Skip to main content

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel
Via Foreign Policy:
President Barack Obama is expected to name Chuck Hagel as his choice for defense secretary as early as Monday, as critics of the former Nebraska senator prepare to go to war to fight his expected nomination.
This continues the long tradition of Democratic presidents putting Republicans in the top Pentagon position for no clear reason. Hagel was (at the time) pro-Bush-wars and (more recently) fought against greater inclusion for women and for gay Americans in the military, all of which would seem to disqualify him from the top leadership spot; on the other hand, Republicans hate him too, so his nomination isn't necessarily going to be a slam dunk:
Three Senate Republicans have come out firmly against Hagel's potential nomination, Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX), Dan Coats (R-IN), and Tom Coburn (R-OK). Cornyn said he can't vote for Hagel due to Hagel's "problem with Israel." Coats said Hagel "has had so much disrespect for the military." Coburn said Hagel "does not have the experience to manage a very large organization like the Pentagon."

Other GOP senators have expressed reservations about Hagel without committing to a no vote. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who previously praised Hagel as a close and dear friend, suggested recently that Hagel is not a real Republican. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said on Fox News Sunday, "There would be very little Republican support for his nomination. At the end of the day, there will be very few votes."

Does the administration consider the hostility from Republicans to be something that can be overcome, or are they considering it a plus—a demonstration that Hagel must be bipartisan, since pretty much everybody dislikes him? No clue. It seems a very, very odd choice, and it'll be interesting to see what arguments the administration uses to try to sell this nomination to the Senate.

Tell President Obama to appoint a Democrat to secretary of defense.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Apparently, even in a Dem White House, IOKIYAR (11+ / 0-)

      No doubt there will be some comments downthread reassuring us that the White House is just playing a briliiant game of 11-dimensional chess and we shouldn't worry about anything.

      Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

      by MJB on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:20:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Close but not quite (17+ / 0-)

        As for me, when you are President you can choose which people you want to work with daily. When you are President you can chose your own team. This isn't 11D chess. It is the President picking his team, not yours.

        •  The pentagon budget must be cut (12+ / 0-)

          Hagel knows this and is not supportive of the status quo bloated defense budgets. IMO, this is why Obama likes him. For a community that advocates a "plow shares from swords" philosophy, there are pros to Hagel at defense.

          It'd be nice to have a Dem at defense, but if it's during a period of cuts, it might not be ideal for that to happen with a Dem at the reins.

          •  I've learned positive aspects from the comments (9+ / 0-)

            Sounds like there are many good reasons to name Sen Hagel for SecDef. But the most important one to me is the POTUS wants him. This is as much about a personal working relationship as any other single aspect. After all the SecDef implements policy but the POTUS sets it.

            But most of all I was annoyed by the knee-jerk, inana hotlink to the petition. Tell the President to nominate a Democrat. What twaddle. Nomionate Joe Lieberman. He can't be worked with and no one likes his views. But he's a Democrat!

            Arg.

            The POTUS wants a person for SecDef, that counts for a lot IMO. Full stop unless someone has something more than the letter "R" by his name.

          •  He's no interventionist... (5+ / 0-)

            That is a good thing.  And while his past anti-gay comments are neanderthal at best, he IS a Republican during a time when serious cuts are needed... in the same way that... "Only Nixon could go to China."

          •  I think he'll think of the troops. I think he (6+ / 0-)

            cares about the soldiers. Right now, suicides are taking more soldiers than combat.
            That's a big deal, to me. I could be wrong, but I think this trumps a lot of other issues as we wind down the war.

            You can't make this stuff up.

            by David54 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:02:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  EXACTLY! (6+ / 0-)

            Obama put the defense cuts in the sequester. We ALL know how bloated and unsustainable the military budget is. Republicans want to increase spending.  Hagel has been very vocal about cutting the military budget to something that's not ridiculous. Also, he's a Republican so if Dems are gonna cut the Big 3, then an R should cut the military budget. He has the military chops to do so with credibility.   Panetta basically stabbed Obama in the back by going on TV about how "decimating" the sequester cuts would be.  No doubt he gets a cush job in the defense industry afterwards.  

            Hagel also puts American foreign interests first. He's been vocally against further military involvement in the middle east - including war with Iran.  So what if he initially supported the Iraq war?  So did Hillary.  At least Hagel reversed himself and saw the light.  

            And the gay thing?  Was 15 frakking years ago.  People change.  I'm an out (gay) and proud progressive.  I fully support Hagel for SecDef.

          •  Hagel opposed the war in Iraq. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Quicklund

            Hagel is also Vietnam veteran.  Hagel strongly and publicly opposed theIraq War.  By contrast, Democrat Superstars J. Kerry and H. Clinton both voted for the Iraq War and cheered it on.  I respect and trust Hagel  more than Clinton or Kerry on foreign policy.

        •  Why does this president want Chuck Hagel? That is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          radv005

          the question.  And his team, is our team, right?

          I belong to the Honey Badger Wing of the Democratic Party. We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. Have you seen our videos?

          by Cassandra77 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:35:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, his team is HIS team (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            winsock

            I do not sit in the White House and run meetings. I do not have to have a good working relationship with the SecDef.

            Barack Hussein Obama does.

            •  Sorry, but I think you are being overly defensive (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades, radv005, dkosdan

              of him.  We voted him a second term and some of us only did so because he wasn't as bad as Romney.
              He hasn't had an easy time of it and the republicans have really been dicks, but there are a lot of democrats who would make good Secs. of Defense.   Why nominate a republican who the republicans hate?  Why bother with a stupid fight like that?  If you're going to fight, fight for something important, like social security maybe?  and/or medicare?  Or even getting in a democrat as the sec. of defense?  No matter how much I try to give him credit for things, it always seems his biggest fights are against his base.  "He's the President, he can do what he wants"
              If only, he had a little more of that attitude while standing up for the 99% of us.

              I belong to the Honey Badger Wing of the Democratic Party. We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. Have you seen our videos?

              by Cassandra77 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 05:16:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry, to me all I hear is PBO cannot be trusted! (0+ / 0-)

                The PRESIDENT is named Barack Obama, not Chuck Hagel. Cucck Hagel will run DoD as Barack Obama wants or Chuck Hagel will be tossed out on his ear. We are voters not micromanagers. We elected BHO to be President so IMO we let him PRESIDE. And that means he chooses the team HE trusts, that HE meshes with well, that HE prefers - unless there is something major.

                All I hear in this argument is Chuck Hagel is a Republican, as though that fact alone means he will run roughshod over the President and enact polcies the President does not want. There is no evidence for that. It's just more Obama Derangement Syndrome.

                We elected BHO to be President so et him PRESIDE.

                •  I can't speak for everyone who voted for President (0+ / 0-)

                  Obama, but I can speak for myself.  I didn't elect him to be King.  If he adopts a policy of bipartisanship with the republicans, he should at least have a less hostile attitude toward his base.  You know, bi-bipartisanship.  That's not Obama Derangement Syndrome, that's just common sense.
                  I learned a long time ago to walk away from relationships where I support someone and they beat me down.

                  I'm glad he was re-elected instead of Romney, but he sure as hell ain't the savior you think he is.

                  I belong to the Honey Badger Wing of the Democratic Party. We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. Have you seen our videos?

                  by Cassandra77 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 05:55:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  the more I've read up on him the more I've liked (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ralphdraw3, poco, Quicklund

            him, Cassandra.

            I didn't know anything about him just the rumors that he's "antiIsrael" and "anti Gay"

            Those two "anti's" mean quite a bit to me personally so I did some wide ranging reading about the guy.
            I feel ok about him around Israel and though not thrilled ok about the comment he made about an ambassaor. We forget how far and fast the general public has come around Gay rights. Clinton was fine with dont' ask dont' tell which seems horribly wrong now. Many Dems were fine with it. Well Hagel made that comment during the Clinton admin. Someone should ask him if thinks that way now.

            Anyway this guy wants to slash the defense budget, would think deeply before wanting to put our servicemembers in harms way and believes in diplomacy before war. As a vet he will have the respect and trust of the men and women in uniform who are fighting--I think since our Commander and Chief doesn't maybe he wants a Sec Def who does have military experience. My guess is he'll have an easier time in relations with the Pentagon as well. As a Republican he will be immune to Republican criticism...much more immune anyway...when he does Obama's will.

            This guy reportedly has a lot of integrity. He hated Cheney. He fought the Bush admind around Iraq and called them incompetant publically
            My kind of Republican. RINO in the best way. He seems like a win win for Obama, really, the more I read

        •  Amen to that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jplanner, Quicklund

          If Hagel is who he wants, I support him.  However, I hope he will express some contrition in the hearings for the anti-gay thing.  

