Pompeo

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Can someone tell me WHY the Senate panel objects so much to this man?
Especially when he will probably be confirmed ANYWAY?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Because politics. The Dems are afraid he'll accomplish things that make Trump's administration look good. Can't have that, you know.

Rand Paul is just being a dick.
 

Starman

New Member
Of course he'll get confirmed. The government promulgated this notion that Pompeo travelled to the DPRK over Easter weekend for one reason and one reason only: to be able to say that not confirming him will put a damper on U.S. "progress" there. That means they knew there'd be trouble with this cat, so had to ensure he'd be confirmed. The trip likely didn't happen; there's been zero evidence besides "the government said so".

But oh, KJU will halt nuclear testing and shutdown a site. That's some :lol: Art of War chit - offer peace while making war.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron

He's obstructionist for the sake of it. Sometimes he has a point, but he is never - ever - a team player or willing to compromise. And when you are 1 of 100, you are almost never going to get your way completely, yet that seems to be what Rand Paul is holding out for. If he were my Senator, I'd vote to send him packing because he has absolutely no purpose except to be the guy jumping around going, "Nuh uh!!!" and objecting to everything on principle without exercising any leadership qualities to bring some colleagues on board.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
He's obstructionist for the sake of it. Sometimes he has a point, but he is never - ever - a team player or willing to compromise.

And that's why he sucks as a Senator, even though that's a good thing as an executive.
You cannot be a member of a party in a deliberative body and always be determined to get only the single best solution.
You're going to have to accept something less than perfect, if you want it to get passed.

And enter Rand. If it gets you 90% of what you want - he will vote against it because it's not 100%.

I just couldn't see a really good reason to oppose Pompeo.

I just wondered if there was some deep dark secret or some event or thing that made him unqualified for it.
I tend to think that a CIA director (and experience on relevant Committees in the House) might actually be a reasonable SecStat.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
He's obstructionist for the sake of it. Sometimes he has a point, but he is never - ever - a team player or willing to compromise. And when you are 1 of 100, you are almost never going to get your way completely, yet that seems to be what Rand Paul is holding out for. If he were my Senator, I'd vote to send him packing because he has absolutely no purpose except to be the guy jumping around going, "Nuh uh!!!" and objecting to everything on principle without exercising any leadership qualities to bring some colleagues on board.

If he believes in the Constitution, is he the problem for not being a "team player", or are the other Congresspeople the problem for not caring (or delegating in advocacy of) about the Constitution?

I was wondering a specific example related to Pompeo. Thus far, Rand Paul's (who has always been against the executive branch having power to unilaterally bomb another country) main objection seems to be Pompeo's belief that more wars are a good thing.

You says he's 1 of 100 but expect him to "bring some colleagues on board"? Which is it....he's a lone wolf who only objects everything or he's a master Congress critter and member of "the swamp" who should be playing the game, even if it means going against his beliefs?
 

Toxick

Splat
If he believes in the Constitution, is he the problem for not being a "team player", or are the other Congresspeople the problem for not caring (or delegating in advocacy of) about the Constitution?

He is the problem with the all or nothing mindset. I agree with him almost all of the time - but there has to be some give and take, otherwise he's just spinning his wheels.


As it happens, I think he'd make a remarkable president. As a Senator, he should learn to play better with others, or else he'll only get his way incidentally, rather than effecting proactive change.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I Thus far, Rand Paul's (who has always been against the executive branch having power to unilaterally bomb another country) main objection seems to be Pompeo's belief that more wars are a good thing.

DOES he believe that?

I would think that, if you're dealing with someone like Kim Jong Un, one thing you can NEVER go with is, war is completely off the table.
This is a guy who has at least tried to make good on all of his nuclear threats even if the technology isn't there yet.

Some adversaries, you can never let them get the notion you'll never proceed with war. It emboldens them.

Rand Paul IS an ideologue. As Clinton used to object, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good - Paul will vote against a good bill,
because he wants a perfect one. And the Senate is all about compromise.

You can't always get what you want.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
[video=youtube_share;7S94ohyErSw]https://youtu.be/7S94ohyErSw[/video]
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
If he believes in the Constitution, is he the problem for not being a "team player", or are the other Congresspeople the problem for not caring (or delegating in advocacy of) about the Constitution?

To use a trite phrase, it is what it is. You can say that the other Congresscritters are the problem, but they ARE the majority and WILL rule.

You says he's 1 of 100 but expect him to "bring some colleagues on board"? Which is it....he's a lone wolf who only objects everything or he's a master Congress critter and member of "the swamp" who should be playing the game, even if it means going against his beliefs?

