Grand Admiral nominee faces Senate scrutiny

If you have access to the senate thread, which I'm not sure if you do or not. I have been saying we should vote on SD.There is no argument from me for delaying the vote. I was ready to vote with the rest of the appointees. I have made my opinion clear, but I'm not the only member of the senate. If other members feel uncomfortable about the appointment then I can't do a damn thing about it except accept that as part of a body of individuals things won't always go how I would like. It's part of the process and sometimes it works great, and sometimes it takes a while.

I know this isn't what Kraken wanted. He's made that clear to me, but it is what it is. The senate has the right, via constitutional mandate even, to reject or confirm any appointments and that means that sometimes you gotta do a little dog and pony show, they are well within their rights, and pissing and moaning won't change that. Obviously, if you dislike it I would encourage you to run in the senate race and then you can vote how you would like on the matter.

Let me reiterate. I feel we should vote and not delay, but this is just my opinion so their is no confusion on where I stand on this. I agree that holding up the process isn't really helping the ERN. However, I accept that I am not the only person that is involved in this discussion, and the other 4 members of the senate are just as equal in this discussion so I must respect their opinions even if I disagree.
 
Elias Greyjoy said:
If the above is the major argument in delaying the vote, then you aren't looking at the consequences of such a delay. Now, we have a Mate (the second-lowest rank of the active fleet) running the Navy, in the stead of an appointed GA nominee, and coordinating our military movements. To my knowledge, Kraken hasn't received any leadership training when it comes to the Navy. I very much doubt this is how the President envisioned rebuilding the Navy - waiting on the Senate to confirm or deny his nominee all because we wanted to make the Senate feel "warm and fuzzy."
Click to expand...
I'll be so happy when I can just tell a GA what to do :emb:
 
Kraketopia said:
Elias Greyjoy said:
If the above is the major argument in delaying the vote, then you aren't looking at the consequences of such a delay. Now, we have a Mate (the second-lowest rank of the active fleet) running the Navy, in the stead of an appointed GA nominee, and coordinating our military movements. To my knowledge, Kraken hasn't received any leadership training when it comes to the Navy. I very much doubt this is how the President envisioned rebuilding the Navy - waiting on the Senate to confirm or deny his nominee all because we wanted to make the Senate feel "warm and fuzzy."
Click to expand...
I'll be so happy when I can just tell a GA what to do :emb:
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand your point, if you have one. Are you confident in your ability to lead the Navy in the meantime, even without knowing how to scout, trigger, or jump? Because that's the crux of my argument as to why this delay is a bad thing.

EDIT: Also, correct me if I'm wrong in assuming you haven't received training in any of the above.
 
modernsin said:
I agree with the point that just because Kraken received a lot of support in his Presidential run, the same level of support doesn't necessarily extend to his Cabinet picks, of which SD was probably the most controversial throughout the election and, obviously, after it.

However, I'm gonna call bullshit on at least 50% of Cormac's rationale for rejecting SD:
Cormac said:
The fact is that Seven Deaths has been combative and uncooperative under Senate scrutiny. Even if citizens were aware of the President's choices, they were also aware those choices would face Senate scrutiny and Seven Deaths has not passed the test.
Click to expand...
I hope my fellow Senators will agree, and moreover I urge President Kraketopia to withdraw and replace his nomination for Grand Admiral in light of his nominee's lack of cooperation toward the Senate, which he could not have anticipated and for which he shouldn't be faulted.
Click to expand...
What this says to me is that you're upset that SD didn't answer your questions the way you wanted him to. Your questions were fair, but so were his answers. He wasn't being uncooperative, he was being striaghtforward about his degree of commitment to the UIAF.

At no point did SD refuse to answer any of your questions or speak in a disrespectful manner. So hinging your vote of a Cabinet nominee on the fact that they gave consistently clear and honest answers is laughable. Not upsetting or offensive or controversial. Laughable. Your other objections are more reasonable, but you're mad that he didn't spoon-feed you the 'rah-rah Europeia's #1!' answers you wanted to hear? Get over yourself, man.

And I'm still not sure why you're tabling the vote on SD. Seems like most everyone's mind is made up, and CSP (the likely victor in the standby) has given his intended vote as well ("I won't vote against" is close enough, at least :p ). Dragging this out isn't doing anyone any favors.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, you weren't here when SD blew off his duties as President in favor of hanging out in Albion, a UIAF-affiliated region. For those of us who were here for that, SD's responses to the Senate about his UIAF commitments raise concerns that history is poised to repeat itself.

