Republicans up the Rhetoric on DoD Sequestration Backing Themselves Into a Corner

Do Republicans really believe their own rhetoric?

Republicans on Armed Services are upping the rhetoric about sequestration to make it sound like the end of an era for United States as a Superpower is at hand if the US military is required to take sequestration cuts.  With all their rhetoric, they have backed themselves into a corner as pointed out by Talking Points Memo:

That argument exposes the GOP’s bluff. If the consequences will be as dire as Graham et al claim, then of course it’s worth considering paying down sequestration with some new tax revenues. By contrast if the situation isn’t desperate enough to make Republicans consider higher revenues, then how can they claim it will be a boon to the country’s enemies. If both things are true then the GOP position amounts to prioritizing emboldening Iran and al Qaeda over modestly raising taxes on wealthy Americans. 

The comments of Senators McCain, Graham, and Inhofe leave you shaking your head and asking why do these three men insist that small cuts be made while taxes not be raised on the wealthy?  Cuts will be on the backs of civil service if the GOP has its way.  It doesn't seem like this group feels there are any cuts that can be made at DoD without sacrificing readiness which is a blatant spinning of the truth.  There might not be an organization in the Federal Government that wastes more money then the Defense Department with some of their boondoggles over the years with their attitude of shiny and new for weapons systems over maintaining/upgrading what is already in the inventory.

Once again the three Senators on Senate Armed Services are over the top with their comments in this article:

Armed Service Republicans Reveal Unsustainable GOP Position On Sequestration
Brian Beutler February 7, 2013, 6:00 AM 19101 

Armed Service committee Republicans in both the House and Senate scheduled a Capitol press conference Wednesday to promote legislation to pay down the sequester — deep, across the board cuts to defense and domestic spending — through September without raising any tax revenue. But the assembled members unintentionally revealed a tension just beneath the surface of GOP unity that might ultimately crack the party’s anti-tax absolutism once again.
Several of the members — all party principles on defense issues — described the consequences of sequestration in apocalyptic terms. 

“If it’s implemented it’ll cut every ship, aircraft, tank, truck program, research and development across the board,” said Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who until recently was the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services committee. “According to one economic analysis the cost — would cause the loss of 350,000 full time direct jobs, and 650,000 indirect job losses.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) depicted sequestration as a gift to U.S. foes. “Our enemies would love this to happen,” he said. “I’m sure Iran is very supportive of sequestration. I’m sure Al Qaeda training camps all over the world would be pleased with the fact that sequestration will gut the CIA.” 

This raises an obvious question. If the consequences of sequestration are dire — if they might even result in the deaths of innocent people — isn’t it worth sitting down and negotiating with Democrats, who say they’re done hacking away at domestic social programs simply because Republicans refuse to increase revenues? 

Here’s how Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the top armed services Republican, responded. The terrible consequences of sequestration, he said, are “not desperate enough that you can start raising taxes when you can do it without raising taxes.”

The plan the Republicans are proposing would freeze congressional pay and reduce the federal workforce by attrition to pay down the sequester through the end of the fiscal year.

What about next year Senator Inhofe?  Is that another punting the ball down the field to run out the clock instead of taking bold action to work together for sensible cuts/raising taxes.  What does the GOP have against raising taxes on the wealthy including wealthy defense contractors?  Guess they favor the corporate loopholes where you can move profit off shore and yet take expenses off your income tax.

Senator Bernie Sanders submitted a bill today to close those corporation loopholes.  Will any of these three Senators sign on to that. My bet is NO!

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday introduced a bill to stop profitable corporations from sheltering income in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens. The legislation also would end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs and factories overseas.  Sanders’ bill and a companion measure to be introduced in the House by Rep. Jan Schakowsky would yield more than $590 billion in revenue over the next decade, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. “At a time when we have a $16.5 trillion national debt and an unsustainable federal deficit; at a time when roughly one-quarter of the largest corporations in America are paying no federal income taxes; and at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high, it is past time for corporate America to contribute significantly to deficit reduction,” said Sanders, a member of the Senate Budget Committee. 

• For a fact sheet on the bill, click here. 
• To read the bill, click here.
• To read a report on corporate tax dodgers, click here. 
• Continue reading End Offshore Tax Havens »

Senator Sanders makes sense on steps to lower the debt and deficit while the Armed Services GOP trio plan is to freeze salaries of Congress and cut the federal workforce by attrition.  I can think of cuts to Congress that should be made as there are too many aide/committee staffer positions which have grown in numbers over the years.  Congress needs to get their own houses in order with cuts first starting with their boondoggle trips and then we will listen.

What does the DoD have planned if sequestering takes place?  Some of the cuts are outlined by Defense Industry Daily:

• House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA), SASC Ranking Member Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and other allied Republican members of Congress introduced the Down Payment to Protect National Security Act of 2013 [PDF] as their way of preventing sequestration. The bill “would pay for one year of defense and non-defense sequestration by requiring a reduction in the federal workforce through attrition and a pay freeze for members of Congress.” The Congressional pay freeze is of course only symbolic. More than anything, this proposal shows no grand bargain is going to happen in the less than 4 weeks remaining before the sequester kicks in: it’s now all about finding a patch that will stick for a little while.
• Meanwhile Continuing Resolution/sequestration planning continues to trickle down through the services. The Air Force memo [PDF] shows $3.4B in FY13 (still tentative) sequestration actions, from potential furloughs to reductions in weapons sustainment and flight hours.
• And here’s the take from Vice Adm. David Dunaway for US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR):

“A year-long CR and sequestration would mean a $3.5 billion cut to NAVAIR in FY13, including $3 billion across investment accounts (research and development, and procurement) and $520 million in OMN.”

• The US Navy also decided to delay the deployment of the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group (HST CSG).

AOL Defense has the Army plans if sequestration is implemented including the slides referenced below:

WASHINGTON: Rarely have such pretty slides told such an ugly story. While Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno tries to talk up "The Force of Tomorrow," Army briefing documents obtained today by AOL Defense lay out the near-term impact of sequestration, the Continuing Resolution, and unresolved overseas contingency operations needs: an enormous $18 billion shortfall for the service that will be borne almost entirely by federal workers and military readiness. 

The Army will have money to fully train only a fraction of its total force: The 82nd Airborne's Global Response Force paratrooper brigade, units in Korea, and troops headed for Afghanistan. Everyone else will cancel everything more elaborate than "squad-level training."
As a result, the documents say, "In 1st quarter [of] FY 2014 , 78% of non-deploying, non-forward deployed brigade combat teams (BCTs) are not ready for contingencies without significant preparation." 

Even individual training will suffer in some areas. Helicopter pilots won't be able to fly enough to meet proficiency requirements. Cutbacks at flight schools will leave the Army short about 500 aircrew for its fleet of helicopters. Cancellation of other specialized courses will create a shortfall of about 4,000 military intelligence specialists.

