Will the Hegseth nomination survive?

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2024

Also, a postcard from Fantasyland: Will Nominee Hegseth get confirmed? We still can't tell you that.

In a new survey by AP-NORC, the nomination boasts only 17% support, with 36% opposed. Those numbers aren't very good—but almost half of the survey's respondents didn't state a view on the matter, and there's still a long way to go if the nominee, and the guy who picked him, decide to stick it out.

Last night, Lawrence O'Donnell devoted a remarkably lengthy opening segment to an accurate observation about this nomination. He noted that Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) still hasn't said that she'll end up voting in favor of the Hegseth pick. 

He also battered the New York Times for the way the paper described Ernst's recent adjustment in messaging about the Hegseth nomination. 

O'Donnell's specific critique of the Times report was certainly accurate, but we couldn't help wondering if O'Donnell, and some others, might not be "protesting [a bit] too much" about the vastly changed political world we're now all living in.

Might O'Donnell be exhibiting bit of denial about the loss of Blue American power in last month's (close) election? As a general matter, we Blues are at the mercy of Donald Trump now.  His nominations may strike us as strange or even as bizarre, but there's basically nothing we Blues can do about it now. 

It all comes down to the Senate's 53 Republicans and to their possible fear of being primaried and losing their Senate jobs.

Full disclosure! Starting with Senators Corker and Flake, political careers have tended to come to an end for Republicans who oppose Donald J. Trump. 

Keeping that recent history in mind, will Hegseth end up making it through? We have no way of knowing.

We thought Lawrence might be protesting too a bit much about the Ernst-Hegseth contretemps. Later, he interviewed Jonathan Capehart, and we thought the pair of thought leaders went (almost all the way) off the rails in a complaint about the way the mainstream press has allegedly applied a double standard to the misstatements of Biden and Trump.

That said, we're having trouble with the Internet Archive. Ever since the invaluable site recovered from last autumn's cyberattack, it seems to us that it's been harder to play its videotapes of our flailing nation's cable news programs.

For that reason, we won't be able to show you the O'Donnell/Capehart lament. (If you want to give it a try, the segment in question starts here.) 

We'll try to transcribe their exchange tomorrow. In our mind, their complaint, however well intentioned, came from a poorly governed province not far from the better-known Fantasyland. 

If Blue America plans to fight back, we're going to have to come to terms with the actual state of the world. It seemed to us that O'Donnell and Capehart were perhaps indulging themselves in an unhelpful form of denial.

102 comments:

  1. Don’t bother. Still waiting for the 1965 incident. Is this blog like an old serial that I used to watch on TV after school? Get to the point man.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tomorrow never comes on this blog

    ReplyDelete
  3. Surveys of the public mean nothing. It is the confirmation votes that matter.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This isn’t about Blue America. Republicans are finding Hegseth repugnant and saying they won’t confirm him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is about media bias. We've seen many articles and TV presentations focusing on accusations by anonymous people. OTOH the media has avoided interviews on the record with Hegseth's co-workers -- the people who know him best. These people give him glowing reviews.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think he should testify at his confirmation bare chested so everyone can admire the giant Nazi tattoo he has on his chest. Don't you agree, Dickhead?

      Delete
    2. @6:32 -- Hegseth has twice volunteered to risk his life by fighting our enemies while you and I sat on our asses posting silly comments. Whose patriotism is clearer?

      Delete
    3. Mine, obviously.

      Delete
    4. Is that a trick question, Dickhead in Cal, you treasonous bastard. Go fuck yourself.

      Delete
    5. "The people who know him best"
      That would be his mother, and the wives he cheated on. Did your coworkers know you better than your family? Did your family ever have to pay out 770 million dollars for lying to the American public?

      Delete
    6. No, my co-workers didn't know me better as a human being, but they were the ones who knew me best as an employee.

