern of the staff was making the boss "look good".
Democratic senators were almost as useless as Republicans. After 10 years of Trump, they still think voters will be scandalised by someone's moral failings? What was the point of asking Hegseth questions about his drinking or his womanising, when predictably he just waved them away?
This summed up my reaction, which Kevin has also done in exemplary fashion:
But he said "warrior culture" a lot, which gave all the MAGAmen boners and had all the MAGAwomen wetting their panties.
But he said "warrior culture" a lot, which gave all the MAGAmen boners and had all the MAGAwomen wetting their panties. -- 100% this.
Warrior Culture (tm) will make America Great Again. And it gives all those tactical goons reason to walk around in gear for another 4 years. You can bet there's a reality show already on the books, probably hosted by Sarah Palin.
After 10 years of Trump, they still think voters will be scandalised by someone's moral failings? What was the point of asking Hegseth questions about his drinking or his womanising, when predictably he just waved them away?
Trump is sui generis. In fact we have recent evidence that Republican Senators can, in fact, get nervous about "moral failings." That evidence is called Matt Gaetz. Also, if you're skeptical voters won't be scandalized by, erm, scandal, you think they're going to be scandalized by dry discussions of weapons systems or geopolitics?
Sometimes scandals catch fire and gain traction. Sometimes not. These things are unpredictable. I think it was worth a try to go after Hegseth hard. Even if he is (as looks likely) confirmed, weakening him now may make it more difficult for Trump to stand by him if he fucks up. Which I think is pretty likely.
Good point. Also, Democratic Senators did try to show that is Hegseth is unqualified for the position, which matters a lot.
I think the opposition to Gaetz was about his making the Republicans look stupid ousting their own Speaker.
Given his tats, related affiliations, & admiration for the Crusades - nominally Christian, but more importantly, an excuse to murder Jews on the way to Jerusalem, Mudlims there, & looting along the way - he is simply reprehensible in every way & proud of it.
Every so often, I recall how Al Franken did his homework & persevered with meaningful questions in similar hearings.
It was mostly murdering of Greeks in the roman empire on the way there.
Thank you for noting this! (Actually, it was the Byzantine Empire, offspring of the Roman, not the Roman original— but I quibble.)
It never ceases to amaze me that so few people know about the Fourth Crusade’s brutal sacking of Constantinople in 1204, one of history’s— and Christianity’s — true turning points.
If I were a Greek-American member of the Armed Forces, or any Orthodox member, for that matter, I’d be sickened and furious to have a SecDef who chose to put Crusader tattoos on his body.
I'll quibble more. They called themselves the Roman empire. Byzantium was a term created by Hieronymus Wolf in 1555 in order to pretend the Germans had deserved the title Holy Roman Empire because centuries before one of them had conquered Rome. The one thing both agreed on though is that the "greeks" in between Rome and Constantinople were barbarians. As for the petty warlords that went to grab land under the umbrella term of crusades, anybody with any knowledge of what they did would have to be a sociopath to put them forward as something to emulate.
That this goof is going to bring 'warrior culture' to the Pentagon is like some new ceo bragging about how he's going to bring hamburger to McDonald's.
" I argued that there was an outer boundary, especially in roles that Republicans really care about."
Kevin was right about roles that Trump really cares about. His Treasury Secretary is dedicated to protecting the interests of the rich.
I'll take questions with obvious answers for 600.
Everything is culture war and grievances for the GOP. That's how you get clicks, it's how you get attention, it's how you get adoring fans.
Maybe the Dems should be talking more about policy and substantive matters.....but signs point to no-one actually caring about these things.
I'm not convinced that asking a drunk rapist neo-fascist about procurement policy and the F-35 is the way to go, if you want to point out unfitness for office.
The emperor has appointed a horse to the Senate! Ah, well, but what does the horse think about aqueduct financing and legion deployments in North Africa?
This.
because you can demonstrate in the hearings that he doesn't know anything about military policy, whereas you cannot demonstrate that he is a drunk rapist. Here, let me give you an example:
Senator Blue: Mr. Hegseth, are you a drunken rapist?
Hegseth: No, I am not. I am a WARRIOR CULTURE!
Senator Blue: [aside to aide] Damn, thought that would work.
