Fight Over Military Promotions Intensifies

There's no end in sight to an absurd standoff.

“Tommy Tuberville – Caricature” by DonkeyHotey is licensed under CC BY 2.0

The headline and led of POLITICO‘s report “Pentagon goes on the attack amid Tuberville blockade” frustrates me.

Pentagon leaders have launched a new, more aggressive campaign this week to pressure Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville into finally releasing a nine-month hold on senior military nominations they say is harming national security.

The Pentagon is a building. But readers who only saw the headline and glanced at he lede would likely come away with the false impression that the uniformed military leadership was attacking a United States Senator in violation of the norms of their profession. This is not the case.

The Defense Department dispatched the civilian leaders of three branches of the U.S. military to slam the senator for the blockade, first in a WashingtonPost op-ed on Monday and then during a CNN interview on Tuesday. On Wednesday, DOD took the rare step of putting out a news story highlighting the hold’s impact on its official media webpage. Also this week, the Pentagon released a slate of new senior nominations, including for the Air Force vice chief of staff.

What’s happening here isn’t that “the Pentagon”—a building–is going on attack. Rather, it’s the Biden administration—and specifically the President’s appointed civilian defense policymakers—who are engaging in a perfectly normal political contest.

During the CNN interview, Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro — a Cuban-born Navy veteran — went so far as to accuse Tuberville of “aiding and abetting communists.”

“For someone who was born in a communist country, I would have never imagined that actually one of our own senators would actually be aiding and abetting communists and other autocratic regimes around the world,” said Del Toro, speaking alongside Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall and Army Secretary Christine Wormuth on CNN.

While DOD leaders have continued to talk publicly about the hold through the August recess, the Pentagon is amping up the pressure on lawmakers now that the Senate is back in session. This week has seen a concerted effort to highlight to the American public how harmful the holds are, according to a senior DOD official, who was granted anonymity to discuss the strategy behind the media push.

“These holds are not tenable, and the longer it goes the more damaging it is to our readiness and to national security, and of course to our families who are in this limbo state,” said the official. The average American does not “necessarily feel why this is impactful, but it does have an impact.”

Also on Wednesday, Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder provided reporters with a breakdown of the promotions on hold by service, noting that 22 are tied to positions in the Pacific, a nod to Washington’s interest in deterring China.

The media strategy does not mark the first time Pentagon officials have spoken on the matter, but the volume of speeches, interviews and op-eds this week make clear the effort is intensifying.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has not spoken with Tuberville directly since a July phone call, but the Pentagon chief has engaged with senators on both sides of the aisle about the holds through the August recess, according to the official. Austin’s and Tuberville’s staff members are also in contact.

Not surprisingly, Tuberville is pushing back at the pushback.

The senator, who objects to the Pentagon’s new policy of reimbursing service members who must travel to obtain abortions and other reproductive care, has shown no signs of letting up despite the new pressure campaign. He shot back at Del Toro, saying attacking him “wasn’t very smart to do.”

“First of all, he should have called me. I have not talked to him about this,” Tuberville told reporters on Wednesday, adding it’s “disappointing that somebody would do that, would just come out and say that and they know that’s not true. … His administration has got the borders wide open.”

To the extent the public is paying attention, the Biden administration is surely getting the better of it. The holds are having real, negative consequences in the ability of the US armed forces to execute their mission—not to mention putting people’s careers and families in limbo. And it really makes no sense for a single Senator—in the minority party, no less—to wield this much power.

As to the uniformed leadership, they’re not attacking Tuberville but are following the administration’s lead in pointing out the standoff’s impact.

On Wednesday, Marine Gen. Eric Smith, whose nomination to become the service’s top officer is among those blocked, added his voice to the chorus, telling an audience at the Defense News Conference in Washington that the situation “is not sustainable.” Smith, currently the Corps’ No. 2 officer, is also serving as the Marine commandant in an acting role until his confirmation goes through.

He said senior officers are often being forced to do two or three jobs due to the holds and unfilled positions, but “what doesn’t stop is the clock. The adversary doesn’t take a pause.”

Smith added that, since he’s not the confirmed commandant, he is forced to delegate many of those duties to other officers, including answering some questions from the Pentagon leadership on building next year’s budget.

“I am responsible and accountable for the entirety of the Marine Corps, to the taxpayers, to Congress, and more importantly to the parents of Marines, and I’m not there — I send someone to do that for me and then get a report back,” he said, a process that chews up valuable time.