      Delete
    7. So you want "the media" to interview Fox employees that are his coworkers for an honest opinion of who he is. How naive you must think an audience would be to take their word for it. The people that may have to continue to work with him if his nomination fails are expected to publicly give an honest opinion of Hegseth. At any point in time until he was called out for misconduct, Bill O'Reilly wasn't being called out for such by his Fox brethren. So no, your proposal that members of the Fox tribe would publicly criticize Hegseth is preposterous and of course typical for the kind of nonsense to be expected from you here. Mommy got set up for a disclaimer interview on Fox about the contents of that email she sent him, and lo and behold, Pete Hegseth is no longer the man she so eloquently called out in a scathing critique that no decent human being should ever receive from his mother; why he's a changed man! That turnaround was about as authentic as a holy roller miracle conversion. That of course is what you get from Fox, in a well choreographed display of solidarity with a member of their tribe.

      Delete
    8. The woman who went to the police to accuse Hegseth of sexual assault was not anonymous. The police took her name when she made her report.

      He's a drunk and a deviant.

      Delete
    9. Yes, she is not anonymous, the police report gives a number of reasons to disbelieve her story.

      Delete
    10. David in Cal,
      The Hesgeth accusers are less anonymous than the Republican voters who care about something other than bigotry and white supremacy, obviously.

      Delete
    11. Somerby disbelieves all women.

      Delete
    12. "the police report gives a number of reasons to disbelieve her story."

      Go ahead. Fill us in.

      Delete
    13. He paid her to sign an NDA like the innocent always do.

      Delete
    14. Quaker -- go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9uCJdV2qsI&t=192s&ab_channel=MegynKelly and start listening around 5:30 for some reasons. They include
      1. Delay in going to the police
      2. Witnesses and videos show she was NOT drunk, as she claimed
      3. Pete was the one who appeared drunk.
      4. Security, who stopped her during an argument with Hegseth, says she didn't seem drunk or drugged.
      5. Her husband says she appeared undrugged when she returned to her room.
      6. She claims she didn't remember anything about the incident until later. But, after she remembered she didn't report the so -called rape for another 4 days.
      7. She herself says she only had once glass of champagne.
      8. She said she might have been drugged, but there was no evidence that any other person could discern.

      BTW a false accusation of rape would be just as harmful to Hegseth's career as a true accusation.

      Delete
    15. Another point in Hegseth's favor is that Trump chose him. They've known each other for years. Trump had every reason not to appoint Hegseth if Hegseth had a drinking problem. If Hegseth was confirmed, and then turned out to be an alcoholic, that would have made Trump look bad.

      Delete
    16. Trump never appoints competent qualified people, just loyal ones from “central casting”. That is not in Hegseth’s favor.

      Delete
    17. Oof, David your “points” are mostly misleading, with some straight up falsehoods.

      Why lie and mislead if you are so sure?

      Hegseth’s story has changed, but the woman, whose husband was staying in the same hotel, had already expressed disgust with Hegseth for trying to take a different woman back to his room, and had a loud argument with Hegseth about it. She was texting her husband throughout the night about how creepy Hegseth was acting, and then suddenly stopped mid text. Hegseth notably took care to pull out to ejaculate, an apparent attempt to conceal his crime.

      The victim is a Republican operative, her version is more believable than Hegseth’s changing story. She had no ulterior motive to get a rape kit, which then got reported to the police.

      Trump does not know Hegseth personally at all, Trump just said he’s seen him for years on Fox News.

      Hegseth is just the tip of the iceberg, Trump is filling his admin with an army of sexual predators.

      Lost souls like David do not give a fuck about sexual assault victims, he’d rather lie to try to save face instead.

      Delete
  6. "We look forward to working together," says the owner of TIME Magazine to Donald Trump.

    Can anyone imagine the Howls of outrage that would be coming from the rightwing fever swamps if the owner of TIME had said that in 2020 to President Elect Biden? What do you think about that, Dickhead in Cal. A little bias in the media?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymouse 8:02p, extreme partisans are always oblivious to context. They’re knives out 24/7.

      Whether we like it or hate it, Trump is the new president. He’s the first to do what he did since Pres Grover Cleveland. Metaphorically, it’s a new day in the country after an election. It’s suitable for TIME to conduct a cordial interview at this particular point. A facade of good will, is appropriate. Trump isn’t TRUMP! in this sort of setting, he’s the newly elected U.S. president and the “pretense” is that its a new era and all Americans are working together for the benefit of the country. It’s Christmas..

      That’s the tone TIME appropriately went with. Rest assured it lasted no longer than Trump hitting the exit door.

