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.