          •  i do too. The sentiment though seems pretty usual (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Quicklund

            for the time he said it. I would like to hear if he has evolved on that sentiment and if he can show contrition for saying it about that ambassedor candidate...it must have personally stung. He never apologised to the guy until recently and the man did not accept his apology.

            Yet,  think we forget how far and how fast the country/people have moved on Gay rights. Don't ask Don't tell seems so horrific yet it was passed under Clinton and it seemed fine and fair at the time to many people, even Democrats. Basically if we think about it D ask D tell basically is "ick who you are is abnormal...we dont want to see it but will ignore it if it's not in our face". Basically what Hagel said was a don't ask don't tell viewpoint--he said the candidate was too openly Gay and implied it wasn't a good representation of the US abroad..., said around the same time period as don't ask don't tell was instituted

      •  I'm as tired of people taking preemptively... (6+ / 0-)

        ...about 11-dimensional chess as I am about people talking about 11-dimensional chess.

        Please retire these tired conceits.

        There was nothing apart from tradmed gossip insisting that Rice was Obama's first choice over Kerry. There was simply no proof of that, yet people continue to assert it as if it were gospel, because the Chuck Todds of the world said so.

        'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

        by Maxwell on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:27:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jay1c

          I don't know how that story blew up the way it did. I always expected Kerry to get the nod, but it made sense for the President to at least look at other candidates.

          But that doesn't mean that Rice was his first choice. And frankly I'm very happy that Kerry ended up becoming the choice. He will make a terrific SOS.

        •  I haven't heard that mentioned once (0+ / 0-)

          anyway it need not be that. There are straightforward reasons why Obama thinks Hagel is the best person for this job...it'd needn't be some complicated "11th dimentional chess" thing.

          He may like that he's a Republican thinking it will be easier to implement the changes Obama wants...slashing Defense spending being one.

      •  what if Hagel is just his first choice (0+ / 0-)

        there doesn't need to be a sophisticated (chess) explananation

        Obama isn't a partisan, he's a pragmatist. He has reported grown  close to Hagel, a Vietnam vet that is rather dove-ish from what I have been reading.

        The diary glosses over and from what I am reading may mischaracterize Hagel. Sure he voted initially for the Iraq War but so did many Dem Senators including Kerry. Hagel was a big and early criticiser (from within the Rep party!) of the Bush admin. He called them incompetant and apparently loathed Cheney.

        I have no reason to defend the guy. I knew nothing about him so just have been doing some reading about him from a variety of legit sources. Supposedly we are a "reality based community". That's the reality of what I am reading. That Hegel really is his own person and always spoke truth to power. He's a Vet and he comes from a place where he would not put our sevice members in harms way unless it was absolutely necessary. I read he believes in diplomacy first. Other sources say though Leon Panetta was resistant to cutting the defense budget...which is pivitol for the deficit and so we can save needed social programs...Hagel would be very agreeable to cutting. That is what Obama wants.
        Maybe Obama feels he's the best choice. Remember he's in a postion to know stuff we don't.
        I don't give Obama a green light on this but I stay open minded.
        hs reasons for wanting Hagel can be straight forward

    •  They probably relish the fight (16+ / 0-)

      I agree with the argument that Dems should nominate Dems to the Defense Dept.

      That said, there's a reason why this is done that hasn't been mentioned much here, and that is because of the "Nixon to China" effect of putting Republicans in place who will ride herd over defense spending.

      Leon Panetta has been doing nothing lately but amplifying pampered generals' "concerns" about the sequester cuts, one feels because he needs to continually burnish his credentials as a "serious" "hawk" type. Whereas Robert Gates pretty much kicked butt keeping the military in line under Obama's ultimate control.

      And where the nomination fight is concerned, while Hagel was stupid on the wars and on LGBT issues, a long examination of the fact that he wasn't as stupid as McCain et al about those things only redounds to the Administration's credit. Again, not that I wouldn't prefer Flournoy, just that I see how this happens given the administration's constraints in re what constitutes being "serious"

      •  he wasn't just stupid on lgbt and gender issues (24+ / 0-)

        he was a bigot. and they don't change essentially overnight.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:24:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  you know who else was stupid? (28+ / 0-)

          The guy who said this:

          "I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position."

           -President William Jefferson Clinton, on signing DOMA.

          And you know who voted for it:

          Joe Biden, Tom Harkin, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Joe Lieberman, Carl Levin, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, and Harry Reid.

          Times change, we have to allow people to do so as well.

        •  Exactly. (14+ / 0-)

          A guy who once called someone "openly aggressively gay" will now be in charge of implementing DADT repeal and working to institute benefits for gay families and do whatever they end up doing on marriage and DOMA as it applies to the military.

          Not a happy thought.

          I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
          @indiemcemopants on Twitter

          by Scottie Thomaston on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:37:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Man I would hate to see what you'd call me (4+ / 0-)

          if you got a transcript of everything I ever said about anyone and anything for the last 30 years.

          It was the 90's, lots of folks said things like that and now they're all in for gay marriage rights. Times change. People change. I'm surprised you're so against the prospect of change. I welcome it.

          You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

          by Eric Stratton on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:27:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  how about (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FogCityJohn, Scott Wooledge, craigkg

            the last five years?

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:36:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  OK, Moses. (4+ / 0-)

              Next time you come down from Mt. Sanctimony, lemme have a look at whatever stone tablets you have on hand, and I shall learn which DC pols are righteous and pure.

              But for now, I'm just gonna be jazzed that the neocons are getting a swift kick in the balls and that maybe, just maybe, there actually won't be a major regional conflagration in SW Asia.

              I know, I know... my priorities are totally fucked up here.

              You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

              by Eric Stratton on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:52:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  yeah (2+ / 0-)

                it's sanctimonious to think there's something wrong with a democrat appointing a right wing republican who a whole three years ago got a 0% rating from the human rights campaign. got it.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:12:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Nice that we understand each other. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Shane Hensinger, poco

                  You care about the politics, I care about the policy. It's the Secretary of Defense, or as we used to call it... the Secretary of War.

                  I realize the optics of this are not especially good. And I look forward to lots of concern trolling on the part of neocons as they pretend to suddenly have a problem with Hagel's controversial statements. Personally I think they'll get the most mileage out of his comments on women.

                  All I care about is not going to war with Iran, and maybe even serious progress on an actual two-state solution.

                  You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

                  by Eric Stratton on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:20:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  the secdef (1+ / 0-)

                    will not decide those issues. he will carry his bigotry with him, every moment of every day.

                    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                    by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:22:05 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't think you get it. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      poco, bevenro

                      Lots of folks don't. War is rarely a decision that is consciously made. It has a nasty habit of happening against the wishes of the participants. Vietnam and Iraq weren't really that bad for this reason. They were wars of choice, and when people had had enough of them, it was relatively easy to end them.

                      WWI and WWII were in many ways spontaneous. The US was dragged into WWI to a large degree by Germany's U-boat attacks. It wasn't necessarily what Congress or the public wanted. France certainly didn't want anything to do with WWII, but they ended up hosting their second world war a mere 20 years from the conclusion of the first one.

                      If the US doesn't do something to get out in front of the Israel/Palestine issue, events could very well lead to it becoming more than something people are rude to each other about on Daily Kos. Those events might not be directed from Washington DC or even Tel Aviv. It could be any stupid thing that sets the fuse burning.

                      Hagel isn't my hero. He's not the bestest guy ever. He can be a dick, and has been on many occasions. But I'll take him, faults and all. He's the right guy for this particular job, if none other.

                      You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

                      by Eric Stratton on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:41:42 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  I'm an HRC donor. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Eric Stratton, v2aggie2, Rusty Pipes

                  But Chuck Hagel wasn't even in Congress in 2009, and probably had not cast any truly substantive votes on LGBT issues in years.

                  Steve Clemons on HRC and Hagel:

                  I am a big fan of HRC and Chad Griffin. I have gone to the last couple of HRC dinners as the guest of the managing partner of the mega-law firm of Paul Hastings, a straight and happily married Republican who supported Mitt Romney but is steadfastly committed to human rights and to LGBT equality. Paul Hastings is the major underwriter of the HRC dinner, and I hope that Chad Griffin or the firm invite Hagel and his wife to sit at their table and have a conversation on these issues.

                  Had Hagel been invited, he would have told the audience that he valued each and every man and woman who chose to serve this nation, on the battlefield and in other capacities -- regardless of his or her ethnic background, sexual identity or religion. I'm not sure where Hagel stands on same-sex marriage, but I know that he supports solid legal protections for gay families and is personally supportive of gays and lesbians.

                  How do I know this?

                  Because I'm a national-security wonk who happens to be gay and who happens to have interacted with and followed Chuck Hagel for years.

