EmptyWheel phrased the matter -
IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE HYPOTHETICALS, GET OUT OF THE CABINETFirst it was Pete Hegseth who said it, followed 24 hours later by Pam
Bondi. In the days ahead, I am sure we will hear the same from Tusli
Gabbard, Robert Kennedy Jr., Marco Rubio, Kash Patel . . . et cetera, et
cetera. et f-ing cetera: “Senator, I am not going to talk about a
hypothetical.” Implied in the body language and tone of voice is the
unstated addition “. . . and how dare you ask me about mythical future
possibilities, rather than focus on the here and now.” Though to be
fair, sometimes, as with Bondi’s exchange with Adam Schiff, that “how
dare you” is spoken out loud.
But here’s the thing: the job description of every member of the Cabinet, and every senior leader of a federal agency, is centered on hypotheticals.
The Department of Defense is certainly focused on hypotheticals. The
senior leadership — the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs, the
various regional commanders, and a host of others — spend a huge amount
of energy imagining hypothetical situations, and then planning on how to
address those situations. “What would we do, if Iran successfully lobs a
bomb at Israel?” or “How would we react to China sending a fleet up and
down the coast of New Zealand, at the same time that they run ‘war
games’ around Taiwan?” or “How would we respond to a North Korean
missile that appears headed to strike Japan?” Senior DOD folks fear one
thing above all: something happens that they never even imagined would
happen.
The State Department and the Intelligence agencies operate with much
the same fear. Every one of them dwells on hypotheticals every day, both
reactive (“What do we do if they do X?”) and also proactive (“How might
we game out a path to Z, knowing how others would react to our
actions?”) None of these national security leaders want to have to face
the question “How could you have missed this?” Lower level staffers put
together voluminous briefing books for senior leaders, trying to prepare
them for all the hypothetical situations they might encounter on a
foreign trip, or when meeting with a foreign counterpart here in the US.
[...] If Pete Hegseth and Pam Bondi hate talking about hypotheticals, they
are angling for the wrong jobs. The jobs for which they are nominated
require that they embrace hypotheticals, not reject them.
[...] Then, of course, there are agencies like the CDC, NIH, and FDA. Their
whole reason for being, at the top of a public health system that goes
down to local health departments, is to get ahead of diseases. Two
questions drive every bit of their work: (1) How can we slow and stop a
disease from spreading? and (2) How can we prevent an outbreak from
starting in the first place? Both of those questions require imagining
hypotheticals, [...]
The point is driven home by additional examples in EmptyWheel writing, so, again, the link is given at the start so readers can view the entire thing, with reader commentary there as part of the item, such as
...........................
Unfortunately, the EmptyWheel post gives no links to any online hearings video by which readers could assess assertions. Some wonks may be spending all day watching hearings, others might have less discretionary time or other priorities.
Crabgrass thinking on that argument: The future being uncertain to everyone, the "hypotheticals" trick is akin to nominated folks for SCOTUS saying it might come up for judgment so I defer. Here, this round, whether or not it might come up, I defer.
And it seems Bondi bent things more that way than Hegseth.
So, justify past conduct and decisions as a predictive tool of how an uncertain future might be handled? Well, not even that if one can simply say assertions are being made while clearly intended to frustrate my confirmation chances and that is wrong. But why say that much, say, "Anonymous smear."
In effect, why have hearings if a noninee will not justify a single thing about him\her\their-self\selves? (Pronoun use-choice by Hegseth not needing any inquiry since he'd want his kind, his gender and only his gender to be in combat.)
Having sought out some video via web search, this segment is viewed positively -
Richard Blumenthal Presses Pete Hegseth About 'Financial Mismanagement' Of Veterans Group
It is about the size and scope and looseness of Hegseth's past management of two veteran-oriented nonprofits. It is about worry over the money. More thought on that later, below. Inexperience on the big stage. At higher ranks.
Worrisome, not as much for its anti-woke start as things happened, and which some hammer on, or about pushups, but the ending about expensive ship-building from an ex-Navy guy, (similar to Bannon and DeSantis loyal to their service).
Tim Kaine just went smarmy with the smear, showing an insincerity which might be why Ms. Clinton picked him.
Angus King, "Your Position Is Torture's Okay—Is That Correct?': Angus King Grills Pete Hegseth In Senate Hearing" mattered, and Hegseth's answers were troubling.
Nominee good or bad manners may show, (possibly hot-headedness or hubris or weasel-like body language when the shoe pinches), there are things shown if the nominee declines to answer specific current fact, (not future policy) questions or argues over them?