All services will most likely furlough employees for up to 22 days if the sequestration cuts go through.  Are Republicans in the Congress going to be the Party of NO for raising taxes and closing loopholes to keep from sequestration at the DoD?  Or are the members of the Party of NO going to get some common sense and work with President Obama to avoid the cuts.  Republicans bluffs no longer work as it is time to get serious instead of the House wanting to overturn Obamacare again which is not going to happen.  The House is the worst I have seen in my lifetime with getting nothing done and taking more vacations since the GOP took over the House.  Time for House Republican leadership to put Country over Party and get something done.  Compromise is not a dirty word and if they think it is, then time to resign from Congress and allow adults to be in charge.

My suggestion for a cut at DoD:

If Defense contractors want to pay their CEO's and top managers millions, then remove those salaries from overhead in contracts so the cost of manhours reflect the actual cost not the over inflated costs that a $25M salary w/benefits paid to a CEO will bring.  Base the overhead for the CEO and management on what the Government pays their top people including the President and not a penny more.  These same Defense contractors pay their top echelon millions in salaries/benefits/bonus while giving their rank and file employees who do the actual work small raises each year. In the meantime taxpayers are getting ripped off by these people in the defense industry who make demands of Republicans in Congress not to raise their taxes or change the way contracts are awarded or how to calculate their overhead including salaries/bonuses/benefits/golden parachutes.  Their GOP puppets stand tall, salute, and say "Yes Sir!" while the taxpayers of America get shafted once again.

See how easy that was and there are plenty more cuts that can be made without sacrificing our military and our national security but then some members of Congress might not get their perks/donations from the defense industry.  Taxpayers would be the winner.

Karl Rove Tries to Walk Back Comments Opposing Tea Party with His New PAC

Are conservatives going to fall for latest from Karl Rove?  Not on your life!

Karl Rove is now trying to walk back his comments about his Conservative Victory Project that it is not out to take out Tea Party candidates.  Bet me!  Noted that he used Hannity of Fox News to try to walk back his original comments but it is not working any better then Cong Eric Cantor trying to make the GOP House Republicans kindler and gentler with the same agenda and plagiarizing of President Obama in his speech.

Here is what Karl Rove is trying to walk back:

Top Donors to Republicans Seek More Say in Senate RacesBy JEFF ZELENY
Published: February 2, 2013 

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa — The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s efforts to win control of the Senate. 

The group, the Conservative Victory Project, is intended to counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most robust attempt yet by Republicans to impose a new sense of discipline on the party, particularly in primary races.

Is this about trying to defeat Cong Steve King in the primary for the Senator Harkin seat?  If it is, the Rove faction may have bought off more then they can handle.  King had everything thrown at him including the kitchen sink and still came out a winner after his seat was gerrymandered to make him lose.  Love him or hate him, Steve King has a huge following of grassroots who are willing to hit the ground running for him versus big money.  My money is on the grassroots for King not big donors.  Obviously Rove and his big donors don't understand Middle America and how they think.  Been inside the beltway for way too many years.

Rove Appears On Fox News To Defend New Anti-Tea Party Group From Conservative Critics
Blog ››› 3 hours and 8 minutes ago ››› CAITLIN GINLEY 

Karl Rove appeared on Fox News' Hannity to defend his new group, the Conservative Victory Project, against complaints from fellow conservatives that it would undermine the Tea Party movement. Rove, a Fox News contributor who regularly appears on the network advance his political agenda, insisted that the group is not an attempt to protect the GOP establishment over Tea Party candidates, but to promote "the most conservative candidate that can win."

The New York Times reported on February 2 that the Conservative Victory Project , which is backed by Rove and his allies who were also involved in his American Crossroads super PAC, is "the most robust attempt yet by Republicans to impose a new sense of discipline on the party." 

During the February 5 edition of Hannity, host Sean Hannity noted that Rove's new effort has "drawn the ire of conservatives and the Tea Party," who are "accusing Karl Rove of putting the establishment ahead of conservative principles." Indeed, conservative media figures have been vocal about their opposition to Rove's new anti-Tea Party project. 

Hannity expressed his own concern about the group, saying to Rove: "My fear is, is that if Karl Rove is fighting the Tea Party and conservatives are battling establishment candidates ... I am concerned that we're going to lose." 

Rove denied that he was protecting establishment Republicans from Tea Party challengers, but referred to Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, who both lost their 2012 Senate races after making incendiary comments about rape, as examples of the need to recruit and champion "better" conservative candidates. 

 (snip) 

This is not the first time Rove has used Fox News as a platform to promote his political agenda. During the 2012 election cycle, Rove was a consistent presence on the network, often parroting the talking points from his own super PAC ads.    

Rove also regularly appears in the pages of The Wall Street Journal as a columnist, often to promote the agenda of American Crossroads, yet during election season his relationship to the political organization was rarely disclosed.

Click here to read full article on Media Matters

Mother Jones News has this to say in this excerpt about an upcoming internal battle in the GOP which is most likely going to end up splitting the GOP or at least severely weaken the Party:

The Conservative Victory Fund's creation threatens to stoke an already fiery internal battle over the future of the Republican Party. There are the Roves and Laws of the GOP, the pragmatic Beltway operators who backed Mitt Romney and who believe the party must tone down the demagoguery on immigration and social issues if they ever want to control of Congress and the White House again. On the other side are the ideologues, the GOP's conservative wing, the Koch-backed groups and tea partiers and Grover Norquist acolytes who believe the party's future lies in veering hard to the right and doubling down on pure conservative ideals. 

With Rove's new super-PAC in the mix, the GOP's slate of 2014 primaries will be even nastier than expected in states such as Iowa, Georgia, and Kentucky, among others. The GOP needs to win six seats in 2014 to take back control of the Senate, and if that requires some intraparty combat, the Conservative Victory Fund looks ready to go to war. By the end of 2014's primary season, don't be surprised, to borrow a phrase from Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, to see quite a lot of blood and teeth left on the floor.

Mother Jones has a good handle on what is about to go down between Rove and the Establishment versus Koch Brothers and their groups (Tea Party Party, Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity, ALEC) then Hannity IMHO.  Once again Fox News has given Rove a platform to deliver his spin just like they did in the 2012 Presidential election.  Lack of journalistic integrity by Fox News is stunning.

Mark Levin minced no words what he thought of Karl Rove's idea calling his effort 'diabolical' which almost beats Robert Reich's comment on Twitter today comparing Rove helping more moderate candidates to Hershey trying to make asparagus.  That was classic. From Levin's comments, I don't think he is a big fan of Karl Rove's.

Conservative radio host Mark Levin went after former George W. Bush advisor, Karl Rove, during his radio show on Monday after Rove announced the formation of a new PAC that would aid moderate Republican politicians against tea party challengers in primary races. Levin called Rove’s effort ‘diabolical’ and listed the many GOP officeholders who would not be in power but for the tea party insurgency.

 “We’re being stabbed in the back,” Levin declared. 

“Here’s a project funded by crony capitalists, funded by corporatists — who are not conservative — funding a group called the Conservative Victory Project,” Levin began. “This is the sort of thing Barack Obama does; this is a thing Marxists do; they give a name to themselves which has nothing to do with what they’re really up to in order to try and control the propaganda.” 

“I’m just showing you how diabolical this effort is,” Levin continued.