It's nothing like the Cormac situation -- having a GA without a WA nation available is sub-optimal, but he wasn't proposing to hold a leadership post in another region's military concurrently.
 
My point was that I'll be happy when I don't have to worry about coordinating the Navy, but can just give my GA a general direction.

I've received no training on leadership or scouting. Fortunately my current role as President of the Navy has been in organizing operations, and having SD present to do the actual military stuff(as is his right as an officer of the ERN).
 
Kraketopia said:
My point was that I'll be happy when I don't have to worry about coordinating the Navy, but can just give my GA a general direction.

I've received no training on leadership or scouting. Fortunately my current role as President of the Navy has been in organizing operations, and having SD present to do the actual military stuff(as is his right as an officer of the ERN).
Click to expand...
You're not President of the Navy. You are the Command-in-Chief of the Navy according to Constitution V. Which is a way more awesome name :wub:
 
Kraketopia said:
My point was that I'll be happy when I don't have to worry about coordinating the Navy, but can just give my GA a general direction.

I've received no training on leadership or scouting. Fortunately my current role as President of the Navy has been in organizing operations, and having SD present to do the actual military stuff(as is his right as an officer of the ERN).
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I'd imagine that would be your reaction, which is why I'm sort of surprised you seem rather hunky-dory with the delay in the vote.
 
Elias Greyjoy said:
Kraketopia said:
My point was that I'll be happy when I don't have to worry about coordinating the Navy, but can just give my GA a general direction.

I've received no training on leadership or scouting. Fortunately my current role as President of the Navy has been in organizing operations, and having SD present to do the actual military stuff(as is his right as an officer of the ERN).
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I'd imagine that would be your reaction, which is why I'm sort of surprised you seem rather hunky-dory with the delay in the vote.
Click to expand...
It's not my place to tell the Senate how to conduct its business. I'm not going to criticize it in public, or write an op-ed piece on the matter. I've made my opinions known, I've talked to some of the Senators about it in private, and that's the extent of what I believe my involvement should be.
 
GASP! BREAKING NEWS: Elias writes an Op-Ed piece to express his opinions - Europeians shocked that this keeps happening.

I'm sure that honeymoon phase will wear off eventually.
My point being, I don't see any Presidential "rage" per se that the Senate is holding up your plans to fix the Navy, which I'm surprised at.
 
It wasn't a criticism of your op-ed piece :p

It was me stating that I don't think the President should do something like that, especially when dealing with another branch of the government.
 
Which is fine - again, a respectable opinion. But if anything, I'd say your noncommittal to saying anything that might step on the toes of the Senate is coming off, to me at least, as complacency with the delay. I would think the mindset would be to get your guys in place and hit the ground running.
 
If you saw what I've been up to behind the scenes you'd realize how antsy I've been about getting this Cabinet in place :p
 
Skizzy Grey said:
With all due respect, you weren't here when SD blew off his duties as President in favor of hanging out in Albion, a UIAF-affiliated region. For those of us who were here for that, SD's responses to the Senate about his UIAF commitments raise concerns that history is poised to repeat itself.
Click to expand...
Yes I was. This happened less than a year ago and I remember it quite well.

My point was that Cormac seemed upset that SD's comments were somehow flippant or disingenous or disrespectful to the Senate, which I don't think they were. The other half of his argument - that SD's split loyalty is problematic - is something I agree with, as I've said earlier in this thread and elsewhere.
 
Sorry, I thought you returned more recently (or, perhaps, that SD's presidency was longer ago).

Anyway, my objection to what SD wasn't stylistic (Senators don't need their asses kissed), but substantive.
 
modernsin said:
My point was that Cormac seemed upset that SD's comments were somehow flippant or disingenous or disrespectful to the Senate, which I don't think they were. The other half of his argument - that SD's split loyalty is problematic - is something I agree with, as I've said earlier in this thread and elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I had forgotten about this thread and have only been paying attention to the Senate the past couple of days, as I've been busy.

As Skizzy put it, my concerns were more substantive than stylistic though I may not have conveyed that well. I had concerns about Seven Deaths before he ever answered a question, and those concerns were related to activity issues and conflicts of interest. Nothing he said in response to my questions gave me any confidence that I shouldn't have those concerns, or at least that I shouldn't be concerned enough to vote against his confirmation. He seemed combative, like he couldn't be bothered, and like these weren't real issues, which led me to believe we could see history repeat itself.

I didn't oppose his nomination because he wasn't sufficiently sucking up to the Senate. I opposed his nomination because he seemed to dismiss concerns about his activity and conflicts of interest, doing nothing to substantively address them.

To address Mouse's point... actually, no, I don't think I will. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top