                  'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

                  by Maxwell on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:31:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  LOL Don't Hold Your Breath (0+ / 0-)

                re: Mount Sanctimony

                Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

                by TooFolkGR on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:23:46 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Wait, has he changed, though? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eric Stratton

            I haven't seen recent language from him (which may be me being blind)  This is an honest question, cuz I don't know

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:19:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't know. (0+ / 0-)

              Probably not much on the issue of not being especially fond of gay political activists. But he's not anti-gay in the sense of the Tea Party nuts, he's not one of them and from everything I can tell can't stand those bozos.

              At a minimum, he has essentially waved the white flag on things like gay marriage. I doubt he had any problem with ending DADT, which was always a stupid policy anyway.

              He apparently didn't care for some of the more, shall we say... passionate members of the gay rights movement. And lets be honest with ourselves, political activists are not always the easiest folks to deal with. This site has been a testament to that the last couple weeks.

              You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

              by Eric Stratton on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:30:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Obama is not going to nominate someone he'd (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, Observerinvancouver, lissablack

          have to terminate in 3 months because they were riding roughshod over US law. DADT repeal is the law and much like members of the military who opposed it are now doing, Hagel will comply with the law and do his utmost to make sure it's successful.

          This second-guessing the president's ability to judge who is best suited to carry out his wishes at DOD is absurd. WOuld I have been happier with Andrew Bacevich? Sure - but do I think Obama is making a mistake with this pick? No.

          "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

          by Shane Hensinger on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:32:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  to some of us (5+ / 0-)

            bigotry matters. a lot.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:37:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The DOD secretary has a lot of responsibilities (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco, Observerinvancouver

              not just the carrying out of the repeal of DADT, something Hagel has already pledged to do to the utmost of his ability. The parochialism of viewing his entire nomination through this single issue, ignoring the vast positive impact his nomination could have on so many other issues which could embroil our country in war and destroy our economy, is saddening.

              "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

              by Shane Hensinger on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:40:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  he is a bigot (5+ / 0-)

                do you get that? and hard right on most issues. 0% from human rights campaign. 0% from naral. 17% from lcv. no one with those sorts of numbers should be anywhere near a democrat's cabinet.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:42:17 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The strange marriage of GLBT advocates and neocons (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poco, winsock, Maxwell, bevenro, whizdom

                  on this issue is something I'd never thought I'd see. Conservatives like Jennifer Rubin are doing everything they can to torpedo this nomination and they're being helped by the president's titular allies like you.

                  Politics DOES make strange bedfellows.

                  "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

                  by Shane Hensinger on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:46:37 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  yeah (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    volleyboy1

                    the aipac crowd hates him, the anti-israel crowd loves him- single issue i/p people are just flip sides of the same coin.

                    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                    by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:10:52 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well I'm pro-Israel and I'm fine with him (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      poco, bevenro

                      And I'm gay too - which tends to blow your theory to shit now doesn't it?

                      "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

                      by Shane Hensinger on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:23:22 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Why does opposition to neoconservatism... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Shane Hensinger, poco, stivo

                      ...reduce to "anti-israel" "single issue i/p" for you?

                      I think why some folks are riding you hard on 'sanctimony' is that you refuse to concede that there are valid progressive reasons to support Hagel – despite some misgivings about his social conservatism – due to his embrace of diplomatic engagement, his appetite for cutting defense spending, and his extremely close friendships with administration principals like Biden and Kerry.

                      You're coming awfully close to calling other folks bigots (or indifferent to bigotry) because you're incapable of seeing another side. You're basically citing organizational scorecards, calling names, and complaining about a lack of adherence to party.

                      And doing it all on a blog started by a former Republican.

                      People evolve, and in some contexts, some things matter more than others.

                      'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

                      by Maxwell on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:43:20 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  At some point when I was much younger, I (0+ / 0-)

                  wrestled with the idea of whether (and how) one should be tolerant of bigots.  Not an easy reach but necessary, imo, because if you can't be tolerant of a bigot, what does that make you?

                  We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

                  by Observerinvancouver on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:05:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  i am a bigot against bigots (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    volleyboy1

                    i admit it.

                    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                    by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:11:18 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  intolerant of bigotry (0+ / 0-)

                    You would be a bigot if you are opposed to whole groups of people because of who they are.

                    Opposing bigotry is about opposing people because of what they do and how they act (namely in ways that hurt people)

                    I'm not a bigot for being intolerant of rapists and human traffickers either.

                    Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                    by Mindful Nature on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:20:52 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  What you're implying is that... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shane Hensinger, poco, stivo

              ...those who forgive bigotry are not as pure as those who do not.

              I'm not sure if you're gay or not, but Hagel has a number of prominent gay advocates who not only testify to his tolerance, but forgive him past words and votes.

              I understand that you do not include those among the pure who believe "bigotry matters". But frankly that's your limitation, not a proof of your virtue or tolerance.

              Personally, I'm willing to trade off his social conservativism for the strong possibility that he will kill many fewer people in the course of his job. That he will, indeed, kill many fewer people than many of the alternatives with a symbolic "D" by their names.

              If confirmed, I believe Hagel is one of the few to hold the job who will actually earn its reformed title of Secretary of Defense, instead of the past (and often more appropriate) Secretary of War.

              'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

              by Maxwell on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:19:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Why shouldn't we second-guess his pick? (1+ / 0-)

            The very fact that such picks have to go through confirmation hearings implies that it is not just his choice alone to make. The President enjoys wide latitude there, and ultimately, with most Cabinet post nominees, the Senate defers to that choice. But it does at least have to go before the Senate, and it's appropriate in that context to address our issues with the nominee -- in other words, to second-guess the President's pick.

            So if we're going to defend the Hagel pick on its merits, that's one thing. But if we're simply asserting that President Obama knows best on this issue... then precisely what are the confirmation hearings for, anyway?

            Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

            by Dale on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:41:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  are there other comments besides the one (0+ / 0-)

          he made about the prospective ambassedor in the 90s?

          Sadly, it seems about typical for it's times,. Don't ask don't tell at that time seemed fine even to many Dems (Clinton) yet basically said "who you are is so embarrassing/shameful/not ok that we don't want to know about it...but it's ok if you don't show us". Hagel's comment about the ambassedor was about him being too "out seeming" in his being Gay (he was an activist).
          Bigotted but I wonder if it wasn't typical of the times?

          I am curious to know if he has evolved on this opinion because it is not ok if he hasn't. Does he feel contrite now?
          Was it from ignorance? does he own it?

      •  A Secretary of DEFENSE (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FogCityJohn, volleyboy1, sfbob, craigkg

        needs to be anything but "stupid on the wars" or a renowned bigot when it comes to LGBTQ issues. From what I've read, he's a serious and proud misogynist as well. Are the bars really set that low?

        •  A "serious and proud misogynist"? (0+ / 0-)

          That's a pretty over-the-top assertion. What's the evidence of that? Is this on the basis that he is pro-life?

          'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

          by Maxwell on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:57:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Found this immediately after googling his name (0+ / 0-)
          •  As I said in an earlier comment: (0+ / 0-)

            In Congress, Hagel got an average 94 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee and got a 0% from NARAL but that's not the only reason he's an obvious misogynist. In interviews, he told journalists he didn't believe the banning of abortion needed exceptions for rape or incest because "so few pregnancies were involved". Also: "As I looked at those numbers, if I want to prevent abortions, I don't think those two exceptions are relevant." Awesome quotes for a potential SOD who is very familiar with the military (obviously) and undoubtedly knows that the majority of abortion requests in the military come from raped women, seeing as you are twice as likely to be raped by a fellow American when you're a servicewoman in the US military. Could make awesome friends with Todd Akin, too, probably. Though he's worse in a way, because he doesn't even have a magical thinking excuse - he finds rape irrelevant.

            That's not all, though. Chuck Hagel voted SIX TIMES, most recently in 2003, to prevent American servicewomen from using their own money to pay for abortions at military facilities abroad, including for those stationed in countries where abortion is illegal. That policy drastically limited servicewomen's options, especially since many countries where the military is stationed forbid abortion. A lot of soldiers were forced by him to continue unwanted pregnancies or had to return home to get an abortion, putting their careers at risk.

            To top it off, he's consistently voted no on measures to reduce to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives and yes on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. He scored a zero on the Human Rights Campaign’s Senate scorecard between 2001 and 2006. All of this information is readily available.

            The facts listed above do make for someone who is an open and dangerous misogynist who should not be deemed fit to serve a Democratic administration.

      •  This may be a good pick! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco, v2aggie2

        I kinda like and respect Chuck Hagel. America would be much better off if we had a real honest opposition Republican party instead of the current tea party republican party. It would be great if folks like Chuck Hagel were the face of today's GOP.

        As for his LGBT issues, as a 60+ male, I remember having discussions with my wife and daughter back in the late 90's regarding gay marriage. I was against the whole idea. As time went by I realized that my initial opinion was wrong. I have changed and I believe Mr. Hagel is capable of change.