      Delete
    2. I don't remember, Cecelia, did Grover Cleveland lead an insurrection and refuse a peaceful transition of power? Was he a convicted felon and under felony indictment in 3 other jurisdictions at the time he was running for his second term? Did he owe New York half a billion dollars for business fraud practices? Was he found liable for sexual assault and fined over a $100 million for defaming the same woman he sexually assaulted - TWICE! Were half his lawyers and cabinet under indictment and or disbarred for criminal conspiracy with their former boss? Did Grover Cleveland fucking lie to the American public every time he opened his mouth?

      You let me know what "working together" means now, Cec, ok? I didn't realize Time was partners now in Trump's corrupt enterprises.

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 7:14am, who said anything about “working together”?

      I mention that the TIME guy behaved in a proper manner for an occasion that likely lasted three hours, and even say any pretend good will stopped outside the door and THAT’S too much for you.

      Why don’t you give this blog a break, and go be bat shite crazy somewhere else today.

      Delete
    4. Time Magazine Owner Says Trump’s Presidency ‘Marks a Time of Great Promise’ for America: ‘We Look Forward to Working Together’

      “Congratulations to President Trump on being named TIME Person of the Year 2024,” Benioff wrote in a post on X. “This marks a time of great promise for our nation. We look forward to working together to advance American success and prosperity for everyone. May G-d bless the United States of America.”

      I look forward to Mr. Benioff excitedly covering each and every crime the orange abomination commits the next four years.

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 9:06am, Benioff will be lucky if he and his family aren’t swatted on Christmas Eve or made a person of interest to Alvin Bragg.

      Delete
    6. That is an amazing pivot, Cecelia. You should be in the Bolshoi. Now, can you us what you think "working together" means in this context?

      Delete
    7. Anonymouse 9:38am, I’m not pivoting, I’ve given up on you actually reading what I have in two posts.

      Delete
    8. Anonymouse 9:38am, From Wikipedia- here’s your Trumpie:

      Abortion
      edit
      In September 2021, Benioff announced that Salesforce would relocate any Texas employees who wanted to move after an abortion law went into effect.[61][62]
      LGBTQ issues
      edit
      In March 2015, Benioff announced Salesforce would cancel all employee programs and travel in Indiana after the passing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.[63] This led to a revised version of the bill being signed into law that prohibited businesses from denying services to someone based on sexual orientation or gender identity.[64]
      In February 2016, Benioff announced that Salesforce would reduce investments in Georgia and cancel a conference if HB 757, a bill that would allow businesses to decline services to same-sex couples, was passed.[65] The governor vetoed the bill.[66]
      Gender pay gap
      edit
      In April 2015, after the issue was raised by Salesforce chief personnel officer Cindy Robbins, Benioff announced that he would review salaries at Salesforce to ensure men and women were paid equally.[67] He subsequently dedicated $8 million between 2015 and 2017 to “correct compensation differences by gender, race, and ethnicity across the company”.[68]
      Homelessness
      edit
      In an October 2018 interview with The Guardian, Benioff criticized other technology industry executives for "hoarding" their money and refusing to help the homeless in the San Francisco Bay Area.[69]
      In 2019, the Benioffs donated $30 million to the Center for Vulnerable Populations for the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative to study the impacts of homelessness, housing, and health.[70]
      In July 2023, Benioff stated[21] that San Francisco "will never go back to the way it was before the pandemic" and recommended that city leadership convert old office space into housing and hire more police. He used his platform on X to call for “refunding the police” numerous times in 2023.[71]

      Delete
    9. What does that have to do with Republican voters, obviously, not caring about anything other than bigotry and white supremacy?

      Delete
    10. Easy does it, 1:27. Chill. Cecelia is our resident loon, straight outta an asylum, like Trump warned us. Best to just let Cecelia bounce off the walls in their padded cell while waiting for the next round of meds.

      Delete
    11. *1:17*

      fucking autocorrect

      Delete
    12. Cecelia will continue to bully anonymouses, until she pivots to being victimized by them.

      Delete
    13. Anonymouse 3:18pm, telling anonymices that they are militant and malign is not complaining of victimization. I feel sorry for you mices. .

      Delete
    14. Cecelia doesn’t mind being the laughingstock and butt of jokes, it’s purely a craving for attention.

