Both parties long ago lost any moral authority to disqualify anyone based on marital infidelities, and alcohol abuse, so throw those criticisms out.
That leaves: lack of sufficient managerial experience (being unsuccessful with a non-profit is not reassuring), lack of experience with any type of high level strategy development, inconsistent and conflicting policy positions, and lack of any policy work or international negotiation. Oh yeah, there’s also the credible sex assault allegations (why else have an NDA?).
But then, “he fights”, and someone liked the way he looked and spoke on tv, so obviously he’s a highly qualified individual.
Indeed this is what the democrats should have been focusing on. They should have had all the facts and figures about his dismal performance at his previous jobs. They should have asked him about things like the size of organizations he has managed. Lets face it personal behavior especially abuse of women is a qualification in t***p's orbit.
"What America and the world saw today was not a serious examination of a serious man. Instead, Republicans on the committee showed that they would rather elevate an unqualified and unfit nominee to a position of immense responsibility than cross Donald Trump, Elon Musk, or the most ardent Republican voters in their home states. America’s allies should be deeply concerned; America’s enemies, meanwhile, are almost certainly laughing in amazement at their unexpected good fortune."
– Tom Nichols,
"The Hegseth Hearing Was a National Embarrassment,"
The next four years, along with the last ten, have been a national embarrassment. But it. seems America has lost any sense of shame, along with its ethics, morality, and integrity. Greed and selfishness, along with vulgar insults, lies, and threats will be written into the new constitution.
Agree about the “post-Brett Kavanaugh era” … but would like to suggest it really began with Clarence Thomas - chosen by ironyless Republicans as their answer to the majestic Thurgood Marshall - and his (Thomas’s) deceitful responses and puffed-up indignation.
A spot-on descriptor. This reader would add the word "cynical" to the mix regarding the Thomas nomination. Bush 41 and his right-wing enablers knew *exactly* what they were doing. Despicable.
I watched it on TV. I didn’t doubt Anita Hill for a moment. And Thomas! Played on their white guilt … then voted against affirmative action (although he got his Justiceship because of it). As you say, despicable.
He thinks Senator Biden was actually the main man responsible for his so-called "high-tech lynching". He's never stopped holding a grudge against him for it.
It's no exaggeration to say that Thomas almost certainly considers his votes for Supreme Court rulings during President Biden's administration the most "poetic" revenge on him imaginable. His wife certainly does.
Call all this a demonstration, if you will, of Joe Biden's unwitting, tragic--yet darkly hilarious--gift for uniting everybody across the political spectrum against him. For opposing and mutually contradictory reasons, of course.
The tragedy of the old, mainline Democratic Party, in a microcosm.
Glad to see I'm not alone in thinking that disrespect for and misuse of our flag is pretty damning evidence that someone is the lowest form of summer soldier and sunshine patriot. Don't care how many medals or manly tats you sport. A veteran should definitely know better.
If memory serves correctly, it was Nixon's crowd of miscreants that introduced U.S. flag lapel pins as symbols of faux patriotism, and political/media types have mimicked it ever since. So, Hegseth's pocket square is no surprise. Meanwhile, he and Trump's other henchmen are putting the finishing touches on a fascist takeover only six days away. Republicans *never* fail to embrace hypocrisy.
What the nominations of Hegseth, Gabbard, Noem, Ratcliffe, Patel and their ilk prove, more than anything else, is the GOP's full abdication of any semblance of conscience, patriotism or civic duty. Republicans are subservient to a fascist strongman, his odious broligarchs, and their amoral whims.
their cushy job in the Senate is more important than the welfare of our country...this is terrifying to me that they would just put the country in such danger...
As a former nonprofit Executive Director and board member, I'm equally horrified at the allegations of fiscal ethics lapses at the nonprofit organizations he ran. Allegations of sexual assault/harassment, fiscal fraud, and alcoholism?! They need to be investigated and brought to light.
