By Matt Underwood Mark Kelly’s blunt assessment of Pete Hegseth as “totally unqualified” really hits home, doesn’t it? The sheer audacity of the situation, the idea that someone like Hegseth, given his background, could be considered for a position where he would oversee military personnel, is what Kelly found so “ridiculous.” It’s hard to disagree. It seems like the whole thing is just absurd.
Kelly’s comments on “Jimmy Kimmel Live” were a clear indication of how many people feel. While acknowledging the importance of journalists, the Senator pointed out that Hegseth’s background, is not aligned with the requirements of such a high level role. The core of Kelly’s concern is that Hegseth is primarily motivated by a desire to please the former president. It suggests a lack of independent judgment, something that is crucial in a leadership position. Kelly’s stance is further reinforced by the fact that he serves on the committee that had to confirm the appointment. He sees the potential conflict of interest.
The situation becomes even more convoluted when we consider the legal aspects. Kelly’s mention of potentially being prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for simply reciting the law is mind-boggling. It underscores the extent to which the rule of law itself is being challenged. To be attacked for upholding the law, particularly within the military context, is, as Kelly said, almost unbelievable.
It is definitely the sense that this is a symptom of a larger problem. The sentiment that “totally unqualified” is actually an understatement. The lack of merit in high-level appointments is a consistent theme. The comments suggest that many believe the intention was to appoint individuals who would not question the decisions of the higher-ups. This raises concerns about the integrity of the institution.
It’s very clear the frustration felt with the appointments. To feel that those in power are not qualified, and perhaps even deliberately chosen for their lack of qualifications, is a really scary prospect. The idea that someone’s primary qualification might be their willingness to be a “yes” person is extremely concerning.
The comparison of Hegseth to an astronaut is rather stark and effective. Mark Kelly, an astronaut, brings a certain degree of authority and credibility to the conversation. It really hammers home the vast difference in qualifications and experience. The contrast between an astronaut and someone perceived as unqualified really is quite clear.
The general consensus seems to be that Kelly is spot on. The reactions on social media are a reflection of that. The feeling that Kelly is standing up against something ridiculous is very strong.
The comments do suggest that Pete Hegseth is viewed as a person who’s known for being a bit of a controversial figure. The focus on his character and background, including the mention of alcohol use, seems to reinforce this.
The mention of the “Spoils System” suggests a view that the appointment of unqualified individuals is a deliberate practice. The feeling is that the emphasis is placed on loyalty over competence. It underscores the sentiment that the administration is not focused on merit.
Kelly’s action is praised by some as “awesome,” as he’s standing his ground. The idea that he’s not backing down resonates with people who want to see accountability. It seems to be the impression that these individuals are primarily selected for their lack of ability to challenge authority.
The discussion also turns to other questionable appointments. The mention of individuals like Linda McMahon, and others who are seen as lacking qualifications, broadens the scope of the criticism. The lack of respect for the law and the Constitution is one of the main problems the comments indicate.
The comments express a deep concern with the implications of the appointments. It’s the consensus that the incompetence in the high level positions serves a purpose. The appointments are an issue of rule of law.
The feeling is that these individuals will turn a blind eye to any of the actions of the administration. They seem to be unqualified, and the appointment is viewed as a joke.
The fact that the Commerce Secretary didn’t know the concept of tariffs and had ties with Jeffrey Epstein emphasizes this even more. The appointment of these people are a symptom of a much larger problem.
The belief that the US needs an astronaut as President, says it all. The suggestion is that someone with a scientific and technical background would bring competence and integrity. The comments see the administration as an effort to get the most unqualified people in power.
The discussion of the most troublesome appointments, and the emphasis on the lack of qualifications, is a powerful commentary. The consensus is that the appointments are dangerous and humiliating.