Hughento (Secretary of External Affairs) Confirmation Hearing

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nope, It's 4-4-1 with Speedy abstaining and Everett not yet voting.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nope, It's 4-4-1 with Speedy abstaining and Everett not yet voting.

Heh. I never could count.

[Everett]

Nay.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So I have to find someone else now? Drat.

Beyond the spat with Phil, why such strong opposition to Hugh anyway?

[afleitch]

I think the hearing suffered in part due to the lack of questioning on issues of foreign and defence policy in comparison to previous hearings. I don't believe Phil's intervention was productive to that effect.

[Democratic Hawk]

With 4 Ayes, 5 Nays and 1 Abstention, the Senate, hereby, rejects Hughento as Secretary of External Affairs

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

So I have to find someone else now? Drat.

That should be easy

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's possible that the Senate saw no reason to, proverbially, replace best with second best

'Hawk'

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Then the Senate should have made it's concerns clear.

I'm not happy with the conduct of the Senate over this; only three questions were asked of Hugh, and only one had anything to do with his views on external affairs.

[Platypus]

Well thanks guys.

[Јas]

I think the hearing suffered in part due to the lack of questioning on issues of foreign and defence policy in comparison to previous hearings. I don't believe Phil's intervention was productive to that effect.

I don't believe this to be accurate. The Nay voters didn't outline any objections to this nominee at all. If they were concerned over hugh's foreign and defence policy stances, they surely would have questioned him in this regard.

[afleitch]

I think the hearing suffered in part due to the lack of questioning on issues of foreign and defence policy in comparison to previous hearings. I don't believe Phil's intervention was productive to that effect.

I don't believe this to be accurate. The Nay voters didn't outline any objections to this nominee at all. If they were concerned over hugh's foreign and defence policy stances, they surely would have questioned him in this regard.

That's partly the point I was making. Very few questions were asked because the hearing was sidetracked. Had the proceedings run more smoothly I'm sure such issues would have been touched apon.

[Јas]

I think the hearing suffered in part due to the lack of questioning on issues of foreign and defence policy in comparison to previous hearings. I don't believe Phil's intervention was productive to that effect.

I don't believe this to be accurate. The Nay voters didn't outline any objections to this nominee at all. If they were concerned over hugh's foreign and defence policy stances, they surely would have questioned him in this regard.

That's partly the point I was making. Very few questions were asked because the hearing was sidetracked. Had the proceedings run more smoothly I'm sure such issues would have been touched apon.

Possibly, but it was always still open to Senators to question until the vote was called.

It still remains very unclear, to me, why exactly the no votes were lodged. No explanation has been given by any of the pertinant Senators in this regard. Until otherwise asserted, I can only assume that it was Phil's intervention which swung the votes.

[Dr. Cynic]

Phil's interference in the hearing, as well as the Nay voters failing to substantiate their concerns deeply troubles the President and I... Considering the difficulty of finding a nominee who accepted the offer.

[Colin]

I think the hearing suffered in part due to the lack of questioning on issues of foreign and defence policy in comparison to previous hearings. I don't believe Phil's intervention was productive to that effect.

I don't believe this to be accurate. The Nay voters didn't outline any objections to this nominee at all. If they were concerned over hugh's foreign and defence policy stances, they surely would have questioned him in this regard.

That's partly the point I was making. Very few questions were asked because the hearing was sidetracked. Had the proceedings run more smoothly I'm sure such issues would have been touched apon.

Possibly, but it was always still open to Senators to question until the vote was called.

It still remains very unclear, to me, why exactly the no votes were lodged. No explanation has been given by any of the pertinant Senators in this regard. Until otherwise asserted, I can only assume that it was Phil's intervention which swung the votes.

I must agree with Senator Jas that I could not see any valuable reason to voting against the confirmation of Hughento or to consider that he would not be fit for the position. I do, however, look towards those Senators who voted against this nominee to please state their concerns for I truely believe that personal spats between Hugh and Phil should not have interfered in the decision of whether this nominee was able to discharge to duties of Secretary of External Affairs.

I would have at least expected the honorable President Pro Tempore to have given a wise and informed reason for his opposition. At least something less cryptic than "replacing best with second best" whatever that may mean.

[Dr. Cynic]

I must ask the honorable Senators what they objected to?

[Democratic Hawk]

Well, in a nutshell, I saw no reason why the previous Secretary of External Affairs ought not to have been re-appointed in this capacity. He was doing a fine job

In fact, I'm saddened this logical step wasn't taken in the first place

'Hawk'

[Ebowed]

Well, in a nutshell, I saw no reason why the previous Secretary of External Affairs ought not to have been re-appointed in this capacity. He was doing a fine job

The only other presidential nominee to ever fail senate confirmation was Mike Naso for Secretary of Defense.  Given some of the people I pushed through onto the Senate during my tenure, all of which were confirmed, this rejection is rather surprising.  Worse yet, Nay votes were cast not because this was a bad nominee but because of unhappiness with the previous Secretary no longer holding the job, despite that person being nominated for something else.

My recommendation to the administration would be to nominate Hugh again.  No reason to play nice with a Senate that is incapable of explaining itself properly.

[Platypus]

Quite franklym, unless personally asked by the President, I will not put forward my name for consideration again. If he wants me to do so, I will consider doing so, but if not, I will not ask him for the position. I would like the position, but I'm not sure if dealing with this Senate would be worthwhile.

[afleitch]

Worse yet, Nay votes were cast not because this was a bad nominee but because of unhappiness with the previous Secretary no longer holding the job, despite that person being nominated for something else.

I don't believe that to be the primary motivation for the outcome. It has to be remembered that I was only nominated as a justice at approximately the same time as Hugh's confirmation hearing ended.

May I also add, it is also unfair to apply Dave's stated reason on the matter to every Senator who voted against the nomination.

[Ebowed]

I don't believe that to be the primary motivation for the outcome.

Well, in that case, I'm sure you can understand why I and others are curious as to what the primary motivation for the outcome was.  The Nay voters don't seem to be united by any common ideological cause.  On one hand we have people like Jas, Ernest, and Colin Wixted -- going by consensus, generally accepted voices of common sense and elder Atlasians who know that they are doing.  Then we have a messy opposition that won't tell us why they voted the way they did.  What have they got to hide?  I'd honestly like to know.

May I also add, it is also unfair to apply Dave's stated reason on the matter to every Senator who voted against the nomination.

This is true, and I was careful not to say as much, although given that several other Senators have yet to comment on why they voted against, there is little else we can do but make assumptions.

Either way I certainly share Al's distaste for what has occurred here.  Voting against a nominee who is even referred to as "second best" is simply unheard of.

[Speed of Sound]

While I didnt vote Nay, I did vote Abstain, so I guess it's fair for me to explain my vote as well.

The major reason for my abstain vote was merely a questionable activity record. In a time in which Atlasia is at its most unstable (dont tell me its not) we need to make sure everyone who needs to be here will be here.

[Bdub]

I will explain why I voted Nay.  My concerns were similiar to Speedy.  My vote was based on activity levels.

[Keystone Phil]

Hugh lost, get over it. And his behavior towards certain Atlasians citizens should be an issue here. Arrogant taunting will not be rewarded. He paid for it.

[Democratic Hawk]

My recommendation to the administration would be to nominate Hugh again.  No reason to play nice with a Senate that is incapable of explaining itself properly.

Just like you did the Senate with your most exemplary track record of explaining [not] your veto on a number of Bills

Classic case of:



'Hawk'

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Could the Senators who voted against Hugh (or abstained) please state what a reasonable level of activity is.