      Delete
    15. Anonymouse 8;01pm, anonymices aren’t good at joking.

      Delete
    16. Malign is a verb. Malignant is the adjective.

      Delete
    17. Malign
      Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
      adjective
      evil in nature or effect; malevolent.
      "she had a strong and malign influence"
      Similar:
      harmful
      evil
      bad
      baleful
      hostile

      Delete
    18. It’s no wonder why you fatuous self-impressed dolts stay anonymous.

      Delete
    19. Like Colin Kaepernick said, "Make America great again."

      Delete
    20. Actually, he said “Make America straight again.”

      Delete
  7. "Biden routinely comes out ahead of Trump in the polls. The best predictor of the future is what happened in the past. They are predicting a low-turnout election that Biden will win, especially given that swing states are turning his way now, just like in 2020.

    Of course, abortion rights could be a bigger factor that Trumpies are aware of. Strength for Biden is occurring in suburbs where abortion is an important issue. Concerns about abortion may result in a landslide in favor of Biden, driven by educated men and especially women, who are worried about losing equal rights and becoming second-class citizens."


    Good times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymouse 8:42pm, righteous white women were going to vote for Comma La en mass (they always vote Republican) and no saintly minorities would be going for him.

      New spin- stupid white women always vote like their husbands tell them to vote and sexism is a mile wide among men of color.

      Delete
    2. Is that spin or the result of exit polls and research? Before people vote, it is a guess, after they vote it is a fact.

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 1:48pm, if women, of any color, tell pollsters they voted the way their partners made them vote, those women are more concerned as to what the people asking the questions think of their choice, than they are about the political opinions of their men. Have some common sense.

      Delete
    4. What you just said makes no sense.

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 4:34pm, yes, it does. We’re talking about people. Not logicians.

      Delete
    6. Non sequiturs are kind of Cecelia’s thing.

      Delete
    7. Anonymouse 8:02pm, It is not a non sequitur. . Trump is the unpopular figure with 89% negative media coverage, a fact that women are aware of. Women would feel guilty about being dishonest with a pollster regarding their vote, they may not feel as bad about implying that their husband influenced their decision to vote for Trump. This way they are not lying about their true choice, but instead trying to lessen the negative judgment associated with supporting Trump.

      Delete
    8. Again, you are making no sense.

      Delete
    9. Anonymouse 11:11pm, you’re not open to hearing anything but your political cant and you’re none too bright.

      Delete
    10. Name callng again.

      Delete
  8. This blog has died.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you troll a dead blog every day of your life?

      Delete
    2. You raise a good question, PP.

      Delete
    3. Not a good question, it’s an excellent question.

      Delete
    4. Someone always trolls here (right and left) but not this guy.

      Delete
    5. I wonder why they choose to troll a dead blog every day of their life. I wonder if they have asked themselves why they spend every day trolling a dead blog without ever once saying anything interesting. Have they asked themselves what, in their life, leads them to make this choice every day? To play the fool every day is quite a choice for someone to make about how they spend their life.

      Delete
    6. Ideological militancy and a paycheck.

      Delete
    7. Some of us have friends in the comments. Understandable that wouldn’t occur to you.

      Delete
    8. You have friends in the comments of a dead blog you spend every day trolling without ever contributing anything interesting or intelligent. You spend every day of your life with your friends in the comment section of a dead blog dismissing warnings about your party with petty stupidity—warnings that consistently prove to be 100% accurate and consequential.

      In other words you're a jackass.

      Delete
    9. And you, 5:46 AM, spend every day kissing Mr. Soros' ass.

      Delete
  9. This comment section has degenerated into variations on Dan Aykroyd’s, “Jane, you ignorant slut!”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interresting take, PP.

      Delete
    2. Nah. That's just the Right-wingers explaining everything they know about economics.

      Delete
  10. I listened to Rachel Maddow’s book Prequel on my way to/from the bridge Nationals in Las Vegas. The history of conservative weirdness in support of Hitler is so similar to today that it was comforting to see that this is old right wing crazy coming back, not something new. We Dems didn’t cause this, this is part of a political tradition, including the hate and the grifting. Well worth reading!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump is Huey long, the Jews are still the scapegoats and global conspirators as are immigrants (as in the past), Germany is now Russia & Hitler is still the leader but the right is helping Putin too, since Hitler committed suicide in a bunker after losing to the allies. I hadn’t realized that Henry Ford paid to distribute the translation of the Protocals of Zion in the USA.