Conversely, you could ask a littany of questions about important military and security policy issues, and demonstrate that he is embarrassingly uninformed and rather stupid.
As per your horse example, what makes Hegseth a horse is not that he's under a cloud of allegations that he is an asshole abuser with a substance problem but is otherwise potentially qualified for the position; it's that he's a loser with a resume of incompetence that has no business being nominated for SecDef, because he plainly cannot do the job.
Any real questions would be met with "warrior culture" and afterwards, whining about "woke gotcha questions". They still should have been asked, but looks like the Democrats were trying to get Joni Ernst to not support him--hence targeting his position on women in the military.
Don't forget, Republicans have the majority in the Senate, and these nominations are all on them.
Ernst expressed dislike for Hegseth early on, which would have given a few other GOP senators to vote against confirmation. But Trump let her know
she would be primaried if she didn't play ball. So now she's playing ball.
They're all more afraid for their cush jobs than they are for our descent into dictatorship.
I left out a word. That phrase should have said "...which would have given a few other GOP senators cover to vote against confirmation."
I thought it was pretty clear that Trump had already brought Ernst in line.
I believe they've all been threatened, directly. Go along or we take you out the next time you run.
This is a full-on thug administration.
Indeed!
because you can demonstrate in the hearings that he doesn't know anything about military policy,
I'm not sure where you got that Hegseth knows nothing about "military policy." He's clearly not the most qualified person Trump could nominate in terms of expertise, sure. And he's manifestly unqualified because of his alcohol abuse, his obvious, serious character flaws, his flirtations with sundry MAGA conspiracy theories, and a lot of other things.
But on knowledge of the military? Hegseth served as an officer in Guantanamo Bay, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. He was awarded a Bronze Star. He also has a Master's in Public Policy from Kennedy School at Harvard. Bachelor's from Princeton. He's a disgraceful pick because of the aforementioned character flaws, but he's not obviously a moron. I think it's pretty likely Hegseth could at least project a stupid person's idea of what a military expert sounds like. Which is enough for TV. Which is part of the reason, I think, why Senate Democrats rightly concentrated on character.
+1
But the policies he supports are opposed by the majority of republican senators. I think questions focusing on that would make senators like McConnell very uncomfortable.
Have you seen his tattoos? He is obviously a moron.
Serving in the military does not make a person automatically qualified to lead the Pentagon. That is Trump level logic.
Hegseth’s highest rank was major, conferred as he was released from active service into the Ready Reserve. Presumably his highest rank in active service was captain. Not to demean the importance of any level of service, but these ranks are quite some ways from policy formulation.
Do we have a pool going yet for who's the first cabinet member fired/indicted?
My money is on this dude.
My money is on none of them. Do you know who's going to be running the Justice Department starting next week?
And special counsels are now apparently off the table as well, per highly honest and non-hack Judge Cannon. So, yeah, it's Corruptionrama-Rama time in the Trump administration.
BTW, whatever happened to that batshit ruling? I think Smith, et al. appealed it, but then it sort of disappeared. Is it moot now that Trump's not actually going to be prosecuted for anything?
Trump is ordering the appeal to be abandonned. Also, that ruling only applies in the state of Florida. In all oft he circuits where the appeals courts have gone the other way, special prosecutors are still allowed.
Fired? The first one who doesn't show complete fealty to Trump. Independent thought is not allowed in the cult.
trump is maybe ?thinking? by having his maga tattoed ape in charge of the military it will soon be his personal military. p.s. this dude has got a very real punchable face.
It’s not a clown show. The upcoming administration is all in on bribery, corruption, and looting. Installing people like hogwash in key positions is required to make the deal. Senators know this. They want a taste too. Remember that senator from New Jersey? He should have been a republican.
Pay your tribute. Bow down and kiss the ring. This is what Americans voted for.
Kevin’s point is on the money but Duckworth did ask him about ASEAN. The dems should have coordinated a whole series of policy/technical questions as Kevin suggests.
Exactly. They should have fucking learned by now that the game is to flip some R senators, and that the Rs do not feel any heat from their constituents when they vote to confirm people accused of what (in their minds) is simply incorrect behavior.