He read a portion of the mission statement of the new PAC, taking issue most with the organization’s stated agenda of “imposing discipline” on the Republican Party. Levin listed a number of sitting Republican officeholders who emerged from the primary process backed by tea party support. Levin suggested that it was the tea party which imposed discipline on the GOP. 

“The diversity that comes to the Republican Party is through the conservative and tea party movement, not through the Republican establishment,” Levin said. “They backed [Charlie] Crist in Florida. They backed the moderate lieutenant governor in Texas. They put up a moderate attorney general in Kentucky to try and beat Rand Paul. They backed the moderate-to-liberal Republican longtime serving Senator Bob Bennett serving in Utah.”

Hot Air also wasn't the least bit impressed with Rove's new organization.  Allahpundit had this to say:

We knew this was coming, no? A month ago, Politico reported that Senate Republicans were planning to intervene more aggressively in GOP primaries in hopes of clearing the field for their preferred candidates. A few days later, Steve LaTourette announced that the Republican Main Street Partnership was dropping “Republican” from its name and would intervene on behalf of centrist candidates from both parties in congressional elections. Now here comes Rove’s group, American Crossroads, pledging untold millions towards electing the most allegedly “electable” candidate in Republican primaries. No more Akins — and maybe no more Marco Rubios, Rand Pauls, and Ted Cruzes too?

The group, the Conservative Victory Project, is intended to counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most robust attempt yet by Republicans to impose a new sense of discipline on the party, particularly in primary races.  

“There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected,” said Steven J. Law, the president of American Crossroads, the “super PAC” creating the new project. “We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.”… 

The group’s plans, which were outlined for the first time last week in an interview with Mr. Law, call for hard-edge campaign tactics, including television advertising, against candidates whom party leaders see as unelectable and a drag on the efforts to win the Senate. Mr. Law cited Iowa as an example and said Republicans could no longer be squeamish about intervening in primary fights.
“We’re concerned about Steve King’s Todd Akin problem,” Mr. Law said. “This is an example of candidate discipline and how it would play in a general election. All of the things he’s said are going to be hung around his neck.”

(snip) 

Read Erick Erickson, Ben Shapiro, and the boss emeritus, all wondering why we should trust a guy like Rove who has TARP, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, huge federal deficits, and an abysmal record of 2012 election spending to his record. I said most of what I have to say about the big establishment pushback effort in the posts linked up top, but let me add three things:  See Hot Air for additional comments

Don't see any of the conservative media buying off on Karl Rove trying to walk back his comments.  In fact, most don't believe anything Rove has to say.  Too many conservatives gave Rove way too much credit when Bush almost lost Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004, the Senate/House in 2006, etc.  So why is Rove called this big guru.  Is it because the media doesn't really investigate and just run with a narrative?

The biggest question is what are Republicans across the Country who are not hard right and have common sense going to do in all of this.  Will a new party rise like the Phoenix?

Stay tuned and while you are at it, pop some popcorn, kick back, and watch the fight because this is most likely going to be a long drawn out, nasty affair.  Democrats have the advantage now for '14.  When you  add  Republicans who will not only vote but help Democrats in the '14 elections to throw out the knuckleheads like the following members of the House as ranked by Alternet:

• Impeach the president because he wants to reduce gun violence: Freshman Reps. Trey Radel (R-FL) and Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) along with Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) all  suggested that the president be impeached because of his efforts to reduce gun violence
• “Welfare Moms” wanting to commit fraud are to blame for gun violence: Rep. James Lankford (R-OK), a member of the House Republican leadership, identified an unlikely culprit for the nation’s gun violence epidemic: “welfare moms.” Specifically, Lankford says welfare moms who are intentionally drugging their children in order to commit Social Security fraud are to blame. Lankford also vowed this week to use the “power of humiliation” to undermine an LGBT program.
• Obama only upholds the “Soviet Constitution”: Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) attacked the president this week by alleging that “the only Constitution that Barack Obama upholds is the Soviet constitution.” With the retirement of Rep. Ron Paul, Broun is now also the House’s foremost opponent of the Federal Reserve. 
• Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11: Former Vice President Dick Cheney spent years telling America that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 terror attacks, an assertion that turned out to be categorically false. Two weeks ago, Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR), himself an Iraq War veteran, resurrected this conspiracy theory as part of an effort to discredit Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, former Sen. Chuck Hagel.
• Voted to leave Hurricane Sandy victims out in the cold: House Republicans broke a longstanding, bipartisan tradition of assisting their fellow Americans who are in need following a disaster. Speaker Boehner had already delayed aid for weeks due to political considerations in his caucus and 179 Republicans added insult to injury when they voted against helping Sandy victims. At least 36 of these Republicans voted against the aid despite having previously sought aid for disasters in their own states. Fortunately, the aid package still passed because House Democrats overwhelmingly backed it.  

What can you say except there are quite a few Republican office holders across America who are putting Party and being a hard right conservative over what is best for the Country. Time for them all to go!

OG&E: Smart Grid, Smart Meters, and Windpower for Norman, OK

Because I live in Norman, OK, a lot of people from other states have laughed when I tell them I am on 100% wind power here in Norman, along with the smart grid and a smart meter.  Now I have a thermostat that my brother installed during the holidays that communicates with my smart phone and allows me to change the temperature based on circumstances.  I intend to become as energy friendly as I can.

Every week, OGE notifies us about our usage compared to our neighbors and what is very energy efficient.  Usually I am in the middle closer to very energy efficient but two weeks ago I was less then energy efficient which made me want to celebrate.  It is a combination of a new roof with an energy efficient layer under the shingles (insurance had to replace all of the shingles in this area due to ice storms) and believe my new thermostat as the temperature stays much more even now.  Old thermostat had seen better days.

When OGE offered various amounts of wind power, I signed up for 100% as did a lot of my neighbors.  It started with the University of Oklahoma partnering with OGE and spread to the rest of us here in Norman.  Felt is was a civic duty to help OGE not have to build new power plants so I took a chance even though was told by some it wouldn't work.  It did work and I saved money while OGE doesn't have to build more power plants.  In the summer, I signed up for core hours when energy costs would be more expensive so I cut back on how I use and at other times we get a really low rate.  I have cut my electric bill for the year way back.  It is a great system and my hat is off to OGE for being a forward looking company.

After I read this article about the Super Bowl and need for a Smart Grid, I wanted to shout that OGE used stimulus money to build the grid right here in central OK.  So much for the conservative talk, stimulus money didn't work -- we are living proof.  The author of this piece, John Avalon, obviously did not check to see if any utility company was using the smart grid.  Whoever he asked missed OGE here in Oklahoma and what has done to make us more energy efficient and now have to build more power plants.

Super Bowl Blackout Should Help Build Momentum for a Smart Grid
by John Avlon Feb 5, 2013 4:45 AM EST 

The 34-minute power cut during the year’s biggest sporting event illustrated for 100 million viewers the effects of our aging electrical grid. John Avlon on why we’ll see more blackouts unless Obama invests in a smart grid.

The 34-minute Super Bowl blackout is just the most recent high-profile example of a growing national problem. Blackouts are on the rise across the United States, with major power outages doubling over the past decade.

Nonetheless, the 34-minute hold on the Super Bowl should be sufficient to get broader attention for an issue that is vital to America’s long-term security and economic competitiveness: building the smart grid.