Pushing that work on already overworked lower-ranking Marines “starts to have an effect on families, and to say that it doesn’t is factually inaccurate,” Smith said.

He’s not wrong.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon also sent Congress 11 high-level nominations this week, including Space Force Maj. Gen. David Miller Jr. to be the commander of Space Operations Command, Lt. Gen. James Slife to be the next Air Force vice chief of staff, and the deputy commanders of the Pacific Fleet and Special Operations Command.

Congressional Democrats at the same time ramped up their criticism of Tuberville’s hold and implored his fellow Republicans to step in, an approach that has so far come up empty.

“Basically, what Tuberville and others are saying is they don’t believe in democracy,” House Armed Services ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said at the Defense News Conference.

“If you don’t like the travel policy … get someone elected who will change that policy,” Smith said. “Don’t stop the ability of the Department of Defense to do its job.”

Here’s where I continue to believe Tuberville is probably right: the Secretary of Defense doesn’t have the authority to re-allocate Congressionally-authorities to support abortion services. While I agree with the policy—servicemembers don’t control where they’re assigned and shouldn’t have their rights restricted based on the whims of which state they’re in—Congress, not the administration, controls the pursestrings. Further, it seems obvious to me that this spending violates the intent of the Hyde Amendment.

Still, there are much less costly ways of making that point.

Senate Armed Services Chair Jack Reed (D-R.I.) charged that Tuberville is “flirting with disaster” through the vacancies on the Joint Chiefs resulting from the hold.

In a floor speech condemning Tuberville on Wednesday, Reed estimated that nearly 90 percent of the 852 general and flag officers stand to be impacted by the blockade. An estimated 650 nominees will require Senate confirmation this year. Reed added that a further 110 officers will need to do two jobs or take on a temporary assignment because of the blockade.

“He has achieved what America’s enemies could only dream of: instability in the ranks of our military leadership,” Reed said.

Tuberville and other Republicans have countered that Democrats could hold individual votes on nominees. But Democrats say that would take too much floor time and the problem is up to Republicans to solve.

Alas, the Senate can’t function if it doesn’t pass ordinary legislation like the promotions of lower-ranking generals and admirals through unanimous consent. Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and others should very much be pressuring Tuberville to stop this nonsense.

On the other hand, Democrats have the majority. I’m surprised Majority Leader Chuck Schumer hasn’t taken more drastic action to change the rule that allows one Senator to gum up the works.

FILED UNDER: Congress, Media, Military Affairs, National Security, US Politics, , , , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Professor of Security Studies. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Mu says:

    So, the only thing that gives Tuberville the power is a senate rule that requires unanimous consent? And no one is willing to rock the boat and force a vote?

    5
  2. Scott says:

    A couple of observations: One, no real consequences that the average citizen would recognize has been articulated. It comes across as whining. Two, Tuberville is not experiencing any pain. Not from the executive branch, not from fellow Senators, not from anyone. Three, like all things in the Senate, there is not any urgency exhibited on any subject. So why would anyone outside the Senate feel the urgency to resolve this issue.

    3
  3. drj says:

    Here’s where I continue to believe Tuberville is probably right: the Secretary of Defense doesn’t have the authority to re-allocate Congressionally-authorities to support abortion services.

    The plain text of the Hyde Amendment should tell you that Tuberville is wrong.

    The Amendment generally bans two things:

    (a) No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law […] shall be expended for any abortion. […]

    (b) No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law […] shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

    “Travel expenses” are neither “any abortion” nor “health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.”

    And if you like a more extensive rebuttal, here is a DoJ opinion that includes the following two passages:

    Alternative interpretations of the Hyde Amendment’s terms are less persuasive. Emphasizing that “for” refers to the actor’s intent, or alternatively understanding “for” as connoting causation […] one could claim that when federal funds are spent for transportation to obtain an abortion, the payer sufficiently intends or causes the abortion to occur so as to have expended funds “for” it. But understanding “for” in terms of intent does not resolve what must be intended. Here, the Hyde Amendment’s text resolves that question, referring to the medical procedure of “abortion” and not more, as discussed below. Moreover, reading the Hyde Amendment to reach any expenditure that could be said to cause an abortion would have the potential to sweep in activities that have never been understood to violate the Amendment or analogous restrictions, such as non-directive counseling and referrals […]

    The Hyde Amendment’s legislative history further confirms our interpretation of its text. When Congress has wanted to restrict expenditures beyond those for the procedure itself, Congress has revised the Hyde Amendment to do so. Specifically, in 1997 Congress added that covered funds cannot be expended “for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.”