There were a number of questions that Democratic Senators asked that had nothing to do with Hegseth's personal moral problems. They were hard hitting, concise, and he had no answers. Yet, like this column all that will be focused on in the news is the sexy stuff. I expect a bit more from the Bulwark frankly. There were also many, many questions the Dems could have asked but did not. Skip the moral stuff, ask pertinent, relevant questions about procurement and competing needs from the different divisions. He talked about the lack of ships...question....where should we put our limited money? subs, aircraft carriers, destroyers and why? What is of greater need, 3 destroyers or 6 new fighter jets? You can't have both. As Secretary of Defense, how will you reign in spending on non performing/under performing projects, when the folks that provide the money are protecting jobs in their home states? Should the military wrest control of Starlink from Elon Musk, or do think it is good for National Security to have one billionaire with many foreign gov't ties, in control of our satellites? Such a waste to talk about sex and booze.....
So, Republicans want to condition aid to California wildfire victims. My question is this: when next Florida needs hurricane assistance for the umpteenth time, do the Republicans want conditions attached to the aid??? The Republicans always want to play hardball, but both sides can play that game. Blue states contribute far more to red states. If Republicans want to play this game, they should be ready to support themselves in Florida next time they have a hurricane. Perhaps Florida should implement state taxes to pay for their hurricane damage! Why should New York taxpayers pay for that?
Joe, you can't write about clothing as self-expression and not give us an album of your looks sometime in the very near future. Don't be a tease.
I think you're basically right about how people signify group identity through their clothing, but I know an exception. Some very busy people develop a simple uniform that they wear to minimize the role of clothing in their lives. One example was Steve Jobs. I know he didn't choose frilly pink shirts as his uniform, but his main goal was simply to get dressed in the morning as quickly as possible. Sometimes, I think about my own clothing choices, “Look world, I have clothes on. Be grateful for that!”
Just as some people are asexual, some have a profound indifference to clothing.
The book I mentioned, Status and Culture by W. David Marx, examines how virtually every choice like this is about signaling to others whether it's intentional or not. Jobs is actually a perfect example, his lack of diversity in his wardrobe signals to others he is purely about *business* and not luxury. Same thing goes for King Charles, who wears old, patched and repaired suits he's owned for decades.
I'd say that is a possible interpretation of the behavior of Jobs and King Charles, but I think there are other possibilities. There is a cultural habit in the English upper classes to repair old high quality goods rather than throw them away—that goes back into the 19th century. One documentary on TV said that Buckingham Palace had tablecloths going back to the reign of Queen Victoria.
Then, I saw the example of my father— who always dressed appropriately but had little real interest in clothes. However, he always had a favorite shirt and he would hang on to it until it literally fell apart. I think it was for him something like a security blanket—it was an old trusted thing.
Here's another possible explanation for Jobs—he knew he looked good in that outfit and it became a place of safety for him. Andy Warhol wore the same thing every day but I don't think he was trying to tell the world that he was all business. This is just my guess, but I think he presented himself as a neutral camera grasping the strange reality around him.
However, I'm absolutely convinced that people wear clothing to stand out from each other as well as fit in with each other. People wearing expensive clothing are usually saying I belong to the tribe of wealthy and hip, but I am the absolute best member of that tribe. Part of my disinterest in clothes is the fact that no matter how much I spent on them I don't think I would ever win that competition. Looks are not my category of competitive advantage.
That you know different situations require different wardrobe choices perfectly illustrates my point. We care about our clothes and how others perceive them and there's nothing wrong with that!
This by the Honorable Liz Cheney, by way of Charlie Sykes today
"So this question is now paramount for Republicans: Will you faithfully perform the duties the framers assigned to you and do what the Constitution requires? Or do you lack the courage?"
A few quick comments: I disagree about a "slow decline." IMHO, it has been a fast decline since McConnell arrived, and with the arrival of more MAGAt senators and Republican control of the Senate, it will accelerate. Next, the Republicans don't believe any of the crap about Senate traditions, decorum or anything else -- they only care about power. Lastly, they will ignore the filibuster if it is inconvenient for them, and will blame the Democrats for "forcing the Republicans to ignore the cherished traditions of the Senate as laid out in the Constitution (not there)," They only care about worshiping tRump, the golden idol, answering to the demands of their billionaire overlords, and accumulating power to fuck us all over.