        I'm for giving Chuck Hagel the benefit of the doubt.

    •  Exactly (14+ / 0-)

      When are the Dems going to realize that they're the only ones playing the Bipartisanship Game.  Republicans don't even pretend anymore (even with a low power appointee).

      Maybe their new slogan should be:  We cowtow to our enemies and throw our own under the bus.

      There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

      by Puddytat on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:28:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm a bit surprised (29+ / 0-)

      that Obama's going to take on AIPAC on this.

      I can't quite say I support Hagel -- who never opposed a war when he was in the Senate and who sits on Chevron's board -- and I don't think it makes a great deal of difference who holds that position. However:

      1) I think he's better than others who would be likely to be named.

      2) Better in the sense that he would be less likely to back a war against Iran and less likely to support aggression and brutality by Israel's government. He's had the courage to break with conventional opinion on these issues -- criticizing, for example, Israel's war on Lebanon in 2006. No small thing. And if he make US policy toward the IP conflict just a little more sane and humane, that would be a big accomplishment.

      3) He's less likely than some to get rolled by the Joint Chiefs on, for example, withdrawal from Afghanistan (leaving troops there.)

      4) A battle over AIPAC and neocons is well worth winning, and I think it's awkward the Daily Kos is joining forces with the likes of William Kristol.

    •  Wonder who one of my favs Turkana would suggest (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto

      among Dems for the nomination? :)

      Or since he, as most of us,  has 'evolved' wonder if you would offer a short list or a link for us to work off of?

      thanks

      Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

      by divineorder on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:47:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's weird. (2+ / 0-)

      Almost feels like this could be our Harriet Miers nomination -- the one that no one but the President wants, and at the first sign of trouble on the Hill, there's going to be no one motivated to defend him.

    •  Rice walked out herself. She didn't have to (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      v2aggie2, doroma, askew, FistJab

      do that.

      President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

      by Drdemocrat on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:06:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah (0+ / 0-)

        if obama had told her he'd fight for her, i'm sure she'd still have done that.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:33:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do people still believe Rice was going to make it? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, edwardssl

          She wasn't even nominated for chrissakes. How is it not obvious that Kerry was the main choice all along? Rice dropped out early and Kerry slipped in without any fuss - except from kossacks of course. Obama knew what he was doing. More and more I now analyze things by ignoring Dkos poutrage which appears to be on autopilot these days.

          If I knew it was going to be that kind of party, I'd have stuck my ---- in the mashed potatoes! - Paul's Boutique

          by DoctorWho on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:57:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  You Really Think It was Her Choice? (0+ / 0-)

        I seriously doubt that Rice unilaterally choose to remove herself from consideration. I feel certain she was either asked to withdraw or offered to so and it was happily accepted.

    •  I became curious about Rice after the Benghazi (5+ / 0-)

      nonsense. I stumbled across this acticle, by none other than Samantha Power. It concerns the Clinton Administration's actions, or lack thereof, during the Rwanda Genocide. What I read about Susan Rice left me feeling decidedly less upset about her nomination being scuttled, however ridiculous the GOP's complaints against her may well be.

      It's possible to be disgusted at the Tea Party nuts for using the horrific deaths of four Americans for as a prop for political theater, and really bad theater at that; and still not think Susan Rice is the best person in the world.

      Karma's a bitch, dude.

      You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

      by Eric Stratton on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:21:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  i also wasn't happy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Stratton

        with her fracking investments, and prefer kerry anyway, but even he has some ugly marks on his record. if he had voted against the iraq aumf, he'd right now be concluding his presidency.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:35:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  His support for the Iraq AUMF (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laurence Lewis

          was just sickening. And I say that as a true admirer of the man. But that day was... it's hard to say. I was watching on MSNBC and I was just kind of shell shocked. It was so obviously a bad idea, whether you were a dove or not. Invading Iraq was just an insult to logic and reason. For one thing, I knew then and there that there would major cuts to social programs and debt problems because of it, absurd cost projections from Paul Wolfowitz notwithstanding.

          I doubt Kerry would have won in 2004, personally. He might have, but at the time terrorism was the #1 issue and the GOP still enjoyed a sizable advantage on that issue. I doubt the public would have caught to reality on that in time for the 2004 election whether Kerry had dome the right thing with respect to the Iraq AUMF or if it had been Howard Dean. Public opinion takes time to shift. Look how long, and how many massacres, it took to shift PO with respect to gun control.

          You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

          by Eric Stratton on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:01:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  his vote for it (0+ / 0-)

            after spending months arguing against it played right into bush's hands, because they were casting him as a flipflopper. i think that vote may have cost both kerry and hillary the presidency. but that's the problem with this whole hagel thing- democrats make lousy votes to appear tough, because democrats are supposed to be weak on national defense. it's time to kill that entire framing, and appointing a republican secdef doesn't exactly do that.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:15:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, yes. I'd prefer Wesley Clark in that sense. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco, Paper Cup

              But this isn't about Obama trying to look "tough". That was Hillary's mistake and it cost her the 2008 nomination more than any other single factor.

              This is about Obama sending a message to Netanyahu. Full stop. That's it. Hagel isn't going to DoD to screw over gays. Whatver his personal feelings about DADT repeal, his record in the USMC indicates that he is capable of executing orders given to him by his superiors.

              There is no better way in which Obama could stand up to the neocons. There is no other individual who would have a better shot at getting through the Senate over the objections of the Israeli-American right. That is, of course, assuming that Democrats stand behind the President's nominee.

              DADT is gone. That war is over and the good guys won. Hagel has waved the white flag. Cease fire already.

              You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

              by Eric Stratton on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:29:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  How about Wesley Clark? I Always liked him. (3+ / 0-)

      Or that other guy who used to be on the talkie circuit.....
      Richard Clarke?  There are better choices and they'd at least be worth the fight.  Seems like by nominating Hagel, Obama is trying to prove how unreasonable the repubs are.  Or, he's just too naive.

      I belong to the Honey Badger Wing of the Democratic Party. We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. Have you seen our videos?

      by Cassandra77 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:34:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wouldn't worry about it overly (1+ / 0-)

      Whoever is SecDef is unlikely to make much difference in the size and clout of the MIC in any administration, now or the foreseeable future.

      Have you noticed how much that picture of Hagel looks like Jamie Dimon?

      We are often so identified with whatever thoughts we may be having that we don’t realize the thoughts are a commentary on reality, and not reality itself. -- Gangaji

      by Mnemosyne on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:54:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

      What if Hagel is Obama's top choice and he feels there isn't a second choice nearly as good?

      With Rice, he felt Kerry (if he was second choice...we never officially knew Rice was his first choice to begin with) was also a great choice. Kerry has been very supportive of Obama (he was his debate partner for Romney and also was the one that hand picked Senator elect Obama to speak at his 2004 convention...basically propelling him toward the Presidency).  Kerry is older it was kind of his last chance..>Rice is a generation younger. So for all we know Kerry was his first choice or he was undecided between the two.

      I try to remember that there always is a lot of stuff we don't know, explanaitons we don't know...before I have a reaction.

  •  SMH (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Grendel, betelgeux

    I have to say I hate it when Obama pulls one of these. I didn't realize he didn't like Kerry. What happened there?

  •  Here's my articulate comment: (13+ / 0-)

    This is some fuckin' lame ass bullshit.

    The GOP can't win on ideas. They can only win by lying, cheating, and stealing. So they do.

    by psnyder on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:17:37 PM PST

  •  I really don't understand this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    betelgeux

    One.  Is Obama personal friends with Hagel?  

    The liberty of democracy is not safe if people tolerate growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself.---FDR

    by masslib on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:18:31 PM PST

  •  I like the choice (41+ / 0-)

    I understand the arguments about portraying Democrats as weak or soft, and that this doesn't help us improve our bench. Valid concerns.

    But to the actual issue of governing the Pentagon, to my mind if Obama hopes to actually make serious, structural defense budget cuts he needs the political cover a Republican provides, particularly one with Hagel's resume.

    •  But there is no real indication... (5+ / 0-)

      ... that the White House will try to make serious, structural defense budget cuts.

      Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

      by MJB on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:22:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hagel is that indication (28+ / 0-)

        Hagel has been quite clear about the need for a shift away from the current funding system:

        "The Defense Department, I think in many ways has been bloated,” Hagel told the Financial Times last year. “So I think the Pentagon needs to be pared down. I don’t think that our military has really looked at themselves strategically, critically, in a long, long time.”

        Hagel also has taken a tough stance against job creation at the Pentagon.

        “Our Defense Department budget, it is not a jobs program,” he stated last year. “It’s not an economic development program for my state or any district.”