    In other words, why did Congress feel the need expand the Hyde Amendment in 1997 if indirect expenses were already included?

    The only sensible conclusion is that indirect expenses were never covered by the Hyde Amendment (and aren’t now) – which, not coincidentally, is also supported by the Hyde Amendment’s plain text.

    17
  4. Daryl says:

    Tuberville never served, exaggerated his fathers military record (that’s called stealing valor) and he doesn’t have a vagina.
    He is uniquely unqualified to take up this fight.

    13
  5. James Joyner says:

    @Mu: The problem is that there are 300+ of these piling up. It would take hours for each one under normal order.

    @Scott: I agree that Tuberville seems not to be feeling much pain and, indeed, it keeps his name in the news. The fact that we have or about to have vacancies in the posts of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Army Chief of Staff, Air Force Chief of Staff, Chief of Naval Operations, and Commandant of the Marine Corps—not to mention Under Secretary of Defense for Policy—is rather staggering. Actings simply lack the full authority of their posts.

    @drj: I think the Hyde Amendment can be preached either way here but there’s no way SECDEF has the authority to simply reallocate monies that Congress has appropriated like this.

  6. OzarkHillbilly says:

    who are engaging in a perfectly normal political contest.

    I don’t think it is normal for a senator to block all military promotions that need senate approval. I don’t think it has ever happened before. That alone makes it abnormal.

    6
  7. EddieInCA says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    Bingo. We have normalized so much of Trump’s abnormal behavior, that we are now normalizing how it’s metastasized into other lunatics. The founders never had the ability to imagine people with such little honor, honesty, or ethics involved in government.

    16
  8. MarkedMan says:

    The voters of Alabama are ultimately to blame. They elected this self centered, bloviating moron and seem just delighted to have “Coach” give ’em hell.

    5
  9. James Joyner says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: @EddieInCA: I simply mean that the administration calling out Tuberville rather aggressively is normal politics, not the “going on the attack” that POLITICO’s headline suggests.

  10. steve says:

    The harm to the military is largely invisible for most people while this is visibly increasing prestige for Tuberville among the voters from his state. It’s worse than not causing pain, it will help him among his base. Remember that he comes from a solidly red state. He’s not worried about winning the general, just the primary. Among those who come out to vote in primaries what he is doing will cement his hold on office. He doesnt have much else to offer.

    Steve

    2
  11. drj says:

    @James Joyner:

    but there’s no way SECDEF has the authority to simply reallocate monies that Congress has appropriated like this

    This sounds like you are saying that Congress has allocated funds to pay for A and the DoD has decided to pay for B instead.

    I don’t buy that at all.

    Because if this were true, Tuberville would have a far stronger argument and there would be zero need to rely on the Hyde Amendment to block the SECDEF’s spending.

    I think the Hyde Amendment can be preached either way

    Based on what? I am asking a serious question here.

    Neither the Amendment’s plain text nor its legislative history support Tuberville’s interpretation.

    3
  12. Modulo Myself says:

    @drj:

    Yeah, the military has funding for travel reimbursements, and they’re using it to reimburse travel costs.

    Republicans in Congress are happy to believe that everything they believe is an exception to the rule. But you can’t actually create systems which work. They want to gerrymander everything so that right-wing Christians don’t have to be follow this or pay for that. But abortion is wildly popular and right-wing Christianity is not, and so it’s easier to throw tantrums rather than create laws.

    3
  13. gVOR10 says:

    @steve:

    He’s not worried about winning the general, just the primary.

    Indeed, it comes back to Dr. T’s argument about primaries. The only thing that matters to Tuberville is being seen by his constituents as owning the libs. To my mind, it also marks Tuberville’s amateurism. His term runs out in 2026. Same as Rick Scott. Scott was OK with meeting Biden in FL when DeUseless wouldn’t. The electorate have no memory past six months. It’s too early to be campaigning for 2026.

    1
  14. wr says:

    It’s time for the Biden administration to announce that in one month it will shut down one of Alabama’s five military bases if Tuberville doesn’t release his hold. And that he will shut down one more every month after that.

