Confirmation hearing: Emsworth for SecDef

[Peter]

There is no precedent or SPR for filibusters to be placed on cabinet nominations.

I hereby call this confirmation vote to order.

All Senators, please vote Aye/Nay/Abstain.

[Jake]

I'd like to remind Senators as they begin to vote that this is a completely different model of Defense Secretary than myself, Colin, or especially John Ford. Whether that is a good thing or not is up to each to determine. Personally, based on the comments Emsworth has made in this thread, I'd vote nay on his appointment.  I feel he would be better suited for the Treasury Department, rather than the DoD. 

[12th Doctor]

I'd like to remind Senators as they begin to vote that this is a completely different model of Defense Secretary than myself, Colin, or especially John Ford. Whether that is a good thing or not is up to each to determine. Personally, based on the comments Emsworth has made in this thread, I'd vote nay on his appointment.  I feel he would be better suited for the Treasury Department, rather than the DoD. 

I would like to echo Jake's sentiments.

From all the evidence that he himself has provided, Emsworth would be a reactive, rather than proactive, beurocratic, Secretary, who would seek to place diplomatic and budgetary concerns over those concerns that are most important and most beneficial to the Defense Department.  Some might say that this is nobel, but I say that it would be a dishonest farce.

Emsworth is a good man.  I would be happy to vote to confirm him to almost any other possition.  However, I am concerned that he displays a fundamental lack of knowledge of the subject matter.  As I question his knowledge, I must also call into to question his motive.  The job of the Defense Secretary is to be the primary advocate for the Defense Department.  Mr. Emsworth has proven that this is not how he would perform in this capacity.

Therefore, I have no choice but to vote "Nay" and encourage my fellow Senators to do the same.

[Emsworth]

Some might say that this is nobel, but I say that it would be a dishonest farce.

Senator, I would respectfully request you not to impute improper motives to me.

[12th Doctor]

Some might say that this is nobel, but I say that it would be a dishonest farce.

Senator, I would respectfully request you not to impute improper motives to me.

I believe that you have the best intentions, I simply think that they are wrongly placed.

[MAS117]

Despite the distinguished gentlemens line of questioning and comments regarding the nominee, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence that warrants a nay vote. However, I do not like that all nominees recieve an automatic rubberstamped 10-0 confirmation hearing. Therefore, I have to thank the gentlemen from PA and Fmr. Sec. Ford for his questioning, care, and comments regarding the Defense Dept. Therefore am I inclined to vote....

Aye

on Emsworth for Secretary of Defense.

[Sam Spade]

On this issue, as with all nominations in general, I am inclined to respectfully agree with Senator MAS117.

To me, Mr. Emsworth has done nothing to warrant denying him the nomination; he has answered the questions with knowledge and forthrightness; he has shown himself to be capable in making decisions with regards to the Defense Department.

Therefore, I vote...

Aye.

[MasterJedi]

As in real life I don't support filibusters for judicial nomines or cabinet nominees in general, just debate so therefore:

Aye

[12th Doctor]

Funny how this vote has become about the fact that I tried to filibuster him and not about his acctual qualifications.

I can't see how my fellow conservatives do not see this nominee as being, at least, somewhat contraversial, given the answers he gave to the questions.

Instead, they choose to cop-out bt making statements that basically amount to, "Well, he is good enough".

Well, I am sorry if, when it comes to national security, I feel that "good enough" is not good enough.  I'm concerned with what he will do as Secretary of Defense.  You all seem concerned with getting this vote over with and rubber stamping him so we can get through this and go home for our brief legislative break before the next session starts.  Sorry if I don't share in your enthusism for fishing.

[Colin]

Abstain

---

While Mr. Emsworth has shown that he is an intelligent and knowledgable man who would be perfect for many other positions I feel that I could not approve of someone for the reasons that Misters Supersoulty and Ford have put forth. I have voted abstain to show that I do not disrespect Mr. Emsworth and thus will not vote against his appointment but that I dissagree with his positions.