Ask a battery of questions about important policy issues, ask if he's aware how many times larger the pentagon is (in terms of budget, in terms of number of departments, in terms of personnell, etc.) than the charities he mismanaged and had to resign from, etc. Ask about Trump's plans to end the Ukraine war "on day 1" and how he plans to do that, ask about how Musk will oversee him as part of "government efficiency"--hell, ask whether or not he is aware of any of our allies/adversaries having a weekend cable show host as their top military strategist.
That's one of the things that bothers me about confirmation hearings. If you're going to play the dog and pony show, you're throwing time away -- especially if everyone's focused on the same matter -- that could be used to knock down/out one by one each of a nominee's thoughts on topical matters.
The public doesn't need 6 people all trying to find ways to get a nominee to slip up. It'd be smarter to have the next 5 senators delve into different, obscure but topical subject matters to test the nominee's breadth and mastery of all the knowledge needed to make smart decisions.
And on the subject of hearings, why didn't Democrats on the Judiciary hold hearings on stare decisis when they had power? Bring out each of the SCOTUS justices to explain why they broke with stare decisis on multiple occasions, contrary to their statements during their nomination hearing.
The public doesn't need 6 people all trying to find ways to get a nominee to slip up.
I disagree. On this occasion, at least, the public—the country—really did "need" Democrats to do their best to get Hegseth to slip up. It was probably only ever at best a Hail Mary Pass. But it was worth a try, because a really bad screw up might have derailed his nomination. He's fucking dangerously unqualified, and this is national security we're talking about.
Agreed. Nobody cares about important topical matters that should matter for the Defense Dept.
The media won't care about a bad take on nuclear missile subs, the public won't care and no senators will change their vote.
On the other hand, while the media and most GOP officials are okay with a bit of a drinking problem, and some sexual assault or rape, it's possible for comments to go to far and for the media, the public and other senators to take note.
We elected a reality TV star to the Presidency. Twice. This is how things work now.
"t's possible for comments to go to far and for the media, the public and other senators to take note."
No, it isn't. Hegseth will never slip up and say "yes, I am a rapist." Nor will the line of questioning do anything other than confirm Hegseth's narrative, which is that weak-kneed liberals are undercutting the military by demanding we all focus on proper behavior and language, rather than on fightin' wars and Warrior Culture or whatever the fuck he claims he's all about.
The better tack is to demonstrate that he is incompetent, a cross-fit prettyboy who is out of his depth and should go back to appearing on the weekend version of Fox's Good Morning America.
But my point is that people would care if he did slip up and say something over the line in the culture war. It's not likely that he would slip up, but it would matter if he did.
On the other hand, nobody will care if he slips up on detailed military policy questions. There's no reason to think he would slip up here either as 'no comment' is an easy answer.....but even if he did slip up, literally no-one will care.
It might light up the blue politics nerdosphere online, but the other 99.9% of Americans will not care.
Look at the constant policy drivel and admissions of topical ignorance given by Trump and his prior administration. Never made a difference. Ever.
This is backwards. Demonstrably, the republican line for what disqualifies somebody is, currently, somewhere past "convicted felon." We will flip exactly zero R senators by harping on how Hegseth said a bad word thing about women. They do not care.
What they might care about is supporting a demonstrable incompetent. Somebody whose policies don't line up with what they want to see.
Put another way: there is no wing of the R senate that gives a damn about Hegseth drinking too much and second-hand allegations of being mean to women. There are R senators who are defense hawks, and others who oppose Russian aggression; there are even more R senators who care about defense dollars going to their states. Maybe demonstrating that Hegseth won't serve their interests would get them to push back on his nomination.
The public doesn't give a shit about policy. He could have answered that with his help Trump would end all wars in the world on day one, that Columbia submarines are powered by the ghost of Christopher Columbus, that Trump will create a MAGA supercarrier that will have shields, shoot lasers, and could carry an entire squadron of C-5s, and none of the idiot MAGA voters, nor Republicans in the Senate would care. Look at who they elected President. Not once in his life has Trump properly answered a policy question no matter how simple, and that has never cost him.
Exactly. This shouldn't be hard for anyone to understand.
No member of SCOTUS would ever agree to be a witness at a congressional hearing. They're not will to even be substantive witnesses in the confirmation process.