With a high degree of confidence, I predict that there will be multiple Republican and MAGA winners of the prestigious Senator Susan Collins "He's Learned his Lesson" Award in the coming days and weeks as these Senators demonstrate no evidence of a vestigial tail, let alone a backbone.
"makes a show of his aggressively bad taste" - subtle endorsement of Trump's barbarism
"This is what Hegseth is doing: signaling to sympathetic senators and the MAGA faithful that he is an avatar of their cause, the ultimate patriot." - The signaling here is that he is participating with MAGA in using the symbols of patriotism to justify a militant politics that has nothing to offer but militantism.
Let’s put the allegations of excessive boozing and assault aside, he has never run anything! Amazing.
Both parties long ago lost any moral authority to disqualify anyone based on marital infidelities, and alcohol abuse, so throw those criticisms out.
That leaves: lack of sufficient managerial experience (being unsuccessful with a non-profit is not reassuring), lack of experience with any type of high level strategy development, inconsistent and conflicting policy positions, and lack of any policy work or international negotiation. Oh yeah, there’s also the credible sex assault allegations (why else have an NDA?).
But then, “he fights”, and someone liked the way he looked and spoke on tv, so obviously he’s a highly qualified individual.
Infidelity is a violation of the UCMJ, or used to be, so it becomes relevant for this appointment.
Indeed this is what the democrats should have been focusing on. They should have had all the facts and figures about his dismal performance at his previous jobs. They should have asked him about things like the size of organizations he has managed. Lets face it personal behavior especially abuse of women is a qualification in t***p's orbit.
"...he has never run anything!" Except from responsibility.
He ran two nonprofit veteran organizations — badly and corruptly, from everything I've read.
And what degree of responsibility did he personally acknowledge?
'smears', 'smears', 'smears'
What a slimy weasel.
He could be a saint but he's still not qualified.
much talk of Jesus....I can see Republican faces shining w religious fervor...frightening...
"What America and the world saw today was not a serious examination of a serious man. Instead, Republicans on the committee showed that they would rather elevate an unqualified and unfit nominee to a position of immense responsibility than cross Donald Trump, Elon Musk, or the most ardent Republican voters in their home states. America’s allies should be deeply concerned; America’s enemies, meanwhile, are almost certainly laughing in amazement at their unexpected good fortune."
– Tom Nichols,
"The Hegseth Hearing Was a National Embarrassment,"
The Atlantic Daily
The next four years, along with the last ten, have been a national embarrassment. But it. seems America has lost any sense of shame, along with its ethics, morality, and integrity. Greed and selfishness, along with vulgar insults, lies, and threats will be written into the new constitution.
but he can do pushups and has some cool tattoos. i was hoping would ask him to roll up his right sleeve and explain the twisted artwork on his arm.
Agree about the “post-Brett Kavanaugh era” … but would like to suggest it really began with Clarence Thomas - chosen by ironyless Republicans as their answer to the majestic Thurgood Marshall - and his (Thomas’s) deceitful responses and puffed-up indignation.
re "ironyless":
A spot-on descriptor. This reader would add the word "cynical" to the mix regarding the Thomas nomination. Bush 41 and his right-wing enablers knew *exactly* what they were doing. Despicable.
I watched it on TV. I didn’t doubt Anita Hill for a moment. And Thomas! Played on their white guilt … then voted against affirmative action (although he got his Justiceship because of it). As you say, despicable.
Lest we forget, Sen. Biden went out of his way to help make this abomination happen.
That's funny--Thomas disagrees.
He thinks Senator Biden was actually the main man responsible for his so-called "high-tech lynching". He's never stopped holding a grudge against him for it.
It's no exaggeration to say that Thomas almost certainly considers his votes for Supreme Court rulings during President Biden's administration the most "poetic" revenge on him imaginable. His wife certainly does.
