According to Jennifer Rubin, the failed effort to derail Hagel’s nomination is really picking up steam. This passage stood out in the post:
Rather, it is a recognition that on the war on terror, support for Israel, and determination to confront the Iranian threat, the GOP can show rare unanimity and make a clear demarcation: This is what we believe; this is what they do. It is very conceivable that the number of “yes” votes for Hagel on the Democratic side is nearly matched by the “no” votes on the Republican side, and vice versa.
It is doubtful that there will be any Democratic nays on Hagel, and I don’t think more than 20 Republicans would vote against a Republican nominee for Defense. The more important part of this passage is the delusion that Republicans will somehow come out winners by showing “rare unanimity” in opposition to a qualified Republican nominee. The objections to Hagel are these: he isn’t enthusiastic enough to start wars, his backing for Israel isn’t as reflexive and mindless as it could be, and he has opposed decisions to throw away more lives in wars that never should have been fought or that ought to have been ended earlier. Rubin wants the GOP to display “rare unanimity” in rejecting someone like that, which will confirm for the public that Republican leaders are reckless and shouldn’t be trusted with the responsibilities of executive power.
The more Republican nays against Hagel there are, the less the public will trust Republicans on military and foreign policy matters. Instead of regaining the public’s trust on these issues, Republican leaders will be squandering what little remains of their credibility in a vain protest against Hagel’s nomination. Opposing Hagel will send a message about what Republicans believe and how their opponents govern, but the message will be one that discredits and weakens Republicans and leaves them at an even greater disadvantage on foreign policy and national security.