By James Fallows
As has been evident for some time, Chuck Hagel has majority support in the Senate for his confirmation as Secretary of Defense. As has become increasingly evident these past few days, much of the opposition to Hagel has become a parody of itself. Former Republican Senator and foreign policy grandee Richard Lugar, himself the victim of a Tea Party challenge, said yesterday that the attack on Hagel was "unfortunate and unfair". Meanwhile the publisher of the Omaha World Herald answered allegations that Hagel (who represented Nebraska) was anti-Semitic with an article headlined, "Impressive Omaha Jewish Support for Chuck Hagel", and Aryeh Azriel, the rabbi at Temple Israel in Omaha, said that accusations that Hagel was anti-Israel were "extremely stupid".
The new development is reported by Josh Rogin in Foreign Policy's The Cable blog, which says that several Republicans intend to filibuster Hagel's nomination — but are looking for some way to weasel around the word "filibuster". They don't like that word (a) because they have tried to normalise the idea that a 60-vote super-majority threshold, which is the margin required to break a filibuster, should be seen as the routine requirement for Senate action of any sort; (b) because several prominent Republicans, including John McCain, have already said that don't want to filibuster Hagel; and (c) because in the long history of Cabinet-level nominations, outright filibusters are either unknown or exceedingly rare. You can get all the details on their extreme rarity from the Congressional Research Service.
Rogin points out the machinations through which the Republican opponents of Hagel (a Republican) are trying to insist on a 60-vote threshold without calling it a filibuster. For instance, he quotes our old friend Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, plus Senator John Cornyn of Texas:
Inhofe's demand for 60 votes is related to his overall objection to Hagel becoming defense secretary, which is based on Hagel's past record on issues ranging from Iran, Israel, Hamas, and cuts to the defense budget. Inhofe also wants Hagel to further disclose financial records related to his past speeches.
"We're going to require a 60-vote threshold," Inhofe told The Cable.
Cornyn told The Cable, "There is a 60-vote threshold for every nomination."
Cornyn may think that, but it is not so. As a matter of history, it has obviously not been the case for Cabinet nominations; and as a matter of legality, it is true only if the opposition is willing to transform the balance of American politics by filibustering every nominee.
Turn to Rogin for more, including curlicues like this (emphasis added):
Inhofe insisted that his demand for a 60-vote threshold is not a "filibuster." Inhofe said he will object to unanimous consent for a simple majority vote, which will prevent Reid from bringing the Hagel nomination to the floor without first filing for cloture, which requires 60 votes to proceed to a final vote.
"It's not a filibuster. I don't want to use that word," Inhofe said.
It may be a distinction without a difference, but it's a distinction that GOP senators like McCain are prepared to embrace. McCain has repeatedly said he is opposed to filibustering Hagel but told The Cable Tuesday that he would vote against a cloture vote this week if the White House doesn't provide the information he has requested on the president's actions the night of the Benghazi attack.
I've long been agnostic on whether Chuck Hagel is the "best possible" nominee for this job. He's certainly a plausible one — and people in a better position to know than I am, including Republican appointees Robert Gates, Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, and George Schultz, have strongly endorsed him. But I am anything but agnostic about the tactics being used against Hagel. They started with personal smears, and they've led to this new version of Congressional obstructionism. It will be a shame all around if these tactics "work". This is a fight the administration should take on, and be sure it wins.
This post was originally published by The Atlantic
14 February 2013