Call all this a demonstration, if you will, of Joe Biden's unwitting, tragic--yet darkly hilarious--gift for uniting everybody across the political spectrum against him. For opposing and mutually contradictory reasons, of course.
The tragedy of the old, mainline Democratic Party, in a microcosm.
As Barack Obama aptly said, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f**k things up.”
For the record, no direct confirmation Obama said anything like that.
But at this point, it's the story and the narrative such anecdotes illustrate, that matter. Not their truth, necessarily.
" His pocket square is a miniature American flag."
Q: Mr. Hegseth, you don't really blow your nose on the American flag, do you?"
A. It's for showin', not blowin'. 😉
Glad to see I'm not alone in thinking that disrespect for and misuse of our flag is pretty damning evidence that someone is the lowest form of summer soldier and sunshine patriot. Don't care how many medals or manly tats you sport. A veteran should definitely know better.
If memory serves correctly, it was Nixon's crowd of miscreants that introduced U.S. flag lapel pins as symbols of faux patriotism, and political/media types have mimicked it ever since. So, Hegseth's pocket square is no surprise. Meanwhile, he and Trump's other henchmen are putting the finishing touches on a fascist takeover only six days away. Republicans *never* fail to embrace hypocrisy.
His personal life aside, Pete Hegseth IS NOT QUALIFIED to be Secretary of Defense, FFS! He couldn't run a one car funeral procession for God's sake!
What the nominations of Hegseth, Gabbard, Noem, Ratcliffe, Patel and their ilk prove, more than anything else, is the GOP's full abdication of any semblance of conscience, patriotism or civic duty. Republicans are subservient to a fascist strongman, his odious broligarchs, and their amoral whims.
their cushy job in the Senate is more important than the welfare of our country...this is terrifying to me that they would just put the country in such danger...
It's no stretch to call them domestic terrorists – just look at what they're allowing to happen.
As a former nonprofit Executive Director and board member, I'm equally horrified at the allegations of fiscal ethics lapses at the nonprofit organizations he ran. Allegations of sexual assault/harassment, fiscal fraud, and alcoholism?! They need to be investigated and brought to light.
There were a number of questions that Democratic Senators asked that had nothing to do with Hegseth's personal moral problems. They were hard hitting, concise, and he had no answers. Yet, like this column all that will be focused on in the news is the sexy stuff. I expect a bit more from the Bulwark frankly. There were also many, many questions the Dems could have asked but did not. Skip the moral stuff, ask pertinent, relevant questions about procurement and competing needs from the different divisions. He talked about the lack of ships...question....where should we put our limited money? subs, aircraft carriers, destroyers and why? What is of greater need, 3 destroyers or 6 new fighter jets? You can't have both. As Secretary of Defense, how will you reign in spending on non performing/under performing projects, when the folks that provide the money are protecting jobs in their home states? Should the military wrest control of Starlink from Elon Musk, or do think it is good for National Security to have one billionaire with many foreign gov't ties, in control of our satellites? Such a waste to talk about sex and booze.....
Re Hegseth … apparently toxic masculinity is the preferred MAGA state—we love us some sexual warriors!
And we welcome their children …
Re Hegseth attire: Is Brylcreem back?
There's Something About Mary comes to mind, for some reason!
that is hilarous
A little dab'l do ya
Brylcreme - ya look so debonair.
Brylcreme - the gals will all pursue ya.
They love to get their fingers in your hair.
Ah.. the 1950s.
Oh, suddenly I miss those Burma Shave signs!
So, Republicans want to condition aid to California wildfire victims. My question is this: when next Florida needs hurricane assistance for the umpteenth time, do the Republicans want conditions attached to the aid??? The Republicans always want to play hardball, but both sides can play that game. Blue states contribute far more to red states. If Republicans want to play this game, they should be ready to support themselves in Florida next time they have a hurricane. Perhaps Florida should implement state taxes to pay for their hurricane damage! Why should New York taxpayers pay for that?
Joe, you can't write about clothing as self-expression and not give us an album of your looks sometime in the very near future. Don't be a tease.