It may be tempting to file the idea under “boring but important,” but building a smart grid is almost as significant as building the transcontinental railroad was in the 1800s. 

Here’s the high concept: basically, today’s national energy grid is like the overstretched power strip in your college dorm. It’s a patchwork affair, with networks connecting to networks in ways that are tangential and highly unstable. The grid is held together by the infrastructure equivalent of duct tape and prayer. 

Building a smart grid would allow for the monitoring of the electricity flow in real time, making it dramatically more reliable and efficient for both producers and consumers, while integrating renewable energy efforts as well. It would improve our commerce and our resilience. The idea has long been on the national to-do list. In 2007 a modernization of the energy grid was codified in legislation under President Bush. During the 2008 campaign Barack Obama ran on modernizing the nation’s electricity grid, using smart-grid practices. Five years, later some progress has been made, but we’re still a long way from implementation. 

The need is urgent, not only because of the comparative economic benefits of a smart-grid system but because of the vulnerabilities in our current system. There have been reports of a city, often suggested to be in Brazil, having its electricity cut off by extortionist hackers. In addition, seized al Qaeda computers showed detailed studies of U.S. infrastructure, including the electrical grid and nuclear power plants. Finally, our electrical grid has reportedly been infiltrated by cyberspies from China and Russia who left behind malware programs that could be used to disrupt or destroy critical infrastructure. 

(clip) 

The Obama administration devoted roughly $4.5 billion of the more than $789 billion in stimulus funds to the establishment of a smart grid, but that was just a down payment. While the initial smart-grid down payment was matched by private funds, experts estimate that building a national smart grid could cost 10 times as much over the next two decades. 

“There was this sense of frustration,” former Obama budget director Peter Orszag told Michael Grunwald in an interview for his book, The New New Deal. “Here’s the first African-American president, the economy has fallen off a cliff, history is calling, and—really? I can’t just do a smart grid?” 

Sadly, it’s not that simple, in large part because the sums are huge, public-private partnerships are essential, and the technology is still being perfected in some cases. Moreover, the stimulus’s stated goal of going to “shovel ready” projects did not necessarily fit long-term investments like the smart grid. That’s why the smart grid should be a cornerstone of the second-term agenda for the Obama administration and a key criterion for the selection of the next energy secretary, to replace the outgoing Nobel laureate Steven Chu.

Excerpt:  Read More at The Daily Beast

People from around the Country are starting to look at OGE for how they were able to get the smart grid with our smart meters up and running in three years not five after receiving stimulus dollars.  Spent the last summer with day after day over 100, but my electric bills were much lower thanks to the smart grid and the meter as they would alert us on our computer when to cut energy use.  Found it easy to work with and was not uncomfortable at all.  There were days when there was not going to be a significant power usage that I only paid 2.9 cents a kilowatt hour which was a huge savings and why my electric bills were so low.  This article tells how it was done in Oklahoma -- the naysayers are not forward thinking people because it does work -- we are living proof right here in Norman, Oklahoma:

Smart Grid StrategyUnder the hood of OGE's successful smart grid deployment 
Oct 22, 2012

By Jesse Berst 

Expert NASCAR fans know the truth. Although the drivers get the publicity, much of the success depends on the car -- more specifically, what's under the hood. 

The same with a smart grid installation. Sure, it's important to have a strong project lead. But much of the success depends on the tools, technologies and techniques "under the hood."That's why I was so pleased to get a chance to learn what is powering OGE's smart grid project, widely regarded as one of North America's very best. We've recruited OGE Expert Solution Architect Joel Webb to participate in a webinar titled "Success secrets of OGE's smart grid deployment."

 In preparation for the webcast, I talked with people familiar with OGE's "Positive Energy Smart Grid Program." Below I've distilled several of the key learnings. (We'll go into more detail in the webinar while also giving you a chance to ask questions.) 

Headquartered in Oklahoma City, OGE is a regulated electric utility company that serves over 750,000 customers in Oklahoma and western Arkansas. Its Positive Energy Smart Grid Program, funded in part by $130 million in stimulus dollars, has four main components:

1.     Advanced metering infrastructure
2.     Distribution automation
3.     A range of in-home technologies
4.     Dynamic pricing programs

OGE was not content just to slap up a few smart meters and call it a day. The deployment's ambitious goals included: 

·     Provide "digital-grade" power     

Optimize efficiency and asset utilization ·         

Improve resilience against attack or disaster

·     Empower new services: Build a platform for delivering new products, services and markets 

Oh, and one other thing -- they were charged with completing what should have been a five-year journey in just three years instead. 

Lessons learned 

My initial research uncovered many great ideas. Here are three highlights:

Best-of-breed development process. You may be wondering how OGE is hoping to complete a five-year project in just three years. One answer is that it is running a number of projects in parallel. Another is the use of the Solution Delivery Lifecycle methodology, which provides: 

·         A centralized repository for deliverables 

·         Automated workflows

·         Standards, processes and templates

"If we were going to do five years of work in three, we knew we would need a methodical approach," explains OGE's Joel Webb. "Especially since there were so many people on the project, both OGE people and contractors. We needed a good solid way to manage."

Integrated operations center. OGE's integrated operations center monitors all network, system and operational resources. Built around IBM's Tivoli Netcool, it provides situational awareness (through visualization), drill-down capabilities, and incident management. It monitors everything from smart meters to network devices to datacenter servers and more. As I talk to utilities around the country, this is often one of the missing pieces -- the lack of a "manager of managers." 

.OGE wisely addressed the challenge, resulting in end-to-end visibility and control. "We saw the sheer number of new devices that were coming into play and spitting out information and needing constant observation," says Joel Webb. "There was no way we could do it using our old, siloed methodology." 

Please go to Smart Grid News for Page 2

There you have it -- a utility company headquartered in Oklahoma City has done something the doom and gloomers said couldn't be done.  Now it is time for the rest of the Country to catch up with OGE and start realizing that we need to conservative energy and not have to build any more coal powered utility plants.  That probably wouldn't go over too well in West Virginia but not having to use more coal is a plus in my book and a helps keep our air clean.

Republicans Heading for a Train Wreck

New Karl Rove group, Conservative Victory Project, versus the Koch Bros Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works, Club for Growth, Senate Conservative Fund 

Please pass the popcorn as this is going to get very interesting in the days ahead as the hard right with all the boots on the ground plus money butt heads with the Rove/Bush big money donors.  Will this effort stop Republicans from leaving the Party especially women and minorities?  Will it stop long time GOP from helping Democrats in 2014 to take the House, keep the Senate, and oust some of the hard right at the State level who have been responsible for voter suppression and changing the rules on how electoral votes are counted?  No to both questions as we have learned over the years that we cannot trust what the GOP is saying.  When you go to a retreat to have to learn how to talk to voters, you probably shouldn't be in politics.

Let me say up front I agree with Joe Scarborough who said on Morning Joe this morning that Haley Barbour would have been a better choice to run an organization like this one to oppose hard right candidates.  IMO Barbour is a very organized person and has a track record of winning as RNC Chair and as two-time Governor of Mississippi.  He understands the Buckley rule and is actually much more likable then Rove will ever think of being.  The one negative to Barbour is that he is old school and has a hard time appealing to younger people.