I strongly expect Hegseth does not think he has a drinking problem, but when asked at least he did not say, "Not to my knowledge." Instead he was confronted and gave a different non-answer. Give him one point for that. And when asked about how many pushups Pete can do, Pete did not ask, "On a good day, or as a regular thing?" So give him a second point. For giving one direct answer. Proving he's above average on doing pushups and well versed on minutia of weapons that can be carried by combat infantry - but again, the ending dialogue about shipbuilding.
Bessant did well in saying Trump will set the policy, as Rubio did in discussing diplomacy with Rand Paul.
..............................
(Stupid is as stupid does, so did Norm Coleman write Hegseth's script, or was he scripted by committee? Maybe Tom Emmer prepped him the way Tom did for JD's VP debate.)
Give Hegseth a third point - when asked about possible military deployment stateside he fudged (going hypothetical we call it) instead of saying, "Haitians WILL NOT EAT eat other people's pets - CITIZEN's pets - when I'm heading the Defense Department [!!] and that's in Ohio or any other God-blessed state of the entire God-blessed U.S. of A.which I love! That will not happen or I'll eat my tattoos!"
BOTTOM LINE: This may not sit well with many, but, first there was earlier video about perhaps Trump switching DeSantis as nominee if Hegseth does not pass.
During the Trump-absent Republican candidate extravaganza, DeSantis articulated something not too different from Hegseth. Six of one, a half-dozen of the other.
But, personally, DeSantis creeps me out and seems a confrontation chaser, per earlier commentary and sidebar items.
Hegseth is sincere, DeSantis' sincerity is questionable, and Hegseth is willing to give up a very cushey big Murdoch FOX paycheck to take a cut in pay with much harder responsibilities, which favors him on sincerity scoring.
Crabgrass sees a bottom line truth that DeSantis, talk being cheap, would kick the can down the road but Hegseth would embody a cultural remake, aware of money being a factor and doing okay with that. Those vet nonprofits did not build him his mansion in Tennessee, FOX did, and while sloppy with the books at the nonprofits it looks as if Hegseth ran them without looting them, no proof of that came out and if that were the case it would have washed out that way, and the Pentagon has, if anything, too many bean counter mess-ups where the top guy is not responsible for counting beans. With the haze that way over the nonprofit money Pete will watch things.
Back to Sen. Sheehy's and Hegseth's discussion of Navy and shipbuilding, Hegseth in passing said people talk of unmanned aircraft (where ships if monitored well by satellite are sitting ducks), Hegseth mentioned unmanned undersea vehicles. Those, as well as the nuclear submarine fleet, and carrier fleet missle ships as carrier defense craft, are part of the equation. It was an apt reply while giving the Senator the reply he sought.
It was well handled. Last, Hegseth is smarter than Ron DeSantis ever was, is or will be and that counts. Passionate for the job, willing for a pay cut for more reality than FOX could ever give him, Pete really wants the job. I would expect a better result there with him in, over DeSantis as a fall-back offering. Faults exist, but confirming him is the better option over anything DeSantis could bring to the office. And Pete offers a better chance of the mess being lessened than DeSantis, who seems in over his head with Florida. Making Florida worse not better is the Ron DeSantis track record, so don't kick that upstairs unless having much love for a status quo.
Go with Hegseth. Trump setting policy is a bigger worry than Hegseth implementing it. And as ever, Trump could fire him on a whim whether he does a good or bad job, so that will be a constraint upon Hegseth straying too far in his own mood and direction.
I think Pete would close the revolving door on generals and admirals, which Ron also noted as a problem to be fixed. Pete seems less inclined to schmooze the defense contractors, while Ron could be buttered up. Defense contractors using connected former generals and admirals for entry and favors does need attention.
Trump had Flynn problems but seems to have been artful enough to put that into the past and forever so. Trump will not be lulled by revolving door former officers.
The military will be okay, even perhaps better, so long as Trump backs away from his noise about using them on U.S. soil against Americans. Which is expected.
_____________UPDATE_____________
There is a sense in the air that Hegseth and DeSantis each read Project 2025 and that Trump was somewhat disingenuous in disavowing any ownership there. That, going that way while JD wrote the preface of Kevin Robert's book. A Big Club and you're not in it?
Which Senator has been most aggressive in quizzing nominees about Project 2025, or will they all act shocked SCHOCKED once they see it happening.
Other possibility - if nobody is so crass as to mention it, the sense of it happening will not even take hold? Gee. And I went and mentioned it. Well, nobody yet . . . not anybody in the big club. Will that possibility gain mention in the Bezos Post?
Unlikely. But, Big Club, surprise me. Do you think Amy Klobuchar will be the one to point out our being Project 2025ed? Jake Sullivan? Will a peep be heard from anybody on Martha's Vineyard? A silence so universal that the Federalist Society will not crow over it?