      •  Which is precisely how to make serious, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OffTheHill, Aquarius40, divineorder

        structural defense budget cuts, by coming up with a plan before announcing it. If they telegraphed it beforehand, the military establishment would line up immediately to make it DOA and impossible to do. The only way to effectively beat them is by thinking like them, militarily. They're pretty good at that I hear.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:28:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  perhaps, the current situation makes that hard (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tb mare, kovie, poco, Quicklund

          I think Obama wants this fight in a year or two, but right now we just have to finish fighting the fights of the past four years.

          If nothing else, a 2014 SOTU that focuses on how to shift our military budget and structure to the new reality, and a challenge to supposedly spending concerned Republicans to put their money where their mouths are.

          •  So, your plan is to appease Republicans (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            divineorder

            so that they will Follow Obama's lead.

            I think we tried that already. Doesn't work.

            Besides, they seem to hate Hagel to begin with.

            •  Your last sentence... (5+ / 0-)

              ...contradicts your first.  If they hate him, it's obviously not an attempt to appease anyone.

              "Nonsense!" said Alice, very loudly and decidedly, and the Queen was silent.

              by RIposte on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:42:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  So your argument is to misstate your opponent's? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pluto, Quicklund

              No, the plan is to deal with the current cliffcrisisceilingdefaultrophe that I expect will take most or all of the legislative oxygen in 2013. However that works out, I have my policy preferences, but they are incidental to the overall point.

              Then, in 2014, you set the foundation for a restructuring and significant defunding of the DoD. Spoken about in the context of a new world where we need to cut spending. And when the GOP shows they are unwilling, it is yet another quiver in the "these assholes aren't serious about their jobs" quiver that Obama then hammers them with in the midterms (not that it does much good due to redistricting).

            •  No, rather, by creating and promoting a consensus (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              OffTheHill, Pluto, poco, Quicklund

              that accepts that the military has to be restructured (read: scaled down) to meet the national security needs of the early 21st century (and if that results in significant cost savings, great, but obviously that wasn't the reason cough cough). This takes time, and the right strategy and people. I assume that Obama views Hagel, a military-friendly conservative Repub, as part of that.

              It's a strategy of gradual ideological encirclement.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:51:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  well put (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pluto, kovie, poco

                People seem not to realize the massive undertaking that a structural transformation of the defense budget will be. Nowhere are there more incumbents more capable of protecting their interests than at Defense.

                •  In the decline of a superpower (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poco

                  ...that's not a pretty picture. And clearly we're talking about "defense" and not "military."



                  Denial is a drug.

                  by Pluto on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:08:12 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  It's probably the most powerful lobby (0+ / 0-)

                  except perhaps Wall St., and probably even more powerful since it's in every state and district via bases, contractors and service members, and owns most of congress. Plus, as much as Americans love capitalism, they love the military even more. And the military brass are extremely political and savvy. These are some serious political forces to go up against and Obama knows it.

                  Thank god Petraeus is no longer a viable nominee. Gotta wonder if he wasn't outed precisely for this reason. Is Obama more Chicago than we realize?

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:11:20 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, it does (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            OffTheHill, Quicklund, poco

            This can't be done overnight. See my comment below. He has to create an ideological consensus around restructuring and scaling down the military to meet future needs before he can actually do this.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:53:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Obama can't wait too much longer (0+ / 0-)

            If he puts off going after the defense budget for much longer, then a speech on restructuring the military budget won't have any more long-term effect than Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" speech.  

            I.e., if it comes at the very end of a two-term presidency, then it's just words.

            Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

            by MJB on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:01:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is going to take several administrations (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco

              The ground needs to be set for such a scaleback before it can happen. It took us 30 years to become hyper-militarized and it's going to take at least 10 to reverse that. Plus, there's economic impact to consider. Many of these defense firms will have to be converted to civilian projects and that takes time.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:14:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  "Indication" time: the State of the Union address. (12+ / 0-)

        Remember, the sequester is on the table, both Party's tables. Congress cannot expect to cut just on the domestic side. In fact, the military is due for some cuts and tough management.

        I think Defense is the perfect place for a Republican. And Hagel's a good choice. Let the GOP Long Knives have a go at savaging one of their own. The potenial head of the free world's military might had better be able to take it. And, Hagel can say some things during the confirmation process to his ex-fellow Senators that no Democrat would have credibility saying.

        As for Hagel's "bigotry," converts are the best kind. Working for this Commander in Chief, who himself could be viewed as somewhat of a convert on these important issues, Mr. Secretary would even more credibility explaining the new world to his Joint Chiefs and generals, admirals, etc.

        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:49:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  +10 great comment n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quicklund
        •  You make some good points, TRP, you have me (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, FistJab

          thinking it might not be a bad choice afterall, I hope.

          Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

          by wishingwell on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:06:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Agree with TRP's comment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TRPChicago

          (... although more Dem SecDefs better in long term)

          Benefits of Hagel's appointment have always been clear on Iran, AIPAC, spending restraint and restructuring.

          On anti-Gay and gender-related attitudes, the obvious fact that Hagel "gets" these culturally inherited instinctive attitudes, should make the military more receptive to his orders to deepen the repudiation of these attitudes.

          Because of Hagel's Republican profile and the previous praise of him by Republicans, each new criticism by a  Republican does much more to make the critic appear extremist than to damage Hagel or Obama.

          Having hearings on the Hagel appointment during negotiations related to the upcoming military sequestration deadline appears to be a very useful way to demonstrate to many audiences the conflation of such extremism with Republican fear-mongering on military spending cuts.

      •  Except that he's already cutting Defense. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund

        And proposed much bigger cuts as part of the debt limit extension deal.

    •  one of the best arguments one can make for this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, Matt Z

      pick I suppose.

    •  Yeah, if you're going to start (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell

      really hacking at that mess, I suppose it's good to have someone you can let everyone shit on.

      I would still prefer a dem.

      The other possibility that occurred to me is that the job will likely suck so much only a republican would be dumb enough to take it...

    •  Americans (not strong partisans, but the (4+ / 0-)

      people in the squishy middle) like bipartisanship. They loved Gates as SecDef.

      The president is going to have to fight Congress for everything this term.  Being able to say, "hey, I not only recognize but actually promote reasonable Republicans" is not a bad card to play with the American people.

      And yeah, cutting defense is always unpopular. Even liberals who don't like war build-up get kind of itchy when their cousin is in the military or their daughter owns the sandwich shop next to the base that might be closed.

      Republican SecDefs provide some cover.

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:43:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That is a point I had not thought of , OTHill. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poco, Matt Z

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:01:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I Agree (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      docmidwest, poco, too many people, Matt Z

      Hagel, has is a decorated Vietnam Vet, who became an outspoken critic of our neo-con foreign policy, especially the wars.  
      Hagel, has a lot of support from former military and states department brass, that are opposed to America's blatant misuse of our Military--and against any attacks on Iran.
      That said, Hagel would get more cover for Obama to cut military spending.
      Obama mentioned in the debate vs Romney that the military wasn't geared for 21 century threats--because it antiquated and bloated.
      Lastly, I believe Hagel was really disturbed by what happened to the our Vets--and regrets his decision on Iraq--and wants to forge a legacy.

  •  Dems dont want him, Reps dont want him (0+ / 0-)

    Pretty much a lose/lose.  Why bother?

    Also, I can kill you with my brain.

    by Puffin on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:19:50 PM PST

  •  I guess I"m just not in synch with the mainstream (11+ / 0-)

    I was against his nomination UNTIL I was told that he had once kind of, sort of, in a half-hearted way publicly stated the obvious truth that the Greater Israel lobby has way too much influence over congress.

    I do wish a democrat was being nominated but I don't want him to go down for having offended AIPAC in some way.

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

    by Spider Stumbled on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:21:03 PM PST

  •  Isn't It Really as Simple As Obama Using (6+ / 0-)

    A Republican as cover for giving Israel a very slightly cold shoulder?

  •  "Not a real Republican" (10+ / 0-)

    Oh this has all the makings of a regular clown circus (without the circus or any funny clowns). So the GOP is going to torpedo the SecDef because the candidate isn't extreme enough? WTF? Are they going to insist the new SecDef pre-approve an Iranian/Syrian invasion before they approve? Can someone, anyone, in the media point out how fucking insane the Republicans are?

    What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

    by ontheleftcoast on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:21:32 PM PST

  •  that is disappointing I don't mind telling you. (0+ / 0-)

    Scott's writings were pretty compelling regarding this choice.
    And why ? It is not like he will be easily confirmed by republicans. So, I don't really get this one. meh.

  •  OR, does this set up what's-her-name as the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ontheleftcoast

    replacement if Hagel goes down.

    Will Obama take "the loss" in order to get the woman he REALLY wants in place?