I think Democrats are quite rightly deeply concerned about putting this drunken wreck of a man in charge of the Pentagon. And so they were hoping to trip him up. That is why they didn't ask about drones or Taiwan or what have you. And Republicans, of course, asked him about how much he loves the flag or how much he appreciates the service of our warriors. Because they want him confirmed (or, rather, they know the boss wants him confirmed).
The real question is what Democrats are worth? Sweat off of a hogs backside apparently.
I'm sorry, I am finding my party, the party of my entire life to be worthless.
I especially didn't like Gretchen Whitmer bragging after the election that she passed a bill formally naming the Bald Eagle our national bird.
I was a fan....but she has lost my vote forever.
Traveller
PS While I have a minute left to edit....:
What the Hell is Biden doing with this:
the fifth ship of the “Ford” class will be the USS William Jefferson Clinton, and the sixth ship will be the USS George Walker Bush. (these will be aircraft carriers...the pride of the Admiralty...lol)
They'll also all be sunk within a few hours of the "Taiwan Straits War" under a hail of Chinese anti-ship missiles.
You're completely delusional if you think China will invade Taiwan. The Chinese just saw Russia invade the most corrupt nation in Europe and proceed to lose with nearly a million Russian casualties. They know the benefits are miniscule compared to the costs with respect to Taiwan, a part of the world they never ruled for more than a few decades.
Be careful, mam - given your awareness of those issues, the next Democratic administration might be tempted to nominate you as his replacement.
Poor Ernst; she has gone from bragging about castrating hogs to being reduced to quickly capitulating to trump's every disgusting choice.
,,,
I recall a city's police force was under investigation and/or a consent decree due to excessive violence and the head of the union saying they'd pay for "warrior policing" training.
Being a police officer is tough. It gets harder when those with the badge abuse their position. Policing turns to occupation--and that takes forever to undo.
In the past, Democrats' strength was in serious policy, good governance. It was the Republicans who liked to wallow in the muck of sex scandals, etc.
Who are the Senate Democrats speaking to in these hearings? The American public? The public has no vote when it comes to cabinet confirmations. Are Dems talking to each other? Sex scandals aren't their bag. Are they talking to Republican Senators? Republicans don't care about sexy time as practiced by their own -- only when a Democrat does it.
For that matter, the current cult of GQP "manliness" seems to include hard drinking, taking lots of women whether they want to or not, and excessive use of violence. Heggy's got all of those qualities.
As Mr Drum notes, why can't the Democrats be serious and ask real questions, questions dealing with knowledge, policy, judgment? Find a way to distinguish themselves? I refuse to believe that "the voters" neither know nor care. Democrats need to show that they are, indeed, the "adults in the room", not the blue nosed busybodies peeping through the keyhole.
Rape has nothing to do with "blue nosed busybodies peeping through the keyhole". And you're simply wrong about the American people caring about policy or good governance. Look how easily the republicans have got the hollywood elite to buy into all of the lies about the LA fires. The American people only want politicians who tell them they can have their cake and eat it to.
A much weaker Trump successfully got through a much higher profile nominee (Kavanaugh) when there was an actual person in the actual hearing accusing the nominee of rape. Putting nearly all the eggs in the one basket of Hegseth-should-be-rejected-because-allegations-of-assault is not going to be a winning strategy. Absolutely the Dems should have brought it up, but they should have also brought up and hammered him on his lack of qualifications.
Agree.
"I refuse to believe that "the voters" neither know nor care."
If they did Trump wouldn't be heading to the White House next week, and about half or more of elected Republicans would have lost their races.
"The Senate is treating the military as a clown show." With Hegseth in charge it will be.
It's the Neo-Confederacy, personified by Tommy Tuberville, using the same mentality that led the old confederacy to final victory. Sham and gasconades will always carry the day in the face of inexorable military logic.
It's a clown show because the incoming Administration are going to run by clowns, evil, deranged, despicable, Nazi MAGA clowns. The MAGA Senators are going to approve this vile excuse for a human being, no matter what he said. Democrat's can't derail it, and can only ask embarrassing questions aimed to beat up their MAGA opponents when this drunken, misogynistic asshole fucks up.
Public doesn't care about policy anymore, and this asshole will really just be a talking head for Trump. You also can't ask questions on military policy unless you have already decided which policies you think are correct and who you believe we will be fighting, and where that will happen.