Politics is undergoing change right -- the old backroom deals with hard knuckle politics isn't going to work today as there is always going to be someone who puts on the Internet what is happening.  If the parties don't change, they will be left behind.  Seeing the change already as the Democrats as they are more center left with Progressives having a ton of common sense while the Republicans went hard right and threw common sense out the window.  This Country needs at least two viable parties or the other one will get too arrogant and make stupid decisions that are not good for the whole Country.  We have seen Republicans fulfill that agenda for six years under President GW Bush as they went farther right with each election.

An example is the Buckley rule:

The group favors William F. Buckley’s dictum to nominate “the most conservative candidate in the primary who can win the general election,” over Ronald Reagan’s commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” 

That Buckley Rule was all well and good back in the 70's/80's but whoever is behind this establishment effort today doesn't have a lot of moderates to work with today or women who have gotten more and more fed up with the Republican Party since 2000.  Each year it seems to have gotten worse with more hard right conservatives elected.  We are not talking about Joe Scarborough type of conservatism but the hard right John Birch/Libertarian/Ayn Rand types.

Most of us long time Republicans don't recognize today's party but we also know that Karl Rove is not the answer to take it back centrist.  He has always lived in bubble on elections which almost cost President Bush in 2000 and again in 2004 when he refused to put any credence in anyone's numbers but his own.  Very arrogant and only believes he knows it all and the rest of us peons are there to carry out his wishes.

Today many of us are not loyal followers of the GOP or Rove as we have taken our blinders off and see a party that has gone hard right into the world of no common sense or reality.  Changing the message doesn't change the core values of the hard right where with a little bit of research you can pick up on the net where they have stood in the past.  We know that Paul Ryan is as hard right as Todd Aiken but just packages the message better.  That means that those on the hard right need exposed at every turn so they cannot pass themselves off as mainstream Republicans like Paul Ryan has tried or now Senator Ted Cruz as they and others are anything but mainstream.  They are hard right supported by the Koch Brothers.

When I first heard about this group, my first thought was train wreck along with GOP will be destroyed faster then I think.  After reading the comments of people opposed to the Rove group, I stand by my initial analysis.  How can Republicans aka Bush people be so dumb as to put Rove in charge of trying to bring back the GOP to the center when the numbers are on the side of the hard right and they just elected a hard right RNC Chair controlled by the Koch Brothers.  Do I think this additional effort by Crossroads will work?  NO because they may have money but few boots on the ground as many us who have stayed involved in politics are not going to buy into this latest Rove scam after what we saw out of Rove, Romney, and the GOP in 2012.  Very poor choice.

The organizers of American Crossroads hope to bring electoral victory to the Republican Party by defeating unelectable tea party candidates in GOP primary races. The new super PAC, called the Conservative Victory Project, will be run by American Crossroads president Steven Law and is supported by former Bush political adviser Karl Rove. 

“There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected,” Law told the New York Times on Saturday. “We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.”

The Victory Project plans to oppose candidates like Christine O’Donnell, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. Though running in places where Republicans were favored, the tea party-backed candidates lost the general election after defeating moderate Republicans in the primary. Many tea party candidates who were victorious in 2010, such as Allen West and Joe Walsh, also ended up being defeated by Democratic challengers in 2012. 

Victory Project spokesman Jonathan Collegio told CNN that Republicans lost six Senate races in the last two election cycles because they nominated “undisciplined candidates” rather than Republican veterans. 

Read More: Raw Story (http://s.tt/1zjDQ)

Anyone who thinks this will drive the hard right to give up power, is smoking something because the chances of that are zero, zip, nada as witnessed by some of the comments from the hard right this morning:

Both the Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund – two of the most prominent groups that have boosted candidates on the right – mocked the new initiative as yet another hapless establishment-side attempt to muzzle the GOP base. 

Matt Hoskins, executive director of the Senate Conservatives Fund, branded it the “Conservative Defeat Project.”

“The Conservative Defeat Project is yet another example of the Republican establishment’s hostility toward its conservative base. Rather than listening to the grassroots and working to advance their principles, the establishment has chosen to declare war on the party’s most loyal supporters,” Hoskins said. “If they keep this up, the party will remain in the wilderness for decades to come.” 

Club for Growth spokesman Barney Keller essentially responded by pointing to the scoreboard in recent primaries in which conservative insurgents have prevailed and emerged as influential GOP leaders. 

“They are welcome to support the likes of Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist and David Dewhurst,” Keller said of the new Crossroads group. “We will continue to proudly support the likes of Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.”

Read more at Politico

From Atlantic Wire:

But conservatives noted that establishment Republicans who didn't talk about rape lost, too. The Senate Conservatives Fund's Matt Hoskins told Politico the Crossroads group was the "Conservative Defeat Project." Free Republic posters mocked "Tokyo Rove." On Breitbart.com, Ben Shapiro called Rove and his cohorts, "The Bush insider team that helped lead to the rise of Barack Obama." RedState editor Erick Erickson said the Conservative Victory Project was sure to pick losers. "I dare say any candidate who gets this group’s support should be targeted for destruction by the conservative movement." Erickson wrote. "They’ve made it really easy not to figure out who the terrible candidates will be in 2014." In another post at RedState, Daniel Horowitz warned of an enemy within under the headline "The Snakes in the GOP Grass":

One by one, people like Karl Rove seek to crush another sacred belief of the conservative base.  All social issues? Gone. Enforcement before amnesty? No way.  Stay strong on taxes? Forget about it. Fight Obamacare? That’s a done deal...

In this battle, we must distinguish friend from foe.  It is a battle we did not initiate, but it is one we must win. 

The conservatives are right that many establishment picks lost in 2012, too: North Dakota's Rick Berg, Montana's Denny Rehberg. In Connecticut, a doorhanger ad for Linda McMahon said, "President Obama and Linda McMahon will fight for us." She lost. But all of the conservative positions listed by Horowitz -- opposition to Obamacare, gay marriage, lax immigration laws, higher taxes -- were held by the most important establishment pick of all: Mitt Romney. It's possible the GOP's problem is not just about style.

From Washington Times Blog:

Gentlemen, commence with the sword rattling, and let the infighting begin. 

The Senate Conservatives Fund has attacked the Conservative Victory Project, a brand new super PAC organized by American Crossroads, the sleek 2012 fundraising machine that boasted Karl Rove as its point man. A New York Times account of it all paints a dire picture of discord: 

"The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and tea party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party's efforts to win control of the Senate," the paper said Sunday.

From Media Matters:

The response from conservative media figures has been almost uniformly negative, with many citing American Crossroads' poor performance in the 2012 election and President Obama's election after years of Rove's work in the Bush White House as evidence against him. 

Newly signed Fox analyst Eric Erickson sarcastically noted: "The people who brought us No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, TARP, the GM bailout, Harriet Miers, etc., etc., etc. are really hacked off that people have been rejecting them." Erickson added, "I dare say any candidate who gets this group's support should be targeted for destruction by the conservative movement." 