    Let the voters of Alabama find out what Tuberville’s stunt is costing the military. And if they choose to rally around him anyway, then we shouldn’t have military bases in a state populated with traitors.

    18
  15. Kathy says:

    Will no one rid us of this turbulent coach?

    2
  16. James Joyner says:

    @drj: @Modulo Myself: I’ve read the DOJ brief and just find it underwhelming. The clear legislative intent, going back decades, has been to forbid the use of federal tax dollars to facilitate abortion. The policy is in direct contravention of that.

    @wr: POTUS doesn’t remotely have the authority to shut down bases by fiat. DOD leadership has been calling for the shedding of excess base capacity for decades and Congress has generally balked. The BRAC authorization ended almost two decades ago and Congress has been adamant that there will not be another round any time soon.

    2
  17. Modulo Myself says:

    I think that one of the reasons Biden’s numbers are low is because of how hopeless the whole situation is. It’s not only health care itself, but empathy and the ability to live with other people. People who shrug their shoulders about the right’s ability to dictate health care for women or trans people would lose their minds if they went to the doctor and were told they couldn’t get their anti-cholesterol meds because a very dumb man in Alabama said so.

    We treat anti-intellectualism and stupidity in America like they are part of a grand plan. They are not. After 2012’s post-mortem, the Republican Party was supposed to enter the late 20th century. They were supposed to figure out how to live with other people and do something well. Never happened. After 2020, there wasn’t even talk that this might happen. Americans are just stuck with this contingent of humans who just can’t do it. It’s not Biden’s fault. But a future of endless strife over basic healthcare because the dumbest humans on earth have some power is just bleak and dispiriting.

    4
  18. Modulo Myself says:

    @James Joyner:

    You might be right. But the way to deal with this is not to put holds on promotions. It’s to revisit the Hyde Amendment, because clearly if the military thinks they should reimburse travel expenses for abortion then maybe parts or the entirety of the Hyde Amendment is not worth keeping around.

    A stupid amendment named in honor of a philandering Congressman is not Scripture.

    1
  19. James Joyner says:

    @Modulo Myself: No, but it’s the law.

    Again—as noted in the OP and several other posts on the topic—I think that SECDEF’s policy is reasonable, if outside his authority and that Tuberville’s objection is reasonable, but his method outrageous. Others have used this tactic before but not for nearly as long or with such devastating effect.

    2
  20. gVOR10 says:

    @Modulo Myself: Biden’s approval is nearly identical to Trump, Obama, and Clinton at this point in their first terms. (W. Bush was higher because of the 9-11 bounce.) This reflects every American’s God given right to bitch about the government. This whole OLD Joe Biden is unpopular is an artifact of the supposedly liberal MSM’s need for drama.

    1
  21. gVOR10 says:

    @James Joyner:

    No, but it’s the law.

    The proper response then is to sue. Is anyone doing so?

  22. RoyM4 says:

    It’s simple. Have a vote in the senate to pass the abortion travel policy that DOD unilaterally put in place. If it passes, Tuberville will release his hold. Dems control the senate but don’t want to vote for this because of the upcoming election.

    I don’t disagree with the travel policy and don’t think that freezing promotions is a good idea. The whole thing is politics on both sides.

    1
  23. drj says:

    @James Joyner:

    The clear legislative intent, going back decades, has been to forbid the use of federal tax dollars to facilitate abortion.

    The DoJ brief convincingly (IMO) argues otherwise, namely that federal funds should not be used to pay for abortions (rather than the indeterminately expansive “facilitate abortions”).

    Against that, you put exactly nothing.

    You claim “clear legislative intent,” but what is the actual proof for your assertion that Congress actually meant “facilitate” rather than “expend” as the plain text states?

    Do you have any? If so, please share.

  24. Modulo Myself says:

    @gVOR10:

    According to this poll, 67% of Democrats say that the party should nominate someone else.

    This is a serious problem and pretending that Obama had these problems a year before reelection is not helpful.

    1
  25. Scott says:

    This just popped into Politico:

    Dems must ‘turn up the heat’ on Tuberville, Warren says

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren is urging her Democratic colleagues to ramp up the pressure on Sen. Tommy Tuberville as he continues to block hundreds of military promotions because of the Pentagon’s abortion policies.