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:21:48 PM PST

    •  To be honest it almost feels like he served up (0+ / 0-)

      Rice because he knew she'd never make it thru and Hagel would be seen as the "reasonable" choice. I don't get it. Someone's going to have to explain it after it's all over and I probably still won't get it.

      What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

      by ontheleftcoast on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:24:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rice was for State. I'm talking about Flournoy (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder, askew

        "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

        by zenbassoon on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:27:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Doh. And that's why I flubbed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OffTheHill

          I failed on name recollection and just went with "Democrat hated by Senate". Thanks for the correction.

          What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

          by ontheleftcoast on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:30:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  you're confusing state and defense (0+ / 0-)

      Assuming you mean Susan Rice, the SOS potential nominee who Obama caved on after McCain went all Benghazi Bullshit on her.

  •  Look, President Obama (0+ / 0-)

    If you absolutely feel like you must have a Republican in one of your Cabinet positions, put him as Secretary of Transportation or something like that.

    28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

    by TDDVandy on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:23:01 PM PST

  •  Why don't we like Hagel? (13+ / 0-)

    I'm not being facetitious, I'm just asking a straight question for the straight answer(s). I really don't know.

    I like that he doesn't cowtow to AIPAC. J Street (a "pro-Israel, pro-peace" organization headed by Jewish Americans that want a two state solution) has recently asked for donations to help get Hagel involved as SoD. I love Hillary in many ways, but her hardline approach on Israel to the detriment of the Palestinians deeply bothers me.

    Just the fact that so many of these more idiotic Republicans don't like him makes me think something might be not so bad there. I would not typically want a Nebraska Republican in charge of much (Deb Fischer sends chills up my spine), but Hagel did also endorse Bob Kerrey in his senate run a couple of months ago, so he can "cross the aisle".

    Yes, there are plenty of Dems, but why would Hagel be the R that the administration would want above others?

    The arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice - MLK

    by Ripeness Is All on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:24:03 PM PST

    •  There's his crappy comments (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MPociask, craigkg

      that James Hormel was unsuitable to represent the United States because he's gay.

      Yes, he's apologized for that, sort of ... but it's still a problem for me.

      I actually mostly like his policy ideas regarding defense.

      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

      by jrooth on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:34:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He's a bastard. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LSophia, Dogs are fuzzy, sandbox

      This idiot got an average 94 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee and asserted he didn't believe exceptions for rape or incest [regarding abortion rights] were necessary because, wait for it, so few pregnancies were involved. "As I looked at those numbers, if I want to prevent abortions, I don't think those two exceptions are relevant."

      He has voted six times to block servicewomen from using their own money to pay for their own abortions using military medical facilities while stationed in countries that don't allow abortion. Most of times these pregnancies are a result of rape too, what with servicewomen being twice as likely to be raped by a fellow American than even civilian women are.

  •  I could care less what party Obama nominees (14+ / 0-)

    belong to, if any, compared to whether they're the best person for the job. I have no idea if Hagel is that, but it has nothing to do with his party.

    However, being a Repub (whether or not McCrazy and his Rump Riders Brigade think so) and Vietnam veteran with experience on the senate Armed Forces Committee, he probably has pretty strong ties with the military establishment, speaks the lingo, knows how they think and operate, and understands the issues. The military is in need of some serious scaling back as we wind down these wars and shift from a "hot war" to an intel-based approach to national security and defense, and Obama's going to need someone to implement that who is well-connected to the military establishment.

    Obviously he could have picked someone like Jack Reed or Jim Webb for the job, but he needs Reed in the senate given that he's taking Kerry, and Webb has proven to be a bit of a loose cannon. What other Dems are well-qualified for the job and stand a decent chance of being confirmed? Shinseki?

    We should be glad he didn't pick Colin Powell.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:24:44 PM PST

    •  Shinseki? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, Pluto

      Could he be confirmed?

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:47:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just throwing out one of the few military Dems (0+ / 0-)

        I could think of. Obviously, there are others, but they're not well known.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:54:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Excellent work as Scty of Veterans' Affairs, (0+ / 0-)

        and as Army Chief of Staff.  Addionally, he was prescient about the Iraq War.

        Eradicate magical thinking

        by Zinman on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:14:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco

          But this

          he was prescient about the Iraq War
          made the Republicans despise him as I recall. He and Rummy bumped heads more than once.

          And if they didn't already dislike him, he was an outspoken supporter of John Kerry when he ran for president.

          Running VA isn't on the level of being SecDef, politically speaking. I admire the heck out of the guy. But I'm not a GOP senator either.

          © grover


          So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

          by grover on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:27:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Screw the Repubs, if Harry Reid does it right .. (0+ / 0-)

            Filibuster reform will make the Repubs impotent on confirmation votes if Harry gets enough support in the Senate.

            So, are you willing to reconsider Shinseki's nomination prospects under a majority rule confirmation process in the Senate?

            Eradicate magical thinking

            by Zinman on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:07:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Yes to Hagel (18+ / 0-)

    I agree with OfftheHill. Bug I would add, along the lines of JStreet who support this nomination enthusiastically, that Hagel has more progressive views than Gates, Clinton and most of the foreign policy establishment on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine, and defense budget cuts. He is to the right of the Democrats on domestic policy but who cares. On important elements of foreign policy where party labels don't matter he is as progressive as we can get.

  •  A Democrat should have this job. (3+ / 0-)

    Very disappointed in this pick.  

    The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

    by Beelzebud on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:25:04 PM PST

  •  Completely disagree (11+ / 0-)

    Great choice by the president...hope its true

    •  Can you provide a few reasons... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vote4Obamain2012

      ... for your opinion, besides Obama picked him?

      •  come upthread (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aquarius40, doroma, wishingwell, poco, Pluto, Matt Z

        Decent discussion starting about 25 comments above in my "I like the pick" thread. Might be easier to all talk in one place?

      •  Really simple (11+ / 0-)

        Hagel is better than any democrat who would be considered in the following areas:

        Afhanistan - he was against Obama's surge and thought the war should end then

        Iran - He's not only against a military strike, he's also against unilateral sanctions. No democrat holds that position.

        Israel - Unlike just about EVERY Democrat he's not beholden to them and would be an honest broker

        Defense Budget - He's said, once removing the bluntness of the instrument, the level of the cuts in sequester are doable/ Again, a position almost no other democrats are taking.

        So either we can obsess over party labels or actually, you know, look at what the guy believes. And if you think Obama picked him to suck0up to Republicans, you have no idea the bridges he burnt with his crusade against the Iraq war. His wife basically said his last few years there basically no republican spoke to him. Its a no brainer, and a courageous choice by Obama

  •  Why do we choose Sec Def as the position to show (4+ / 0-)

    bipartisanship.  It seems that President Obama has conceded the point that Republicans are better for Defense.  I think that the past decade has shown the exact opposite to be true.  The only thing that Republicans know how to do is increase the Defense budget and privatize its functions.

  •  This might be DC's biggest issue... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012

    "must be bipartisan, since pretty much everybody dislikes him?"

    That logic seems to drive much of what passes for "compromise" among Democrats who think that Republicans can be reasoned with.

  •  Site poll? (aka Poll this f'ing post, KOS!) (7+ / 0-)

    I'd love to see what percentage of our community is ok with this nomination. I've got +3 for my "I like the choice" comment, so I'm not alone (or three Kossacks feel so sorry for me that they're repping dumb comments).

  •  This nomination doesn't bother me. (13+ / 0-)

    It seems that Hagel, like Obama, doesn't want to give a blank check to Israel, and he is willing to reduce defense spending.  And I hear that Hagel and Obama get along.  I like it.  

    A new birth of freedom..

    by docterry on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:30:13 PM PST

  •  Just throwing a name out there (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012, wishingwell

    Why not Jim Webb?  Wouldn't he be a decent fit for the SoD?

    My best bet on why Democrats never get this gig is because usually none of them want it.  I think most see SoS as the top prize and SoD as a concession and no one wants it.

    Just an idea with no evidence supporting.

    Currently showing an amazed Mitt Romney on what the space bar does.

    by RVKU on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:31:00 PM PST

  •  The second term of Obama seems to be headed (0+ / 0-)

    The way of other second terms for presidents, lackluster at best. I do not even know if I am against Hagel, the fact the Repubs hate him so much almost makes me glad he will get the nomination. But why wasn't Susan Rice fought for like this?

  •  So Obama will have a fight over Hagel but not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012

    Susan Rice. Interesting.

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:32:55 PM PST

  •  White House probably believes they couldn't afford (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012, stagemom

    to have John McCain torpedo two consecutive nominations, first Rice then Hagel.  It would have left Obama looking like McCain was leading him around by the nose.  Once word of the potential nomination slipped out several weeks ago and McCain and the Neo-Cons jumped all over him there was no turning back.  Not the best choice imo.