Daniel Horowitz, a front page contributor to Erickson's RedState.com described Rove's group as "snakes in the GOP grass," and described the group's name as "Orwellian" since "they will never tell you how they plan to achieve conservative victory without running conservative candidates." 

In response to Rove's announcement, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin asked, "Who needs Obama and his Team Chicago to destroy the Tea Party when you've got Rove and his big government band of elites?" Addressing Rove, she wrote, "You and your Incumbency Protection Racket are the problem, not the Tea Party." 

Ben Shapiro of Breitbart.com accused Rove of "quietly undermining conservatism" and described Rove and his allies as "the Bush insider team that helped lead to the rise of Barack Obama," and whose advice "led to the epic Romney defeat." 

W. James Antle III pointed out in The Daily Caller that many candidates favored by the Republican establishment in 2012 -- likeTommy Thompson, George Allen, Rick Berg, Denny Rehberg, Linda Lingle, and Heather Wilson -- "all lost the general election" and that "if the Tea Party is to blame for anything, it is not distancing the party from Bush enough." 

WorldNetDaily, linking to the New York Times story, described the effort in a headline as "Rove Doubles Down In War On Conservatives." 

Rick Moran, writing at American Thinker, said "this kind of bloodletting is self-defeating."
With such a negative reaction from the right, will Rove use Fox to promote fundraising for this effort, as he has done so often in the past?

Can sit in my chair and chuckle at the comments from the hard right against Rove and his new scheme to make more money because I am no longer emotionally invested in the Republican Party as I have one foot out the door.  Will be supporting/helping Democrats for Congress in '14 because I am sick and tired of the obstructionist Republicans in Congress who are sitting on bills to put Americans back to work.  They will do anything to stop the Obama agenda no matter how much it hurts the American people.  Not only Democrats and Independents are fed up with the Republicans in Congress especially after last week's Senate hearings, but so are many Republicans who are figuring out what to do next.

If I had to bet how this is going to turn out, unfortunately my bet is on Koch's and the hard right as they have many more people then Rove.  Even more moderates don't like Karl Rove and definitely don't trust him even a little.

Pop some popcorn and stay tuned as the fight for control of the GOP has started with tons of money waiting to be spent on both sides.  Only thing I know for sure is that big donors are stupid to fall for any of this and give Rove any more money to waste.  By the time the Republicans get through the primaries, they will be weakened by their own Party and Dems will be picking up seats IMHO!

Weekends Off Unless Breaking News

This blog will only have articles posted Monday through Friday unless something is breaking news or important that comes up during the weekend.

Sit back, relax, and enjoy your weekend especially Super Bowl Sunday tomorrow!

GOP Senators Despicable Antics at Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense Hearings

Latest from The Hill on the Hagel nomination -- they anticipate that he will be confirmed because he has more than 50 votes and do not expect a filibuster from Republicans even though some have said they might filibuster but that would set a bad precedent that a President cannot appoint who he wants to his cabinet.

Senior White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer said Friday that there was "no question" the White House had secured more than 50 votes to support former Sen. Chuck Hagel's (R-Neb.) nomination to head the Defense Department. 

"We're very confident of that," Pfeiffer told Bloomberg TV. "There's no question that there will be more than 50 votes to confirm Sen. Hagel." 

Hagel struggled through a contentious confirmation hearing Thursday, often having to correct statements or apologize for past comments. But White House press secretary Jay Carney said Friday that he believed Hagel "did fine" and helped secure votes necessary for his confirmation.
"We expect the Senate to confirm Sen. Hagel to the position of secretary of Defense," Carney said. "By my estimates and reading of press reports, there has been a net increase in the number of confirmed 'yes' votes for Sen. Hagel's confirmation since the hearing ended." 

Pfeiffer also said he did not expect Republicans to filibuster Hagel's nomination, which would increase the threshold required for Hagel's confirmation to 60 votes. 

"I would be disappointed and surprised if the Republicans were willing to filibuster one of their former colleagues for the secretary of Defense," he said.

That was good news this afternoon after what Senator Hagel endured yesterday at the Committee hearing of Armed Services.

Started supporting former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel as soon as I heard there was a chance he would be announced by President Obama as the next Secretary of State.  He knows the Defense Department and unlike most Republicans in Congress today, he is part of a small group of GOP Senators and former Senators who cannot be bought by lobbyists.

Most likely the reason the defense industry lined up against him along with Neocons as Hagel would not recommend us going into a war that is unnecessary to the protection of this Country.  The Neocons seem to have never met a war they didn't like, yet very of them have ever served.  Chuck Hagel not only served as an enlisted man in Vietnam but was wounded.  Would say he has a different perspective on what war means.

Senator Hagel has been criticized for his reaction to the Republicans Senators as being unprepared.  I have another take asking how could anyone have been prepared for the attacks by his fellow Republicans yesterday where the most important topic was Israel.  That blew my mind.  After Senator Inhofe's insulting opening remarks, anyone would have been off their game trying not to lose their cool.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who opened by arguing that Chuck Hagel’s views are far outside the mainstream, questioned the former Nebraska senator aggressively on Iran, Israel and nuclear weapons at the Senate confirmation hearing for Hagel as defense secretary.

My Senator calling anyone far outside the mainstream has to be the biggest joke of the day.  Inhofe is not mainstream by any shape or form and in many instances is too hard right.  Who is far outside the mainstream today are Republicans in Congress and they go farther right by the day it seems.

This except from the London Guardian sums up the hearing by Republicans who acted like they were picking a Secretary of Defense for Israel not the United States:

• "Is Israel a great country, or is it the greatest? And if it's the former, can you explain your lack of support for America's most important ally?"
• "Why don't you think Iran is crazy, unbalanced and a military competitor of the United States, as I do?"
• "Let me tell you more about the vital national security rule played by the weapons system or military base located in my home state." 

I'm not really exaggerating when I say these three themes accounted for practically 80% of the questions asked of Hagel, particularly by Republicans. In fact, according to a tweet from Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran that made the rounds yesterday evening, Israel was mentioned 136 times in the hearing and Iran 135 times.

Even though the defense secretary nominee said repeatedly that he supports Israel, that he considers Iran a state sponsor of terrorism and that he wouldn't take military force off the table in dealing with its potential nuclear program, Republicans mined practically every statement ever made by Hagel (and often taken out of context) in an effort to assert that he doesn't hold as uncompromising a position on these issues as they do.

The day reached its point of high comedy when Senator Lindsey Graham began interrogating Hagel on whether he believes – as he allegedly said several years ago – that the so-called "Jewish lobby" causes US senators to occasionally do dumb things that harm US foreign policy. Hagel hemmed and hawed on the question when, in an ideal world, he should have said, "Yes, and this hearing is example A." 

In fact, after a while, it was hard to figure out if Hagel was the nominee for secretary of defense or "Israel's new bestie", so obsessed were Republican Senators with how Hagel views the US-Israel relationship. It was a demoralizing spectacle.

As we saw during the GOP primaries last year, the new apparent litmus test for being a foreign policy-maker in the US government appears to be the extent to which you offer unconditional support for basically everything that Israel does (even when it goes against stated US policy). 