    No where in the article does it suggest that Warren has any real recommendations other than hectoring.

    But the attacks didn’t phase Tuberville, who told reporters Wednesday that the attacks were “disappointing” and dug into his position. Right now, there’s no sign that the Alabama senator is letting up.

    “He deserves every ugly term that gets thrown at him,” Warren said.

    Oh! Wow! Ugly terms. That’ll do it.

    These Senators are useless.

    3
  26. MarkedMan says:

    @drj: @James Joyner: Since when does “clear legislative intent” supersede “what the law saws”. All my life the Federal Courts up to and including the Supremes has said that if a law so poorly written it doesn’t accomplish what Congress intended, then the remedy is to amend the law, not look to the courts to figure out what Congress really meant.

    1
  27. Raoul says:

    If JJ is right then all Tuberville has to do is to file a lawsuit yet he doesn’t. I suspect the reason is that he would lose. The real problem is the Senate, the unanimous consent is an arcane rule that needs to go in these polarized times. If I was in the Senate I would object to every single unanimous consent (effectively freezing the Senate) until the rule was changed.

  28. Daryl says:

    @MarkedMan:
    Of note…he doesn’t even live in Alabama.

  29. Jay L Gischer says:

    Well, I do agree with James that this is politics as usual, and the language employed is hyperbolic. Every news organization has turned into a tabloid. We’re back to the 1890’s. This is a consequence of both the internet and the efforts of some Republicans/libertarians since at least 1980, maybe earlier.

    And, I also think that if what the DoD was doing with the travel money was illegal, they would get hit with a lawsuit and an injunction which would shut it down. They aren’t. Instead we have an obstinate, grandstanding Senator.

    There are ways around him, but all of them take political capital. I see in the reported events a decision by the Administration to spend some capital on it, since it’s got bad enough.

    By all accounts Tuberville isn’t that bright (I find this conclusion a bit suspicious, by the way. I don’t think you can run a major college football program with an IQ of less than 105 or so. I think he’s more callow and obstinate than dumb.). So maybe he can be outplayed on the field. Nobody thinks he’s a strategic genius, after all.

    1
  30. Jay L Gischer says:

    As regards pressure that could be brought on Tuberville – there’s money. There’s always money. Appropriations for his state. Some are discretionary. They could go elsewhere, or just vanish. We want to cut budgets, you know.

    Of course, they won’t say this out loud. Yet.

    2
  31. wr says:

    @Modulo Myself: “According to this poll, 67% of Democrats say that the party should nominate someone else.”

    “Someone else” is carrying a lot of water here. Put up an actual name against Biden and see what happens.

    This is America. We all want Something Better and believe we are entitled to it, even if we don’t know what it is or why we want it.

    10
  32. MikeSJ says:

    @wr:

    After the military bases are closed I’d see if the air traffic control system can be targeted; no planes being allowed to leave Alabama airspace should get the good voters attention.

    1
  33. Jen says:

    Does the Department of Defense reimburse for travel for any medical procedures? E.g., cancer care, or other specialty treatments?

    If they do, I don’t see why this travel is treated differently.

    10
  34. Cheryl Rofer says:

    James keeps saying that Tuberville’s objection is “reasonable.”

    Noted: “Reasonable” is that women are allowed only the healthcare that the most restrictive misogynists will allow.

    15
  35. DK says:

    @James Joyner:

    The clear legislative intent

    Unless we’re redefining the meaning of the word “clear,” the clear legislative intent is what the actual words say. Extratextual meanings are prima facie unclear and contested.

    Conservatives love to move the goalposts like this. Like how the clear intent of the 2nd Amendment suddenly became a heretofore unknown individual right for almost any person unregulated access to firearms, in contravention to the words of the 2nd Amendment and over two centuries of local gun regulation.

    But they’re also textualists and originalists who hew to precedent or something. Republicans are full of it. Their textualism = “this text holds the meaning closest to conservative goals on any given day.”

    If the DoD is breaking the law, bring on a lawsuit.

    5
  36. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Modulo Myself:

    After 2012’s post-mortem, the Republican Party was supposed to enter the late 20th century. They were supposed to figure out how to live with other people and do something well. Never happened.

    This! And, sadly, it’s easy to see why it never happened.