    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Republican. But I repeat myself. Harry Truman

    by ratcityreprobate on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:33:26 PM PST

  •  I really wish Obama would fight as (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder, LSophia

    hard for economic justice, the prosecution of war crimes (also, perhaps he could stop committing them), and New Deal/Great Society programs as he will fight for appointing a war-mongering conservative who was DEAD wrong about two wars.

    And please, spare me "he opposes the war now" excuses. They ring hollow before the massive pile of corpses, ruined lives, and the odd trillion or so dollars we squandered on Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan.

  •  I don't see the problem with Hagel (13+ / 0-)

    Though he was for the Iraq war, he had turned against it by 2005, well before almost any other Republican (and even some Democrats).  So I don't really agree with that part of the criticism... He was "pro-Bush-wars" in essentially the same way that John Kerry and Hillary Clinton were.

    The argument that this makes it seem like "only Republicans can handle defense" seems a little silly to me: This is a guy that has gone out of his way, over and over again, to criticize Republican approach to foreign policy.  The main effort against his nomination has been from the greater Israel lobby.  He has recently endorsed both Joe Sestak and Bob Kerrey.  He is very clearly not a typical Republican.

    Can someone offer a more detailed argument against Hagel? I'm sure there is a valid one but I don't see it in this article.

  •  Well I certainly hope (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FogCityJohn

    he does whatever he's told to do on DADT repeal and protecting gay families.

    I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
    @indiemcemopants on Twitter

    by Scottie Thomaston on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:35:46 PM PST

    •  I certainly hope he'll get hard questions about (0+ / 0-)

      both those issues at his confirmation hearing.

      President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

      by askew on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:25:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah me too. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FogCityJohn

        There's too much going on right now with DADT repeal implementation and benefits and DOMA and transgender service.  He should be asked direct questions on this.

        I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
        @indiemcemopants on Twitter

        by Scottie Thomaston on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:33:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hagel on this topic (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poco

      http://www.politico.com/...

      Hagel:

      "I am fully supportive of ‘open service’ and committed to LGBT military families.”
      •  What does that mean though? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FogCityJohn

        He has also opposed someone for being openly aggressively gay.

        There are a lot of questions:

        - Will he fully implement DADT repeal?

        - Will he consider benefits and work arounds given DOMA?

        - Will he fully study DOMA's impact on military benefits for LGB families?

        - What about transgender service?

        He needs to be questioned directly on all of these things. Vague statements are no good.

        I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
        @indiemcemopants on Twitter

        by Scottie Thomaston on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:32:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I know it sounds bad, but... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40, doroma, FistJab

    We're still going to have Rice, and we can move her to National Security Adviser at any time, no confirmation necessary. Just let that calm down.

    They're going to fight Hagel tooth and nail, and look foolish doing it. They're going to fight having one of their own as Defense Secretary, and they're either going to win -- in which case the President nominates someone else (probably a General) and looks even tougher on defense -- or they're going to lose.

    Either way the President wins and the Republicans come off looking stupid.

    I think the President has come to recognize that having political fights on his turf, on his terms, keeps the anger high on our side and that this anger is his most powerful weapon.

    So be angry. But be angry at their side.

    http://www.danablankenhorn.com

    by Dana Blankenhorn on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:36:05 PM PST

  •  Another contrarian--I think it could be a good (11+ / 0-)

    pick.

    I'm Jewish and pro-Israel, but our Israel policy has been completely stagnant--also, Hagel might be able to help expose the obscene hypocrisy of the faux 'pro-Israel' hacks who really want nothing more than to foster the 2nd coming by wiping out all the Jews anyway.

    Why some right-wing Jews actually buy into the extreme Christian Zionist anti-Semitism and actually believe it's 'pro-Israel' is beyond me.

  •  This Dem president picking a Republican (12+ / 0-)

    for Defense Secretary is a little different though.

    I think Obama has earned a trust from the American people on foreign policy and defense/national security issues. A lot of that is the Bin laden raid, but it's also has to do with the fact that Americans generally approve of his approach to foreign policy, particularly with it comes to the withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan. Troop withdrawals arent really seen as weakness as they might have been previously.

    Similarly, Hagel isnt a typical Republican. His views at least now are a lot more liberals than those of his former Senate colleagues. McCain doesnt like Hagel's criticism of the Iraq surge, others dont like his "dovish" views on Iran, and others might not agree with his views that the Pentagon budget needs to be cut.  

    In other words, it's not a defensive move by a Dem president, like it might have been in the past. None of this is to say that there arent valid reasons to oppose Hagel. But I think the dynamic is different than the one liberals typically describe.

    •  He's more liberal on many issues but his (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, edwardssl

      anti-gay stances and his issues with women in combat are very, very worrisome.

      President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

      by askew on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:26:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I have a concern about that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        I dont think DADT repeal is really going anywhere, and personally, I do think people can evolve not just on marriage equality, but their views on gay people in general.  

        But it will be important to hear his views on that and women in combat.  

  •  I'm of two minds on this (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, jriches, Quicklund, seethruit, Matt Z

    On one hand, it would be nice if a Dem was appointed, but really, what difference would it make? Can you name one Dem Secretary of Defense who was any less miltant than a Republican or less supportive of Pentagon bloat? At least Hagel is on record as advocating cuts to defense spending and Pentagon growth. Also, I don't want the Republicans to get credit for deep sixing another one of Obama's appointees, even if it is one of their own. I don't recall another time when the minority party in the Senate felt that they got to determine who a President would appoint.

  •  Like the Choice (12+ / 0-)

    Hagel supported Obama very early on and he has a solid record in the military. He also appears to have a nice contrarian streak. If the President wants him, then he should get him.

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:42:41 PM PST

  •  Fuck. (0+ / 0-)

    Mother. Fuck.

    Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at Texas Kaos.

    by boadicea on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:42:42 PM PST

  •  former enlisted man (10+ / 0-)

    and so am I.
    He has my backing.

    Plus I like POTUS and support him and his choice.

    "It ain't over till it's over."-Yogi Berra

    by mock38 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:45:58 PM PST

  •  I'm sure (0+ / 0-)

    this will finally end all the Foxnews talk about Obama being an America hating socialist communist Nazi secret Muslim. His centrist credentials are impeccable.

    I STILL want to see Mitt's taxes.

    by Van Buren on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:48:36 PM PST

  •  Isn't it a little strange to promote a petition (11+ / 0-)

    to propose smb else for SecDef position after Hagel's nomination has been announced?

  •  Is Hagel a Repulican (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto

    or is he a dove?  

  •  Quit obsessing over stupid party labels (11+ / 0-)

    Hagel is better than any democrat who would be considered in the following areas:

    Afhanistan - he was against Obama's surge and thought the war should end then

    Iran - He's not only against a military strike, he's also against unilateral sanctions. No democrat holds that position.

    Israel - Unlike just about EVERY Democrat he's not beholden to them and would be an honest broker

    Defense Budget - He's said, once removing the bluntness of the instrument, the level of the cuts in sequester are doable/ Again, a position almost no other democrats are taking.

    So either we can obsess over party labels or actually, you know, look at what the guy believes. And if you think Obama picked him to suck up to Republicans, you have no idea the bridges he burnt with his crusade against the Iraq war. Ask his wife, who basically said his last few years there pretty much no republican spoke to him. So the last person that would endear Obama to Republicans is tho guy. Its a no brainer, and a courageous choice by Obama

    •  His view on sanctions is quite immaterial (0+ / 0-)

      Sanctions are US law and he'll be required to enforce them although the US military doesn't normally play a large role in sanctions enforcement anyway - in Iran's case it's the Treasury department which is primarily responsible for that. DADT repeal is law and he'll be required to enforce that too. A cabinet secretary does not get to pick and chose which laws he or she wants to enforce.  Obama knows that - he's not going to nominate someone he'll have to fire 3 months after he's confirmed.

      "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

      by Shane Hensinger on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:29:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Narrative (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Kong

    Do you think this is about 2014 when Obama will hilight this fight as a reason the voters should not return the GOP to office?

    "I nominated a republican and they were too extreme to vote for even one of their own party"

    ??????????????????

  •  The reason is obvious. (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco, Pluto, Quicklund, docmidwest, vespers, Matt Z

    I remember when the hand-wringer pundits told us that Obama's cabinet picks were PROOF that he was already selling out the left. The best example was the OUTRAGE of Obama keeping Bush's defense secretary.

    Obama used Bush's defense sec. to cut defense spending, repeal DADT, end the Iraq War, and set a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. All things progressives wanted.
    Do you think having a Republican Defense Secretary made it easier to achieve progressive goals by making it less partisan?