The majority of the public has never really cared about policy. The first real election of the nation was 1796 and both campaigns were based on the claim that the other guy was the bigger Satanist.
Not quite true that no Democrats raised substantive policy questions. Sen Tammy Duckworth did ask Hegseth if he could name ONE member of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations).
ONE!
Of course, he could not. Maybe only a few voters have any idea what this is, but certainly a SecDef should know. Shit, I'm a chemical engineer and I could name most of them simply by thinking about what countries are in southeast Asia. how about, um . . . Vietnam? Or the Philippines?
Of course, most of the Senators already know this. But GOP primary voters?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
https://apnews.com/article/hegseth-duckworth-asean-trump-cabinet-senate-d06bda55cfa19b2454c5cac0a6e897a5
Trump is creating a ludicrous cartoon cabinet that looks like a stupid tv show that will wow the yokels.
All his nominees are people carefully considered for that and for how easy they are for him to push around, and how easy they are for anyone else to get around.
This will be the weakest government in American history.
Marco Rubio for Secretary of State might as well be this thing,
https://schylling.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/PPST-Panic-Pete-Front-web.jpg
+1
Little Marco is likely to be the most competent of all these MAGA Nazi clowns in the new administration. He is of course a dumb shit to resign the Senate and then have his fate decided by the daily whims of Orange Il Duce, which means he will just be an obedient vassal or get fired.
"which means he will just be an obedient vassal"
Which is what he has been for the past 10 years, so no big change there.
I think you are right. Marco has always been a weasel and will continue to kiss His Majesty's ass for the next 4 years. Rex Tillerson was the CEO of ExxonMobil, a true leadership role in an enormous corporation (not some piddly ass RE developer business like Trump). I guess when you refer to your boss as a "fucking moron" its time to leave.
He did vote to certify the 2020 results, so not 100% obedient.
There were substantive questions asked (see Tammy Duckworth who made it clear Hegseth is ignorant about the actual functioning of the military), but the scandal story gets more views and clicks.
Right, it’s all about virality.
Every and I mean every large ticket item, except the ballistic missiles and submarines (and they are on the clock), is in jeopardy. AI targeting systems with mass drones will at the very least radically alter warfare for the foreseeable future (until EW catches up). I know our deep pockets have tons of systems in the pipeline, but a major paradigm shift is underway and if we aren't on the front of the wave...
Super Carriers, maned fighters, tanks, and non mobile artillery are all weapons systems that really need to be looked at given the increased use of AI and unmanned systems. A swarm of AI powered drones are not likely to fatally wound a supercarrier, but they could certainly disable it and the rest of the carrier group, giving time for more lethal assets to be deployed.
Your lack of imagination is what will kill you. I don't need flying drones. A submersible flotilla released from a submarine...
You would think this would mean torpedoes and you'd be partly correct. Could you imagine a flotilla of drones released weeks prior resting on the surface, recharging in the sunlight quietly, waiting, and then descending to depth, waiting, then holing the bottom allowing the others enter though those holes....
https://youtu.be/aHFlqgCyElo
Imagine writing this.
"The nominee for SecDef is a drunken philanderer covered in white nationalist tats, but focusing on that is UNSERIOUS. The least serious thing! Instead they should have treated him with respect he does not deserve and focused on THE ISSUES."
Asking Hegseth about the issues is the unserious stance. It undeservedly elevates him.
"Asking Hegseth about the issues is the unserious stance. It undeservedly elevates him."
This is absolutely fucking backwards. Acting as if the only thing wrong with Pete-weekend-infotainment-cable-host-Hegseth is that he's got problems with alcohol and philandering misses the reality that Hegseth is completely unqualified for the job, and the mere fact of his nomination should make people question the judgment of the Trump administration.
To sink Hegseth's nomination, you have to flip Rs. None of them care that Hegseth has (allegedly) assaulted anybody. None of them care that Hegseth (allegedly) drinks too much. Their constituents are far more likely to buy into the line that what we need is a hard-fightin', hard-drinkin', real man's man running the military, and so focusing on allegations of bad behavior isn't going to move the needle.