That a hearing on the fitness of Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense was dominated by a discussion of a country that is not even a military ally of the United States – and which, in the just the last three months, has take actions on settlement construction that run precisely counter to US policy – offered compelling evidence of the disproportionate and unhealthy role that Israel plays in US foreign policy debates.

Israel is the same country that sold some of our military weapon systems secrets to China.

One good reason why Israel should not receive billions of dollars in military assistance annually is its espionage against the United States. Israel, a Socialist country where government and business work hand in hand, systematically steals American technology with both military and civilian applications. The Israelis then reverse engineer this US-developed technology and use it in their own exports with considerably reduced research and development costs.

This is an example of the Country of Israel that Republicans in the Congress hold in such high esteem.  Do any of them get kickbacks from Israel is a question that needs answered.

Almost as depressing was the panel's discussion of Iran. It was bad enough that New York Democratic Kirsten Gillibrand called Iran an "existential threat" to the United States, or that senators kept referring to an Iranian nuclear weapons program that, according the IAEA and America's own intelligence agencies, doesn't actually exist.

But from listening to the questions, one might not know that there are currently 66,000 US troops fighting a war in Afghanistan. It was barely touched on – mentioned only a handful of times in the day's proceeding. 

Al-Qaida: that got mentioned twice. China: hardly came up. Payroll and healthcare issues, which are a huge part of the Pentagon budget: barely referenced. The growing epidemic of military suicides and sexual assault: each were raised once.

Instead, when given the chance, senators were far more interested in referencing the military spending in their own states that is, oh, so vital to national security. Thus, we were presented with Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut talking about the importance of submarines to the US fleet – subs that just happen to be built in Groton Connnecticut; or Jeanne Shaheen and Angus King inquiring about naval building – for example, at the shipyards in their home states of New Hampshire and Maine; Tim Kaine of Virginia, which is home to a huge military and contracting footprint, warning about the dangers of sequestration military cuts; and Deb Fischer, inquiring about the (false) claim that Hagel supports unilateral reductions in nuclear weapons, which, of course, coincidentally touches on the presence of the United States strategic command (USSC) in her home state of Nebraska.

It's almost as if the nation's actual wars, actual troops and actual national security challenges were of little concern to the assembled senators. 

One must be careful about romanticizing the past glories of the Senate and the armed services committee, but still, there did used to be a time when there were senators who approached national security concerns and issues related to the military with some level of seriousness and sobriety. Such attributes were in meager presence on Thursday.

A little background on that explains even when he was young, he was given anything he wanted whether qualified or not which has led to a perception you don't cross John McCain or he pays you back which is what I see was on display yesterday - pay back for not supporting Sarah Palin as VP.  Hagel wasn't alone as a lot of us didn't support her.  

John McCain graduated near the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy as the son of an Admiral.  Anyone who knows the academies know that pilot training goes to those closer to the top of their class, but when you are the son of an Admiral, you get special privileges so off to pilot training he went.  He crashed more planes then most of us could have imagined but he graduated from pilot training and then was assigned to a carrier group in SEA where he was shot down and became a POW.  Will not go into his TV appearance, etc., but will state that when the POW's were released and flown back to the states McCain's Father met him at the plane and whisked him away.

One of the big problems I have with with his Father is that McCain is that when he was returned from North Vietnam as a former prisoner of war, McCain never went through debriefing or any other medical tests that other POW's went through.  My boss at the time of the POW release was named by the AF Surgeon General as he representative for returning POWs as USAF Medical Center Wright-Patterson AFB was one of the centers where POW's were returned.  The information on McCain is not second hand but first hand from the message I delivered to my boss from the Command Post.

Have I calmed down at Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee?  Not even close.  Thought Senator James Inhofe of OK would do a good job as the ranking Republican on Armed Services but I was 100% wrong if yesterday was an example.  As for John McCain I have to wonder why he is still in the Senate after his antics in the last few months starting with Benghazim as he has turned into a bitter old man part of which could go back to the fact he never received the medical treatment like other returning POW's and in some way he may also have regrets about some of his actions.

This exchange with McCain was like a 2-year old throwing a tantrum because the question could not and should not have been answered with a YES or NO and McCain knew it -- bitter to the end.  Guess he hasn't gotten over Romney losing and him not being named Secretary of Defense which would have set off a rash of retirements by senior officers.

The nominee's fiercest exchange came with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a fellow Vietnam veteran and onetime close friend. Politics and Hagel's evolving opposition to the Iraq war caused a split between the two men that was on full display. 

McCain suggested that Hagel and his critics were not quibbling over small matters.
"They are not reasonable people disagreeing; they are fundamental disagreements. Our concerns pertain to the quality of your professional judgment and your worldview on critical areas of national security," he said.   

McCain pressed Hagel on whether he was right or wrong about his opposition to President George W. Bush's decision to send an extra 30,000 troops to Iraq in 2007 at a point when the war seemed in danger of being lost. Hagel, who voted to authorize military force in Iraq, later opposed the conflict, comparing it to Vietnam and arguing that it shifted the focus from Afghanistan. 

"Were you right? Were you correct in your assessment?" McCain asked 

"I would defer to the judgment of history to sort that out," Hagel said as the two men talked over each other. 

"The committee deserves your judgment as to whether you were right or wrong about the surge," McCain insisted. 

Unable to elicit a simple response, McCain said the record should show that Hagel refused to answer. And he made it clear that he would have the final word – with his vote, which he said would be influenced by Hagel's refusal to answer yes or no. 

"I think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you're on the wrong side of it," he said.

This is just more proof that McCain should step down as a Senator and allow someone who has a more even demeanor/temperament to represent Arizona.  His attacks on UN Ambassador Susan Rice on Benghazi were also over the top.

Then you have the new Texas Senator Ted Cruz who never should have been elected.  He is coming across as a good old boy Tea Party but his wife is a VP at Goldman Sachs.  His questions to Chuck Hagel yesterday were an insult to every person who wears the uniform which Cruz did not by taking his comments out of context which is a typical Tea Party ploy.

During Republican Chuck Hagel's defense secretary confirmation hearing on Thursday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) chose to use a large portion of his five minutes of questioning to play a YouTube video of Hagel in an Al Jazeera interview from 2009. 

Hagel's original statement at a Senate session held on July 31, 2006 described the conflict in Israel as "a sickening slaughter on both sides" that Hagel said "must end." However, Cruz highlighted Hagel's "sickening slaughter" remark and his agreement with a caller who referenced "war crimes."

From Crooks and Liars -- Fox's Hannity Lauds Sen. Cruz' Deceptive Attack On Chuck Hagel:

Color me not shocked that Fox is carrying water for wingnut Sen. Ted Cruz and his dishonest attack on former Sen. Chuck Hagel during yesterday's confirmation hearing for Secretary of Defense. Sean Hannity opened up his show by replaying part of Cruz' cheap shot at Hagel earlier that day.

Hannity and Cheney called Hagel about every name in the book and implied that he was feckless after hearing his testimony today. That's pretty rich coming from Bush administration cheerleader Hannity and the daughter of someone who likely qualifies as one of, if not the worst Vice Presidents -- someone who dishonored the office in which he served. Both of them actually believe that Donald Rumsfeld did a good job as Secretary of Defense

If that wasn't enough on Cruz here is more from the London Guardian:

Ted Cruz tried to link Hagel to a speech given by Chas Freeman, a former US diplomat who has been publicly critical of American support for the Jewish state, and in particular, the domestic lobbyists that defend Israel. 