    One day after I’d returned from Korea,* I happened onto Glen Beck on his The Blaze radio network. (BTW, is that still a thing?) On this particular day, he was exhorting his audience that while it is certainly right and proper to seek common ground with one’s political foes and that he wished to be a force for seeking that common ground and moving the country forward, he also had to note that it is impossible to seek common ground with people who want to destroy “our” country and way of life.

    Whether people who pull out this type of argument (and I’ve heard it a fair amount living in the exurban, red-state town I live in) are sincere or merely shilling the rubes is immaterial. It one of the memes that driving the political world view of some significant percentage of the nation. It has turned our society into a giant zero-sum political game where every advantage requires a taking from someone and every decision is a contest about whether “we” or “they” will win. This is the world and worldview Coach Tuberville has brought to the Senate–and 49% of the Senate has to be on his side or lose.

    ETA: *Where many of the last sane days I’ve had this decade happened. (forgot to add about my time Korea)

    2
  37. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @gVOR10: Who has the standing to sue? And who will the defendant be?

  38. DK says:

    @Modulo Myself:

    This is a serious problem and pretending that Obama had these problems a year before reelection is not helpful.

    I don’t recall pollsters even asking the question, “Would you prefer some unnamed candidate to Obama?”

    Pretending the media isn’t treating Biden worse than they treated Obama is silly. And identifying a problem but offering no viable solution is unhelpful.

    “Something something is a problem.” Okay cool. Now what? What’s the proposed fix?

    2
  39. Kazzy says:

    “And it really makes no sense for a single Senator—in the minority party, no less—to wield this much power.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but couldn’t a handful of minority party Senators vote with Dems to override his nonsense?

    1
  40. MarkedMan says:

    @DK:

    Pretending the media isn’t treating Biden worse than they treated Obama is silly.

    Why is it silly? The media treated Obama horribly. Remember Kenya? Birth Certificates? Being Friends with Terrorists and Murderers? The Dap? The list, alas, is endless.

    1
  41. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Scott:

    No where in the article does it suggest that Warren has any real recommendations other than hectoring.

    That’s because Warren is being disingenuous. She is aware that there are no actions Democrats can take that will “ramp up the pressure” but is also aware that jawboning on the topic will convince her constituents that “at least she’s doing something.”

    1
  42. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @MarkedMan:

    not look to the courts to figure out what Congress really meant.

    Substitute (or add ) “the Constitution” for “Congress,” and my inner white supremacist, evangelical/catholic, John Bircher wants to know where the eff you were in 1954 and 1973?

    1
  43. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Jen: If Medicare can pay for cancer and other specialty treatments but not for abortions, it’s arguable that the same kind of restrictions can be applied to travel reimbursements that allow travel for cancer and other special treatments but not for abortions.

    That said, I’m neither a lawyer nor a Congressional representative, only an ignint cracker, and semantics and constructed reality will certainly allow for people to disagree and argue past rather than at each other’s POV.

  44. DK says:

    @MarkedMan:

    The media treated Obama horribly. Remember Kenya? Birth Certificates? Being Friends with Terrorists and Murderers?

    That wasn’t the mainstream press tho, that was conservatives. Most of the legacy media recognized this bad faith tripe as trash and treated it as such.

    For reasons not yet fully explicated, that good sense went out the door with coverage of Hillary and Biden. Maybe the press is more scared of accusations of racism than of sexism or ageism? Or something else? I dunno.

    But either way, I don’t remember any rash of concern troll polls asking, “Would you like Obama replaced with someone we can’t even name?”

    1
  45. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @DK:

    Extratextual meanings are prima facie unclear and contested.

    And (just as importantly) how deconstruction and some elements of critical legal theory play into the mix. Fun stuff. We used to talk about things like this in the comp classes I taught on occasion.

    1
  46. EddieInCA says:

    @Modulo Myself:

    67% of Democrats say that the party should nominate someone else.

    I’ll tell you what I tell the kids who come into my office asking for a job “doing anything”. “There is no job called “doing anything”.

    Last I checked, there is no candidate named “someone else”. I’ll tell you what I tell everyone else, and I know you’re’ all sick of hearing it. WHO?????

    Give me a name or just fucking stop it.

    5
  47. DK says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker:

    If Medicare can pay for cancer and other specialty treatments but not for abortions

    Ha! I love this. I didn’t even know people ages 65+ seeking abortions was a thing.