I think you're basically right about how people signify group identity through their clothing, but I know an exception. Some very busy people develop a simple uniform that they wear to minimize the role of clothing in their lives. One example was Steve Jobs. I know he didn't choose frilly pink shirts as his uniform, but his main goal was simply to get dressed in the morning as quickly as possible. Sometimes, I think about my own clothing choices, “Look world, I have clothes on. Be grateful for that!”
Just as some people are asexual, some have a profound indifference to clothing.
The book I mentioned, Status and Culture by W. David Marx, examines how virtually every choice like this is about signaling to others whether it's intentional or not. Jobs is actually a perfect example, his lack of diversity in his wardrobe signals to others he is purely about *business* and not luxury. Same thing goes for King Charles, who wears old, patched and repaired suits he's owned for decades.
I'd say that is a possible interpretation of the behavior of Jobs and King Charles, but I think there are other possibilities. There is a cultural habit in the English upper classes to repair old high quality goods rather than throw them away—that goes back into the 19th century. One documentary on TV said that Buckingham Palace had tablecloths going back to the reign of Queen Victoria.
Then, I saw the example of my father— who always dressed appropriately but had little real interest in clothes. However, he always had a favorite shirt and he would hang on to it until it literally fell apart. I think it was for him something like a security blanket—it was an old trusted thing.
Here's another possible explanation for Jobs—he knew he looked good in that outfit and it became a place of safety for him. Andy Warhol wore the same thing every day but I don't think he was trying to tell the world that he was all business. This is just my guess, but I think he presented himself as a neutral camera grasping the strange reality around him.
However, I'm absolutely convinced that people wear clothing to stand out from each other as well as fit in with each other. People wearing expensive clothing are usually saying I belong to the tribe of wealthy and hip, but I am the absolute best member of that tribe. Part of my disinterest in clothes is the fact that no matter how much I spent on them I don't think I would ever win that competition. Looks are not my category of competitive advantage.
I am one of them.
Clothing is functional to me. I am 65, I still wear the same things I wore in my 20’s.
Jeans, button downs, cotton T’s, turtlenecks in the winter….
I just can’t be bothered by putting effort into getting dressed.
When I have a “function” I call my sisters, both of them are very stylish.
That you know different situations require different wardrobe choices perfectly illustrates my point. We care about our clothes and how others perceive them and there's nothing wrong with that!
Just a nosey question. Please ignore me if you like. Do you feel imposter’s syndrome when your sisters' clothing? Or do you find it enjoyable?
This by the Honorable Liz Cheney, by way of Charlie Sykes today
"So this question is now paramount for Republicans: Will you faithfully perform the duties the framers assigned to you and do what the Constitution requires? Or do you lack the courage?"
I think we all know the answers
The framers feared political parties, but even they did not anticipate that party loyalty would exceed institutional loyalty.
Hegseth: I wanna keep women out of battle—more to choose from, more to assault!
A few quick comments: I disagree about a "slow decline." IMHO, it has been a fast decline since McConnell arrived, and with the arrival of more MAGAt senators and Republican control of the Senate, it will accelerate. Next, the Republicans don't believe any of the crap about Senate traditions, decorum or anything else -- they only care about power. Lastly, they will ignore the filibuster if it is inconvenient for them, and will blame the Democrats for "forcing the Republicans to ignore the cherished traditions of the Senate as laid out in the Constitution (not there)," They only care about worshiping tRump, the golden idol, answering to the demands of their billionaire overlords, and accumulating power to fuck us all over.
With a high degree of confidence, I predict that there will be multiple Republican and MAGA winners of the prestigious Senator Susan Collins "He's Learned his Lesson" Award in the coming days and weeks as these Senators demonstrate no evidence of a vestigial tail, let alone a backbone.
"makes a show of his aggressively bad taste" - subtle endorsement of Trump's barbarism
"This is what Hegseth is doing: signaling to sympathetic senators and the MAGA faithful that he is an avatar of their cause, the ultimate patriot." - The signaling here is that he is participating with MAGA in using the symbols of patriotism to justify a militant politics that has nothing to offer but militantism.