      Delete
    2. My daddy was eaten by cannibals!

      I sniff my fingers. What a joy, such a joy! What an ass Somerby is!

      I am Corby.

      Delete
  11. https://www.facebook.com/fanny.farts.7

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The other day my partner and I were sitting at our kitchen table reading and she leaned forward and let out a nice cheek clapping fart that vibrated off the wooden kitchen chair.

      Made it twice as loud as hers are usually. The whole time, she didn’t break eye-contact with her book, just leaned forward and ripped a fart like a little pig. I looked up but didn’t say anything either, until she did it twice more and I finally laughed.

      She looked up severely and asked what I was laughing at. I said oh nothing, it must have been the chair. She smiled and said “that’s right” and continued reading.

      Delete
  12. Remember the anonymouse insult-fest backlash against Bob when he expressed doubts about the allegations against the Duke Lacrosse players and chose not to criticize their acquittal, during his blogging on the Chanel Miller sexual assault case? I do.

    https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2024/12/duke-mens-lacrosse-scandal-2006-crystal-mangum-admits-fabrication-rape-18-years-later-apologizes-kat-depasquale-evans-finnerty-seligmann-brodhead-pressler-nifong

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I remember every Republican voter who knows anything about economics, trying to overthrow the country, when Trump gave that HUGE tax break to the rich and corporations.
      Do you?

      Delete
    2. Anonymouse 9:12am, if you want to call RHINOS insurrectionists just you go ahead…

      Delete
    3. I'll call them "bigots", based on their words and actions.

      Delete
    4. Anonymouse 9:35am, RINO says it all.

      Delete
    5. The Cecelia commenter has to blow the dust off a 2006 incident for no particular purpose but ostensibly to "defend Bob. Anyone remember when this commenter posed a salient point?

      Me neither.

      Delete
    6. Shredgaff, you’re welcome. This won’t be the last time you see this reminder.

      Delete
    7. Somerby's position is that women always lie about such things. The position of more thoughtful people is that when a woman accused others of sexual assault, you take her seriously by investigating the claims. You do not knee-jerk automatically disbelieve her, as Somerby always does. This gets Somerby into trouble because he winds up defending people like Roy Moore or Brock Turner (who was convicted by a jury).

      Cecelia is going to find herself in a difficult spot if she tries to support Somerby when his position arises from his own conflicted feelings about women and not the facts of these various cases. Some of these women brought true accusations and some didn't -- that's why there needs to be both a serious approach to investigating the claims and respect for the rights of men who may be innocent. It was embarrassing when Somerby defended Brett Kavanaugh and the investigation was shut down by the right for political reasons.

      Part of the problem with Somerby's approach is that he cares less about justice than he does about protecting men who have behaved badly. And Cecelia's interest is strictly partisan.

      Delete
    8. This is a very poorly reasoned take that lacks nuance and evidence.

      Delete
    9. @5:46 This comment lacks specificity. Without details, it is just name-calling and it is unclear whether you are aiming at Cecelia, the article she linked to, or the responders.

      Delete
    10. Would you like specifics? I would be more than glad to provide them.

      Delete
    11. It's in response to the poorly reasoned take of 5:24 PM.

      Delete
    12. Calling something poorly reasoned means nothing without evidence. We get it that you disagree but that doesn’t make you right.