Instead, you have to attack why they would support him. That means attacking Hegseth for his farcical lack of qualifications, demonstrated track record of mismanagement and disgrace, and paint him as a dumb prettyboy in way, way over his head.
JFC, we've got 10 years' worth of real-world demonstrations with Trump that the argument "but he did a bad word thing!" no longer has any traction with this crowd. 335 million out of 335 million americans out there will never interact with Hegseth, never see him drunk, never get groped or hit on or anything by him. But millions of americans may well have a loved one sent to war or put in danger if this incompetent asshole stumblefucks the US into a conflict because he doesn't know what ASEAN is or how to work with our NATO counterparts or is incapable of offering strategic advice as to why going to war with Denmark is stupid or is too hung up on how many pushups women soldiers can do, etc.
His technical qualifications are immaterial. He could be the second coming of George Marshall and he wouldn't be fit to occupy the office he is nominated to.
Your assumption that Republican senators and/or the public cares one iota about policy details has no basis in fact. There is nothing in recent history to point to as evidence that this is even a reasonable take.
We may wish it was true. But wishes for a different reality aren't going to help. It will actually hurt to pretend we live in a world where policy matters when we have overwhelming evidence that it makes no difference.
You've completely mischaraterized why they support him. Literally no senators are supporting him because they think he's well qualified with a great depth of policy expertise.
They are supporting him because he is a Republican nominee who (presumably) will help advance Republican priorioties.
And yes, Republican senators do have some (maybe not many, but some) defense-oriented principles, as demonstrated by the fact that the R senators have been far more helpful in securing funding for Ukraine defense than the R lunatics in the House.
My point isn't that focusing on Hegseth's complete lack of qualifications is a silver bullet--I'm just saying that focusing on secondhand allegations of impropriety has essentially zero chance of success because the Rs do not care about it at all, so spending time knocking the guy down (for being an incompetent blowhard who will hang our allies out to dry, whose support for war criminals is going to get our soldiers killed, and whose complete inadequacy for the job will cause our adversaries to celebrate) might be useful.
To sink Hegseth's nomination, you have to flip Rs.
Thank you. This is the key. The only audience that matters now is the 53 R senators.
As Kevin said in his original (retracted?) post, some of them (we only need 4) actually do have the background to understand security policy, and do care that it’s done competently. Reach 4 of them and we win this round.
"No one even pretends to care anymore about serious military issues."
Most of the accusations/disqualifications that apply to Hegseth apply to Trump as well. With this nomination, Trump is thumbing his nose at the Constitution by proxy. That is what this clown show is all about, not serious military issues.
"Trump is thumbing his nose at the Constitution by proxy. "
No.
What Trump is trying to achieve is removing generals with integrity and commitment to the constitution. Hegseth has the advantage that he is so repulsive that some of these generals will resign rather than work with him.
Hegseth also doesn't have a career outside MAGA, so is guranteed to be loyal to Trump. After the experience with Esper, Trump doesn't want to take chances with sombody competent that may have his own ideas about the right thing to do.
His inexperience is his biggest disqualification. The rest is just gravy. But Trump isn't looking for experience. He's looking for loyalists. Each one of his nominations has that in abundance.
"His inexperience is his biggest disqualification."
Nonsense.
His biggest disqualification is that he is totally subservient to Trump, and will follow Trump's commands even if they are clearly against the constitution and against the interests of the US.
That is also the main reason that Trump selected him, obviously.
Nice picture, grinning like the cat that swallowed the canary. If he gets approved it'll set a precedent that perhaps even the GOP will end up regretting. I know most everyone else will.
"I know most everyone else will."
In this country, and in Europe, probably. Not so much in China and Russia, though.
Mr. Drum's original posting is depressingly both-sidesing the situation. Republicans are supporting someone obviously incompetent for the job and Democrats are pointing this out, clearly both sides are not serious.
Kevin: " argued that there was an outer boundary, especially in roles that Republicans really care about. "For example," I said, "plenty of Republicans on the Armed Services Committee are serious about the military. There's a limit to who they'll put in charge of the Pentagon.""
Remember when you were talking with somebody about the Iraq War, and somebody said that this would be the defining even of Dubya's administration, so he could not afford to screw it up?
That was a sign of a bad future, and we are living in it now.