    2
  48. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @DK: True, but I don’t know how much of Obama’s relief from “not Obama” came from the fact that the press already had people who were supporting “not Mitt” that year. In 2016 though, “not Hillary” had a significant contingent through the early stages of the primaries and “not Trump” had a brief flash once the horse had already jumped the paddock. And to the extent that I recall, “somebody else” was a strong contender (for pretty much every candidate) on the Democratic side even after Super Tuesday, at least for a while.

  49. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @DK: My mistake. I’d realized that flaw and had intended to use “Medicaid” and then lapsed back to the other. Apparently, Alzheimer’s is catching up and will be in contention with COPD/emphysema, Afib, cirrhosis, borderline kidney disease, and Parkinson’s after all. Rats!

    Good catch though! Thanks for giving me the opportunity to make the correction! 😉

    1
  50. DK says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker: Hehe. I thought you would enjoy that hahaha

  51. Jim Brown 32 says:

    @Jen: The miliary grants what they call “permissive temporary duty” (PTDY) for medical procedures that have to be performed out of the local area. The member on PTDY is not entitled to reimbursement of expenses (i.e. meals, travel) like they would on official business travel– but traveling PTDY, they do not burn any of their earned 30 days of vacation per year.

    This is the ridiculousness of the argument about the Hyde Amendment— not only is the technical argument of how DOD is violating the Hyde Amendment wrong… but the female service member is, in actuality, not receiving ONE DIME of reimbursement.

    They are getting vacation “on the house”. I have signed for members to get something as simple as corrective eye surgery out of the local area–they went on PTDY status. If Tuberville had his way–an abortion would be the ONLY medical procedure a member would have to travel out of town for and burn their own vacation time.

    This is yet another serious issue distorted from what it actually is by chin-stroking pundits and politicians that have no idea what they are even discussing. The Hyde Amendment is not even in play here—and frankly, a member could travel on multi-day pass their Commanding Officer to get the procedure. Which I suspect is what would happen if Tuberville prevailed.

    This is all grandstanding and faux outrage at an engineered “problem”.

    6
  52. gVOR10 says:

    @MarkedMan:

    Remember Kenya? Birth Certificates?

    You remind me, did Trump’s 2016 investigators ever come back from Hawaii with their incredible findings or are they still hanging out at the bar of the Royal Hawaiian?

    2
  53. gVOR10 says:

    @DK:

    For reasons not yet fully explicated, that good sense went out the door with coverage of Hillary and Biden. Maybe the press is more scared of accusations of racism than of sexism or ageism? Or something else? I dunno.

    Reading NYT lately, and WAPO even more, I worry that they’ve looked at the trends in U. S. politics, think the bad guys will win, and are getting an early start at being Quislings.

    4
  54. a country lawyer says:

    There is really no downside for Tuberville in Alabama. Unless Sabin runs against him in the Republican primary he can remain in his job as long as he wants.
    Tuberville has never served. Everything he does relates to football where as head coach at the many schools he coached as long as he had a winning record he couldn’t be questioned. The Senate is different. He doesn’t realize or care that spring practice isn’t Parris Island and an unaccompanied tour in Korea isn’t a road trip to Gainesville or Baton Rouge.
    The services will stumble along with acting heads, but many of the families of the officers will be severely affected. Parents won’t know where or when to enroll their children in schools; the sale of homes will have to put on hold or leases may be lost; and many military spouses have jobs that will be lost, and the officers will not get their pay increases that come with promotion. These are real world consequences of Tuberville’s stunt.

    3
  55. Jay L Gischer says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker: You know, I think to a politician, saying something in the media amounts to “doing something”. It’s kind of what they do, after all.

  56. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Jay L Gischer: Which is why doing it resonates with the constituents, too. What’s sad it that “It’s kind of what they do, after all” may well be most of the job these days because it means that what’s getting done–saying something to the media–is all “We the peepul” get for our vote.

    What’s the point then? Do you choose who to vote for based on who will say the best “something to the media?” In that case, is Coach the most effective Senator because the most media listen to the “something” he’s saying?

  57. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @gVOR10: Maybe they’re all hanging out at the Royal Hawaiian because he didn’t pay them, and they can’t afford to come back?

  58. Jay L Gischer says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker: The most important thing a Senator does is vote. The second most important thing they do is put together a staff, both for themselves, and then for committees that they run. None of this takes up much time. (Fundraising is what they spend all their time on).