      Delete
    13. What specific evidence exists that Somerby believes "women always lie about such things"? Has he explicitly stated this, or is this an oversimplification of his views? Are there not instances where Somerby took a different stance that contradicts this sweeping claim? How does asserting that Somerby’s position arises from "his own conflicted feelings about women" contribute to addressing the merit of his arguments? Is there evidence that Cecelia's interest is "strictly partisan," or is this an assumption about her motives? Why is the dichotomy presented—either fully believing women or "automatically disbelieving them"—the only possible framing of this issue? Could there be a middle ground, such as taking accusations seriously while respecting the rights of the accused? What evidence supports the claim that Somerby "always" disbelieves women? Could there be exceptions to this generalization? Are the cases of Roy Moore, Brock Turner, and Brett Kavanaugh representative of all cases Somerby has commented on, or are they cherry-picked examples? What evidence supports the claim that Somerby "cares less about justice than protecting men who have behaved badly"? Are there concrete examples of his behavior or statements to substantiate this? On what basis is it concluded that Cecelia's support for Somerby is "strictly partisan"? Could there be other reasons for her position? What evidence exists that Somerby’s positions arise from "conflicted feelings about women"? Is this a psychological assessment, and if so, what is it based on? Could Somerby’s stance be explained by a different rationale unrelated to personal feelings, such as skepticism of media narratives or concern about due process? Does Somerby’s defense of controversial figures like Roy Moore or Brett Kavanaugh necessarily imply agreement with their actions? Could his defense be rooted in broader principles, such as skepticism about the evidence or media bias? Why are Somerby’s views dismissed based on the figures he defends, rather than addressing the specific reasons for his defense? How does the passage establish that Cecelia's support for Somerby is purely partisan? Why do you acknowledge the need for a nuanced approach to sexual assault cases but doesn’t extend this nuance to Somerby’s arguments? How can this inconsistency be justified? Why is the possibility that Somerby’s critiques could be partially valid not considered? Could his points about due process or media bias have some merit, even if controversial?

      Delete
  13. This new report is not a surprise. Why does the media AND the Biden Administration repeat Hamas statistics as valid?

    “ A rigorous analysis published on Saturday of Hamas authorities’ death statistics in Gaza shows they were vastly inflated and methodologically flawed.

    The report by the London-based Henry Jackson Society security think tank breaks down the figure of about 44,000 deaths since Oct. 7, 2023, that the Hamas-controlled health ministry in Gaza has published, and which international media have reported without scrutiny.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why Is Israel Afraid to Allow Foreign Journalists in Gaza? What's It Hiding?

      By blocking journalists from Gaza, Israel not only prevents coverage of the war's horrors but also hinders real-time scrutiny of Hamas' claims – a key Israeli interest

      Delete
    2. By April 2024 Israel had dropped over 70,000 tons of bombas on Gaza. Researchers from Oregon State University and the City University of New York estimated 50-62% of buildings destroyed compared with Israeli estimates of 15%. The cofounder of the Henry Jackson Society, who left the think tank, labeled it an anti Muslim propaganda outlet.

      Delete
    3. Why should the Henry Jackson Society be believed over the Hamas statistics?

      Delete
    4. I never heard of the Henry Jackson Society, so I don’t know about them. But there was always good reason to disbelieve Hamas. They’re a group of terrorists who have been caught in many false statements over the years.

      Delete
    5. Beware of propagandists that prey upon your confirmation bias.

      Delete
    6. It’s always a good idea to post content from a group that you haven’t researched.

      Delete
    7. If the destruction of property mirrors human fatality from their massive bombings, the Israelis underestimate the civilian death toll in Gaza by a factor of around 3.

      Delete
  14. The best thing about Pete Hegseth is that he knows that the purpose of the military is to defeat enemies and win wars. He will make decisions based on these purposes.

    E.g. I don’t know whether allowing women in combat makes the military more or less effective, but that’s the appropriate basis for making the decision. Ditto for trans people. Ditto for affirmative action. Promotions should be 100 per cent based on merit. Hegseth will move in this direction to the degree it’s possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hegseth, whose nomination for Secretary of Defense has no basis on qualifications or merit, will be making decisions based on merit.

      Delete
    2. “The best thing about Pete Hegseth is that he know that the purpose of the military is to defeat the enemy and win wars.” A middle schooler playing World of Warcraft knows this. What a patently ridiculous statement.

      Delete
    3. "Hegseth will move in this direction to the degree it’s possible."

      You state this with a great deal of confidence, David. On what do you base your certainty?

      Delete
  15. Anonymouse 7:15pm, yes, Pete Hegseth and middle schoolers know. Liberals- not so much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Magas like yourself,however, will accept assessments of our military made with confidence by a feminized dweeb who has convinced you that your manliness depends on applying a sunlamp to your balls. Go for it.

      Delete