Don't be silly. I'm not even going to play that game with you. If, at your age, you do not understand "leadership" and "compromise", that is your problem and I'm certainly not going to wast my time trying to explain those concepts to you.
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
He's obstructionist for the sake of it. Sometimes he has a point, but he is never - ever - a team player or willing to compromise. And when you are 1 of 100, you are almost never going to get your way completely, yet that seems to be what Rand Paul is holding out for. If he were my Senator, I'd vote to send him packing because he has absolutely no purpose except to be the guy jumping around going, "Nuh uh!!!" and objecting to everything on principle without exercising any leadership qualities to bring some colleagues on board.

So earlier you were proclaiming the gloriousness of Trump because he doesn't compromise...now you are whinning because Rand Paul won't???

Which is it??? Do you want our leaders to compromise or are you more interested in a dictatorial form of govt?
 

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
So earlier you were proclaiming the gloriousness of Trump because he doesn't compromise...now you are whinning because Rand Paul won't???

Which is it??? Do you want our leaders to compromise or are you more interested in a dictatorial form of govt?

You don't keep up, do you?? Rand changed his vote well before your post.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
So earlier you were proclaiming the gloriousness of Trump because he doesn't compromise...now you are whinning because Rand Paul won't???

Which is it??? Do you want our leaders to compromise or are you more interested in a dictatorial form of govt?

It's "whining", little 'splodey head. :love:
 

Starman

New Member
Look. Pompeo wants war. He and his ilk (like John Bolton, for one example) always do. This is how they make a living. There's nothing wrong with that -- it would be pretty awesome to work for the C.I.A. and get paid to foment "revolution" and flip dictators in any given country. But does it really serve the U.S. tax payer?

Recall that last time the NORKs wanted to come to the table, Bolton told them to go pound sand. That's code for "nuke up" so as to avoid an invasion. So, he got what he wanted and he's back to guide the rest of the game.

The DPRK meeting is a net loss to the U.S. Orange monkey has been played. You see, the NORKs' only ask ever has been to be recognized as a sovereign nation. That was the only leverage, and tRump gave up the Queen (chess) for absolutely nothing in return.

How you dummies see any of this as a positive is beyond me, but I hope you get what you want.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The Left's Opposition To Mike Pompeo Sets A New (Terrible) Precedent On Partisanship


Here's how Cabinet nominations work for presidents both Republican or Democrat: The party that doesn't control the White House scuffs up the nominee, berates him or her for this perceived slight or that perceived misstep, then votes for their approval to the post.

Consider this list of nominees for Secretary of State and the vote by the Senate over recent years:

Alexander Haig: 93-0
George P. Schultz -- 97-0
James P. Baker: 99-0
Madeleine K. Albright: 99-0
Condoleezza Rice: 85-13
Hillary Clinton: 94-2
John Kerry: 94-2

Colin Powell and Warren Christopher were such shoo-ins there was only a voice vote.

[clip]

But historically, the thinking has always been this: The president rightly won the election and (rightly) gets to install his team. Members of the Senate have nearly always followed that unwritten rule — until Trump.

[clip]

"It doesn't matter if there's someone, Mike Pompeo — both sides agree he's qualified for this position even if they disagree with the ideological point of view — but very clearly, most of the Senate Democratic Caucus is a very progressive caucus, a very liberal caucus that wants to fight Trump tooth and nail," Raju said.

Liberal news organizations across the country have come out in support of Pompeo (if for no other reason than the aforementioned, that the fairly-elected president gets to pick his team). In a USA Today story headlined, "Confirm Mike Pompeo to fill the void at State," the left-leaning paper said, "Unless a nominee has clear ethical or competency failings, presidents should be accorded wide latitude to select top aides whom they trust and agree with. Pompeo passes that test and merits approval."

The very liberal New York Daily News, in a story headlined "Confirm Mike Pompeo: President Trump needs a secretary of state," wrote, "In hearings, Pompeo committed to rebuilding a State Department where experienced staff fled in droves and morale hit rock bottom during the feckless leadership of Tillerson. Pompeo also has solid knowledge of the world, the discipline to oversee complex diplomacy and — a double-edged sword, we admit — the trust of a President who seems to believe in almost no one."

The Chicago Tribune, in a piece headlined "Why the U.S. Senate should confirm Mike Pompeo," said, "Presidents are entitled to choose their own advisers, and nothing that has emerged about Pompeo is disqualifying. The State Department could use a secretary equipped for the job of advancing U.S. interests in concert with the president — and the sooner the better."
 
Top