    Staff does all the work of writing legislation. Senators also negotiate, sometimes, with other Senators. And making public statements is often part of a negotiating strategy, it seems to me.

    Given the desired policy outcomes of a majority of Alabama voters, it makes perfect sense (at the moment) for them to have Tuberville as a Senator. I don’t like, it but that doesn’t matter. Playing well in media is a big, big part of the game at that level, and he probably does it well.

    It doesn’t work this way for all Senators – some are very quiet, and just do behind the scenes stuff (and, of course vote).

  59. DK says:

    @gVOR10:

    did Trump’s 2016 investigators ever come back from Hawaii with their incredible findings or are they still hanging out at the bar of the Royal Hawaiian?

    They discovered proof of Barack Hussein Obama’s African citizenship in Maui, but Biden had the basement of the relevant deep state facility jointed-owned by Hunter and Zelensky burnt down, after Hillary ordered a hit on said investigators.

    Hence why Biden ignored the Maui fires he caused. Or something.

    2
  60. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker: That’s because Warren is being disingenuous. She is aware that there are no actions Democrats can take that will “ramp up the pressure” but is also aware that jawboning on the topic will convince her constituents that “at least she’s doing something.”

    That is not disingenuous, it is reality.

  61. Paine says:

    Who’s to say that every other Republican senator isn’t perfectly happy with this logjam. A single senator from a deep red state can muck everything up while his colleagues can tut-tut his behavior in order to look reasonable.

    2
  62. Modulo Myself says:

    @EddieInCA: @DK:

    They are asking that question because Biden is old and they are getting that answer from Democrats because he is old. Complaining about it is pointless. And saying that it’s ageism to think Biden is too old for the job is like saying it’s ageism to wonder if your elderly parents are too old to take a trip to Greece.

    1
  63. MarkedMan says:

    @Modulo Myself: maybe it’s because I’m 63 (next week) but I really don’t think Biden is too old.

    1
  64. al Ameda says:

    I’ve wondered why Senator Schumer doesn’t tell everyone that he’s planning
    on doing this by calling a special session, in which these confirmations will
    be done one-by-one until all are done.

    Clearly normal order and ‘shaming’ an unshamable guy like Tuberville isn’t working.
    So … why not?

    6
  65. DK says:

    @Modulo Myself:

    They are asking that question because Biden is old and they are getting that answer from Democrats because he is old. Complaining about it is pointless.

    And complaining about Biden’s age is also pointless. Once again: the solution is what? What is better, and what is being done towards that goal?

    It’s like being in a village surrounded by barbarians that are storming the walls, and sitting around asking about the age of your weapons. Okay cool, thanks for asking. And? “Yes, the weapons are old.” So…what do you want to do now? You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.

    Biden and Trump are old. Point noted. Now what? Unless those doing the complaining have a viable solution (which they do not) and are working towards that fix (which they are not) then my focus is going to be on defeating Trump.

    When those complaining about the candidates’ age have a viable alternative plan, I’ll be ready to assist. I see no interest in any such plan, and right now, barbarians are at the gates with Western democracy is on the line. So. Good luck with the super helpful pointless questions I guess.

    3
  66. just nutha says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: No, calling for pressure to be ramped up when she knows it’s meaningless and unlikely to happen is grandstanding.

    And disingenuous.

  67. Jen says:

    @Jim Brown 32: Thank you for the explanation–that’s actually really helpful context. I do wish that there was some way to make the policy generic (“any medical procedure”) or, conversely, say, okay, if we have to rescind for one, we’re rescinding for all–and anyone upset about this can direct their emails/calls to Sen. Tuberville.

    2
  68. Modulo Myself says:

    @DK:

    They are not looking for solutions when they ask questions. They are trying to figure out who might not be motivated to show up and vote. Is it a problem for motivation and turnout if a huge majority of Biden supporters think he’s too old? I have no idea, to be honest. But (I think) that is what they are going after with these questions.

  69. Mike Burke says:

    @Jen: Yes, it does–units have to pay for the travel of servicemembers and their family members if care is not available locally. I used to be the policy guy for this at Department of the Army. Many unit commanders balk, but it can usually be accommodated somehow. It’s addressed in Part D, Chapter 3, Joint Travel Regulations. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Jan/04/2002917147/-1/-1/0/JTR.PDF

    1