Watching the vote on the Waiver for Lloyd Austin to be Defense Secretary - so far Five Democrats....

[George II]

....have voted "NAY", along with 28 republicans.

The vote will be posted by the Clerk of the House about an hour after it closes, so we can see who those Democrats are. I do know that Bowman of NY voted "NAY" via proxy, the only votes we know about for sure are proxy votes since they're read into the record.

[Budi]

1. Why would Bowman vote NAY! This waiver is necessary for confirmation.

Wtf?

Who are the 5 nay votes.
There's absolutely no reason to vote against him.

Wth 🙄

[George II]

2. That's what disturbs me. Essentially they're voting AGAINST Biden's nominee to be Defense Secy....

....and do NOT give me any of that "it was a vote on principle"!

It's now up to 9 Democratic "NAY" votes.

[dsc]

3. The principle of civilian control of the military

I absolutely understand why people want this person to be Sec of Defense but I also understand why some people would have a principled opposition to having a relatively recent retiree of the military in that position. I admit I don't know how I would vote if I were there.

[George II]

6. A number of speakers before the vote started, including both Democrats and republicans....

....stated that the 7-year timeframe was too long and arbitrary. As one republican said, "what's the difference between 6 years, 11 months and 7 years 1 month."

It's not like Austin retired from the military in order to take this job.

It's all for show, and I suspect I know who most of the now 11 Democratic "NAY" votes are from.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Any cut off point is arbitrary. But not having a cut off point means there is no rule.

All kinds of things are arbitrary. If you are 17 years 364 days old you can't vote, if you are 18 and one day old you can. If you are 35 years old you can be President. If you are 34 years and 364 days old you can't be.

There are good reasons for this rule, and there is a process for making exceptions, but there has to be real good reasons to make that exception or soon the rule will be a formality only, routinely over ridden whenever a president of your own party wants to nominate an ex-military man to run the defense department.

The concept of civilian control over the military is critical, and ex high ranking Generals usually maintain a lot of active contacts with current officers. I believe in both the rule and the ability to make exceptions to it if circumstances truly warrant it. But I am concerned that if making exceptions to this rule becomes routine and a formality only than the rule itself becomes worthless. As a person above wrote, this is not a no brainer vote.

[George II]

15. This isn't the Constitution, and this is why there's a waiver permitted. Clearly so far....

...204 Democrats feel the circumstances warrant it. I won't (publicly) prejudge those who voted "NAY", but I suspect I know who several of those are.

[a kennedy]

10. I know, the rule is just arbitrary.......🤬🤬🤬

[PatSeg]

11. Same here

It was bad enough that Trump got the rule waived for his nominee. If the same thing happens with Biden's, then the rule might just become irrelevant. It is a shame, as he seems to be an excellent choice, but do we want to set such a precedent?

[George II]

4. Tlaib just voted "NAY" via proxy.

[Budi]

5. Figures. I want their reasons why they refuse to confirm President Biden's choice.

Do they have someone more qualified in mind?

[PatSeg]

14. Because if two presidents in a row

disregard the rules about civilians running the defense department, the rules could cease to matter. I trust President Biden's choice in this matter, but I entirely understand the reluctance of some Democratic senators to vote against him.

[KS Toronado]

7. This reeks of white supremacy behind closed doors.

Did he piss some people off in the Pentagon?

[George II]

8. Two of the 12 Democrats who have voted "NAY" are not white - Tlaib and Bowman. The only reason....

...I know of those two is that they voted by proxy so their names/votes were read into the record. Everyone else voted electronically, so we won't know until the vote is official and on the House website in about an hour.

[Hortensis]

21. No, it doesn't. We just had a major attempt to take over our democracy

by presidential self-coup supported by the military and congress. The Republican-controlled congress might have been in for it if the military hadn't stood strong to protect our democracy. That's the concern -- that we maintain a careful separation between the military and the executive branch.

I trust President Biden's choice, but this would be the second waiver in recent times, and the issue is what the Republicans might do in future with relaxed standards.

[a kennedy]

12. Looks like they've got more then enough Yeas........324 - Nays 77. With 31 not voting.

[brush]

13. So is the nomination dead since so many have voted no?

It's such a disappointment that Dems vote no on such an arbitrary policy. He's been a civilian for four years and several months. What's the difference, are his views going to change on civilian control of the military in a couple of more years? No.

And what's with Tliab and Bowman, two progressives voting against the black man to head the DOD? Now if he's rejected they'll get the typical pick.

[PatSeg]

16. They are not voting against a black man

They are voting for civilian control of the defense department, which is a more progressive stand.

[leftstreet]

17. +1

[Budi]

18. It is not a 'progressive' stand in any way shape or form.

Not at all.

[PatSeg]

28. Actually it is in many ways

I think people are seeing something that isn't there.

[Budi]

30. No shit.

Its actually an 'Establishment' clause.
But who's counting, ...

[PatSeg]

34. Oh well

We don't have to agree on everything and different people will see things differently.

[Budi]

35. Indeed

[PatSeg]

38. Ha, ha, ha!!!

[George II]

19. Lloyd Austin is a civilian.

[PatSeg]

23. Yes, he is now

The rule is: "To ensure civilian control of the military, no one may be appointed as the secretary of defense within seven years of serving as a commissioned officer of a regular (i.e., non-reserve) component of an armed force."