[WMS]

Am I to understand, therefore, that you are against humanitarian interventions?

Personally, I believe that the lives of soldiers should, in most cases, be risked only in the defense of Atlasia. In certain circumstances, humanitarian missions are justified. My definition of humanitarian causes, however, is not so broad as to encompass - for example - freeing individuals from dictatorships.

But mine is. Sorry, Emsworth - nothing personal, just an ideological difference with lil' ol' neoconservative me.

*edit*
Abstain. I have my reasons.
*edit*

[DanielX]

Aye. Emsworth seems reasonable enough.

[MAS117]

Am I to understand, therefore, that you are against humanitarian interventions?

Personally, I believe that the lives of soldiers should, in most cases, be risked only in the defense of Atlasia. In certain circumstances, humanitarian missions are justified. My definition of humanitarian causes, however, is not so broad as to encompass - for example - freeing individuals from dictatorships.

But mine is. Sorry, Emsworth - nothing personal, just an ideological difference with lil' ol' neoconservative me.

*edit*
Abstain. I have my reasons.
*edit*

Don't you have to wait till the vote is over to change your vote?

[WMS]

Am I to understand, therefore, that you are against humanitarian interventions?

Personally, I believe that the lives of soldiers should, in most cases, be risked only in the defense of Atlasia. In certain circumstances, humanitarian missions are justified. My definition of humanitarian causes, however, is not so broad as to encompass - for example - freeing individuals from dictatorships.

But mine is. Sorry, Emsworth - nothing personal, just an ideological difference with lil' ol' neoconservative me.

*edit*
Abstain. I have my reasons.
*edit*

Don't you have to wait till the vote is over to change your vote?

Let's see what the latest statute says:
R.6

Senate Procedural Resolution on the Changing of Votes

§ 1. Until a piece of legislation has garnered enough votes either in favor or against to have it either pass or fail, no senator shall be prohibited from changing his or her vote on the legislation.

§ 2. Following the garnering of enough votes to either pass or fail, the President Pro Tempore shall announce this fact; following this announcement, all senators shall have twenty-four hours during which they shall not be prohibited from changing their votes on the legislation.

§ 3. Following the expiration of twenty-four hours after the announcement, the vote total at that moment shall be declared to be final and shall be applied to the legislation. All senators shall be prohibited from changing their votes on the legislation after this time.

Nope, it looks like it's OK.

[MAS117]

Am I to understand, therefore, that you are against humanitarian interventions?

Personally, I believe that the lives of soldiers should, in most cases, be risked only in the defense of Atlasia. In certain circumstances, humanitarian missions are justified. My definition of humanitarian causes, however, is not so broad as to encompass - for example - freeing individuals from dictatorships.

But mine is. Sorry, Emsworth - nothing personal, just an ideological difference with lil' ol' neoconservative me.

*edit*
Abstain. I have my reasons.
*edit*

Don't you have to wait till the vote is over to change your vote?

Let's see what the latest statute says:
R.6

Senate Procedural Resolution on the Changing of Votes

§ 1. Until a piece of legislation has garnered enough votes either in favor or against to have it either pass or fail, no senator shall be prohibited from changing his or her vote on the legislation.

§ 2. Following the garnering of enough votes to either pass or fail, the President Pro Tempore shall announce this fact; following this announcement, all senators shall have twenty-four hours during which they shall not be prohibited from changing their votes on the legislation.

§ 3. Following the expiration of twenty-four hours after the announcement, the vote total at that moment shall be declared to be final and shall be applied to the legislation. All senators shall be prohibited from changing their votes on the legislation after this time.

Nope, it looks like it's OK.

Awesome.

[Gabu]

Well, I like Emsworth, but I'm currently unsure following the comments made by other members, so...

Abstain.

It's not like it matters one way or another; with four votes in favor to one against, and with three senators abstaining and only eight senators in office, Emsworth is confirmed.