When Cruz could not identify an obvious link between the two men, he backed off. But the moment was chilling because the implications of Cruz's questioning wasn't hard to deduce: simply having a relationship with Freeman and his controversial views on Israel would have been enough to indict Hagel.

This is quite frankly modern-day McCarthyism: guilt by association with those who hold differing views. It was the low point of the day in which the depths of practically every valley of squalid foreign policy discourse was plumbed

Cruz is showing himself to be a grandstander and a unethical Senator and only in his first month, but then he comes from the Tea Party which should be a warning to voters not to support any Tea Party candidates for any position.


Cannot leave out NH's  Kelly Ayote who is  the puppet of McCain and Graham showing off her stupidity and why she should not be on Armed Services.  More from the perspective of

My (Michael Cohen)  personal lowlight came when Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire pushed Hagel to answer why he thought a nuclear Iran might be containable or even worth talking to, considering that, in her words, the country's leaders are not "sane". Consider the implications of such a comment. If Iran is not sane, not containable and not able to be reason with, then we might as well bomb and invade them tomorrow because, clearly, there is no negotiating with "crazy" people. Ladies and gentlemen; your United States Senate.

I want to know how McConnell assigned committees to some of these people because Cruz and Ayote don't belong on Armed Services.  Did he choose people he knew would be puppets to what Defense Contractors wanted.

The Republican Senators I have seen for two days, first on gun control and then on the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense are bitter, whiney, and full of themselves like they are in charge because they won the election -- delusional and failure to face reality are bad signs.  Majority Leader Reid should be ashamed for giving into this bunch.  People I once admired, I wouldn't give you two cents for after what I witnessed with my own eyes.

The first question that pops in your mind is how much money are these Senators being paid not only above the table but under the table because they don't normally act like what I have seen.  Know Hagel couldn't do it, but I would have loved to see him tell McCain to his face that he was a bitter old man who needed to sit down and shut up.  With the attacks on his character and statements, I thought Hagel did pretty good because the Republicans were so far out of line, they don't belong in the Senate.  May not vote for a Republican for anything for a long time after what I am seeing out of the jerks in Congress.  They don't seem to care about the American people and the Country by putting Party and donors over Country day in and day out.

There is a whole list including former Secretary of Defense/State like current Sec Def Panetta, former Sec Def Gates, General Colin Powell, former Sec of State George Schultz and Henry Kissinger, and the list goes on who support Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense which far outweigh the GOP spoiled brats in the Senate where Hagel served and was friends with a lot of them.  Their reason for the attacks seems to be that Hagel dared accept an appointment from President Obama plus he stood up that the Iraq surge and the War in Iraq after finding out the facts they were given on Iraq were wrong.  He is right -- he was lied to like others in order to go into Iraq.

Excerpts from the Huffington Post on the Hagel hearing:

WASHINGTON — Bruised and battered, Chuck Hagel emerged from his grueling confirmation hearing with solid Democratic support for his nomination to be President Barack Obama's next defense secretary and increasing Republican opposition to a former GOP colleague. 

Mathematically, Hagel has the edge as he looks to succeed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as the nation's 24th Pentagon chief, with Democrats holding a 14-12 advantage on the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

That vote, which could come as early as next Thursday, looks increasingly like a straight party-line count as committee member and Republican Sen. Roy Blunt said Friday he will oppose the nomination.

"Senator Hagel's answers before the committee were simply too inconsistent, particularly as they related to Iran and Israel," said the Missouri lawmaker. "The idea that we can contain a nuclear Iran and his view that we should not have unilateral sanctions are just wrong and are too dangerous for us to try." 

In fact, Hagel corrected his statement about containment of Iran and said all options, including military action, should be on the table to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. 

While Blunt announced his opposition, he signaled he would not support any effort to block the nomination, a looming question as Democrats have the votes to confirm Hagel in the full Senate but would need five GOP senators to end a filibuster. 

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., expressed optimism about Hagel's prospects after nearly eight hours of testimony Thursday. 

"I think his answers were honest and forthright and he did very well," Levin told reporters. "I hope that there will be some, who maybe were skeptical but who are undecided before this hearing, will maybe now look at him in a more favorable light. But I think there are a whole lot of folks who basically decided before the hearing that they were going to vote against him." 

Hagel struggled at times as GOP senators hammered him on issues ranging from his support for Israel, opposition to Iran, stand on Hamas and Hezbollah and his backing for a group that advocates the elimination of nuclear weapons. 

They repeatedly pressed him on past statements, votes and even letters he declined to sign. Refusing to show any frustration or anger, Hagel defended his record. 

The former two-term Republican senator from Nebraska described his views as mainstream and closely aligned with those of Obama, the Democrat who nominated him. But several GOP members of the committee sought to portray him as radical and unsteady. Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., called his ideas "extreme" and "far to the left" of Obama.  (My NOTE:  Fisher is the most hard right person elected from NE to be a Senator and was not supported in the primary by NRSC because she was so hard right - she is Tea Party all the way) 

Hagel said he believes America "must engage – not retreat – in the world" and insisted that his record is consistent on that point. 

He pointed to Iran and its nuclear ambitions as an example of an urgent national security threat that should be addressed first by attempting to establish dialogue with Iranian rulers, although he said he would not rule out using military force. 

"I think we're always on higher ground in every way – international law, domestic law, people of the world, people of the region to be with us on this – if we have ... gone through every possibility to resolve this in a responsible, peaceful way, rather than going to war," he said.
He pushed back on the notion – first raised by one of his harshest Republican critics, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma – that he favors a policy of appeasement.  (My NOTE:  A man who was wounded in Vietnam was attacked by Sen Inhofe as favoring appeasement which Hagel has never done.  Another Senator who could not be honest who has let his hatred of Obama cloud his judgment IMHO) 

"I think engagement is clearly in our interest," Hagel told Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., who denounced the idea of negotiating with a "terrorist state."  (My NOTE:  Obviously Chambliss has a comprehension problem as engagement is not negotion or appeasement or surrender)

"That's not negotiation," Hagel said. "Engagement is not appeasement. Engagement is not surrender."  

(snip)

Hagel, 66, would be the lone Republican in Obama's Cabinet, the first Vietnam veteran to be defense secretary and the first enlisted man to take the post.

In my analysis of reading stories around the internet about how nasty the Republican Senators were towards Hagel yesterday have made me more convinced than ever that the real reason for the hatred is that Chuck did have the nerve to accept an appointment from the President to be Secretary of Defense.  He was roundly criticized earlier when he accepted an appointment as co-chairman of Obama's President's Intelligence Advisory Board.  He was heavily criticized for taking that post.  Republicans have so much hate for this President that it has totally clouded their judgement in Congress and has been hurtful to the Country IMO.

At the end of the day, looks like Hagel can be confirmed and the Republican Senators can then focus on how they are going to derail other parts of the Obama agenda no matter who it hurts.