I trust the President's judgment on his nominees, but I also understand not wanting to set any precedent that might resemble what Trump did. I also understand the desire to have civilian control of the defense department. I really find it hard to believe, as some here have suggested, that any Democratic senator would vote against Austin based on race. I think we want to be the party that follows the rules, especially after four years of chaos and lawlessness.

[brush]

20. But they actually are voting against a black man.

That, IMO,is not progressive.

[Hortensis]

22. Progressivism is using government to advance public wellbeing, as opposed

to the conservative belief that that is the job of private individuals and institutions and that government programs and intervention are ultimately harmful to society.

Capital-P Progressive is an illiberal left faction that is no more anti-racism than the mainstream Democratic caucuses, which include almost all our minority members, but is more impatient about pushing for big change right away.

Opposition to this appointment has nothing to do with racism or progressivism but to maintaining a careful separation between the executive branch and the military. Support believes waiving the traditional standard will be okay in this case and not to worry that it might someday help enable, under a Republican president mostly likely, a military-supported coup.

Hope this helps.

[brush]

25. I know it's not racism, even though Austin was a general who happened to be...

a black man. Waivers have been allowed before, as recently as Gen. Mattis, a general who happens to be white, for trump a couple of years ago. It's kind of silly to me and short sighted. We need to get our president's choices confirmed and get on with cleaning up the trump mess left behind.

Why in the world would progressives spend political capital on this, IMO, a non-issue, when they might need it later on issues more important to them like green energy, immigration, travel policies etc?

[Hortensis]

26. They believe it's important. I have no position on this, but let's

remember that all the issues you prioritize depend on NOT falling to a RW authoritarian state. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

If the RW authoritarian takeover had succeeded, that would have meant eliminating government controls on industry and accelerating climate destruction; making all national progressive programs unconstitutional -- including health insurance, Social Security, Medicare, etc; allowing the pandemic to ravage the people and our strength to resist; ending immigration and persecuting the millions currently still here, and so on. It would mean a police state to control the populace and widespread abuse of citizens of all colors, but none more than AA.

It's anything but a non-issue.

[PatSeg]

31. You said that very well

[Hortensis]

45. Too well. Scared myself. Had to rewatch Biden signing orders to recover.

[PatSeg]

46. I think people are still a bit touchy

We are all recovering from four years of gaslighting and abuse! Also, I think we are conditioned to be combative even when things are going well.

[PatSeg]

24. They were voting against a man who has not

been a civilian for a minimum of seven years. Maybe some republicans based their vote on race, but I doubt the Democrats who opposed the confirmation did. Civilian control of the military is more of a progressive stand, one that Trump chose to ignore. It would be hypocritical to find fault with Trump and then turn around and do the same thing.

[brush]

27. It's a waste of political capital on an arbitary years-out-of-service cut off.

The cut off year could've just as easily been four years out of service. Why take a stand on that when issues more critical to progressives will surely come up where that capital is needed? This ideologiical purity stuff is overrated. Gen. Mattis just a couple of years ago was granted the waiver. Austin's been a civilian going on five years. Get Biden's choices confirmed and let's get on with it.

[PatSeg]

29. Well, personally

I would go along with Biden's choice, but that is because I truly trust him. I just understand why some Democrats opposed the nomination.

[brush]

33. I agree with your person opinion as well as I trust Biden's choices.

He's made good, inclusive choices and I believe this one for DOD is the only top, not assistant, cabinet post chosen for a black man to head.

That's symbolic and important, considering how black voters have saved our bacon repeatedly. Republicans know how to use their power, as in the Gen. Mattis waiver, we need to do that too when we have the power.

Ideological purity is overrated.

[PatSeg]

36. I'm no fan of ideological purity

I just hate that Trump treated rules and tradition as dispensable whenever it suited him. I hate to give a future republican president an excuse to do the same. Of course, I like to believe there won't be a future republican president, as the party seems to be imploding, but some of these people keep rising from the dead again and again.

[George II]

32. The final vote was 326-78, 27 not voting. The Democratic vote was 205-15, republican 121-63, 27 NV

Here are the Democrats who voted "NAY" against Austin, draw your own conclusions:

Bowman
Bush
Casten
Golden
Hayes
Jayapal
Kind
Malinowski
Moore (WI)
Moulton
Ocasio-Cortez
Porter
Pressley
Omar
Tlaib

A few notable REPUBLICANS who also voted "NAY" are:

Biggs
Cawthorn
Cheney
Gohmert
Gosar

[Budi]

37. Look at that NAY list would ya? Well, Now we know. 🤔

Who votes the same as Gohmert!!

gggaaaaahhh

[George II]

39. Their first chance to support President Biden and they didn't. Biggs and Gosar are 2 of the 3....

....who promoted the insurrection on January 5.

[Budi]

40. That's just embarassing.

Gohmert, Biggs and Gosar.

Cripe.

[George II]

42. 63 republicans voted against the waiver, 15 Democrats. I gave the votes "AYE/NAY" for Democrats....

....and then republicans.

I should have given them in a chart like the House website does:

Democrats 205 AYE, 15 NAY, 0 NV
republicans 121 AYE, 63 NAY, 27 NV

Total 326 AYE, 78 NAY, 27 NV

That's a little clearer. Sorry.

[brush]

43. Got you. I'll delete my post.

[George II]

44. Yeah, I confused it by posting it the way I originally did.