  •  I think Hagel can kick butt where needed. And (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40, too many people, vespers

    those GOP'ers who don't like him or have said no already make me look at him closely because he is not your Tea Bagger, dull Republican and probably can't be controlled by any of them.  The thing is can POTUS do it, I support Obama's will on this, at the end of the day.  The Pentagon and others must get some very bad news about downsizing and who better to deliver the news than a vet. of Vietnam no less.

  •  Because Cuts are Coming (8+ / 0-)

    And it makes it harder to attack the Dems on this when a Republican fiscal hawk is sitting in this chair.

    "If there is no sufficient reason for war, the war party will make war on one pretext, then invent another . . . after the war is on." -R.M. LaFollette

    by Spirit of Fighting Bob on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:00:04 PM PST

  •  Defies logic (0+ / 0-)

    Don't understand the deference, if that's what it is. That's what it feels like. It's as if they go out of their way to reinforce the stereotypes.

    That they wouldn't fight for Rice, as noted above, makes this even more ridiculous.

    Slap happy is a platform.

    by averageyoungman on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:00:48 PM PST

  •  I think I just want to hear from Hagel (0+ / 0-)

    that he's going to be 1000% supportive of the post-DADT military, and Obama's position towards AIPAC.  Breaking the fundie ties to Israel might do more to damage the fundie positions here than you might think.  It would certainly not hurt Middle-east relations to be able to discount the hardliners in both places and talk to all the parties without having explosions of hate just for talking.  

    Not crazy about Hagel, I think there are probably Democrats who could do the job, but who knows what 11-Dimensional chess this is part of.  

    A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. -Carl Sagan

    by jo fish on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:01:28 PM PST

  •  I usually hate backseat driving (15+ / 0-)

    But I really hate it when it comes to telling the President which people he wants on his management team. I'm passing on your petition.

  •  ugh.. (0+ / 0-)

    Choosing a GOPer is a bad idea. Choosing that very conservative GOPer is a very bad idea.

  •  I think that Obama just likes Chuck Hagel (7+ / 0-)

    He is choosing someone he likes.

    President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

    by Drdemocrat on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:06:07 PM PST

    •  On Foreign Policy Hagel is NOT (6+ / 0-)

      conservative, if by conservative you mean hawkish. He's easily to the left of the democratic establishment on the use of military force and he's the most likely candidate to prevent a war with Iran, both because of the positions he holds but also because of his proven ability, as a Senator, to resist pressure from AIPAC, a requirement for holding of the tide clamoring for war.

  •  The myth that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pine

    the Dems don't have any strong candidates for SecDef is totally wrong. I can think of dozens of potential Democratic nominees...Michele Flournoy, Ashton Carter, Jack Reed, Richard Danzig, Tom Donilon, James Clapper...the list goes on and on.

    Student, Proud Progressive, Science Nerd, and Skeptic. Born and raised in CT-03.

    by betelgeux on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:08:08 PM PST

  •  Give it to an anti filibuster reform Dem ... (0+ / 0-)

    Can't he nominate Sen Feinstein or another one of the "I like the current get nothing done Senate" Dems? Then we could get another Senator that understands the filibuster needs to be reformed.

    A mind like a book, has to be open to function properly.

    by falconer520 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:08:18 PM PST

  •  This year just keeps getting better and better and (0+ / 0-)

    better.......

  •  Israel. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beltane, seethruit, Alexandre

    This is all about Israel and nothing but Israel. This is a shot across the bow of Netanyahu's flagship. Check that, this is a shot at the bridge.

    Obama has a fairly established image in the mind of the public as a softy. But actions like this suggest he can, in fact, be quite the asshole when he thinks he needs to be.

    You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

    by Eric Stratton on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:10:51 PM PST

    •  With regards to Netanyahu (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Stratton, seethruit

      Obama really does need to be an asshole. This is for the good of both Israel and the United States although the Israeli government won't see it that way.

      •  As bad as the Israeli government is now (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Stratton, poco, Alexandre

        it is likely to be even worse in three weeks.  Maybe the Hagel appointment will shake some "soft" Likud voters by seriously worrying them about U.S. relations with an extreme right Israeli government.

        Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary

        by Paleo on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:58:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Things will get worse before they get better. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Paleo, Alexandre, Shane Hensinger, poco

          Which assumes they do get better. When people are more worried about Hagel somehow screwing over gay servicemen (which I don't see happening) that they are about the actual foreign policy implications of the SecDef nomination, I'd say they've pretty seriously lost the plot.

          Things are very dark in Israel now. Confirming Hagel needs to be a priority as a message to Likud, the neocons as well as the Arabs; that things have to change.

          You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

          by Eric Stratton on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:14:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  1000 time this. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bevenro

        I'm pro-Israel in this discussion, so there is no misunderstanding. I find the one-state solution crowd maddening in their naivety.

        But the course Israel is on at present will lead to disaster. The policies of Likud are as self destructive for Israel as the Tea Party's policies are for the US. This three-state solution stuff is madness. It was untenable with Mubarak, but now it's a total non-starter.

        Israel's current policy towards the question of Palestinian Statehood is insane. It's like they're sawing off they're leg to treat a sprained ankle. The two-state solution is the only way out of this, and that message needs to be pounded into the heads of the Israeli public and their elected officials.

        You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

        by Eric Stratton on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:10:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Seriously? (0+ / 0-)
    fought against greater inclusion for women and for gay Americans in the military
    This is a fucking atrocity that he could still get this kind of job. And his pro-useless-war stance (awesome characteristic for a Secretary of "Defense" to have!) should have immediately disqualified him as well, though I'm not really familiar with the man so I don't know his opinions on Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. I'm not holding my breath he did a sudden 180° though.

    The more I read about him, the more I want to puke:

    During his twelve years in Congress, Hagel was an ardent opponent of abortion rights, racking up an average 94 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee. When first running for Senate, in 1995, he took a hard line against abortion rights, saying he didn't believe exceptions for rape or incest were necessary because, he said, so few pregnancies were involved. "As I looked at those numbers," Hagel told the Omaha World Herald, "if I want to prevent abortions, I don't think those two exceptions are relevant."
    He voted six times, most recently in 2003, to prevent American servicewomen from using their own money to pay for abortions at military facilities abroad. That policy drastically limited servicewomen's options, especially since many countries where the military is stationed forbid abortion. Some women were forced to continue unwanted pregnancies or had to return home to obtain abortions, putting their careers at risk.
    (Quotes courtesy of Mother Jones)

    This Hagel is, by the way, obviously "one of the boys" - those misogynists who close their eyes to the fact that sexual assault is even more rampant in the military than among the general population. He's obviously one of the many bastards who actively perpetuate the silencing, demeaning and threatening of servicewomen who dare to speak about being raped by other soldiers. And he has the gall to say "rapes don't cause that many pregnancies".

    Oh, and the President's second pick seemed to be Michele Flournoy, a great Progressive woman who is much more in line with the administration's positions than any Republican could ever be. She would've broken the glass ceiling too. But nah, semi-qualified-looking white males will always be chosen over the most overqualified women.

  •  I support Hagel - (11+ / 0-)

    When talking about appointments for specific areas of policy I think it's more useful to talk about that policy rather than political affiliation. Sure, Chuck Hagel's a Republican, but he's not going to be president of everything. He's going to be nominated for Sec. of Defense. So what's his defense record like?

    True he voted for the wars but so did most Democrats including Clinton and Kerry. (Is that a reason that Kerry should be withdrawn from Sec. of State nomination?) On the other hand, he is a foreign policy realist and has the gonads to stand up to Israel. Obama has worked with him behind the scenes and trusts his judgment. I trust Obama's judgment too.  

    The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

    by Tetris on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:15:07 PM PST

  •  An alternative progressive view on R at Defense (4+ / 0-)

    When I talk to vets who were in the army during the Clinton years, they strongly dislike what "Clinton did to the army",  ie the impact of his defense cuts meant they went on fewer offensive actions.   When I talk to special operators in the military now, they strongly dislike what Obama has done in Iraq , and it is the same complaints as the Clinton vets.

    Compared the the orgy of no bid contracts and deficit spending during the Bush years, Obama is poised to make relatively huge cuts to defense spending.

    Now in this context, who better than a Republican to lead the implementation of Obama's policy of defense cuts?

    Bonus fact -- the USA guarantees the military safety of over 60 nations!

  •  LGBT Military Group Calls For "Demonstrable Action (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    willyr, craigkg

    from Hagel if nominated:

    Senator Hagel has said he is ‘committed to LGBT military families,’ so, if nominated and confirmed, he should immediately extend, via secretarial directive, all benefits available to married same-sex military couples and families while the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is still on the books. He said he is ‘fully supportive of open service,’ so he should extend military equal opportunity and nondiscrimination policies so that all qualified Americans who wish to serve this nation in uniform may do so without fear of harassment or discrimination. Steps such as these would do a great deal to allay the concerns many in our community have expressed over the last several weeks. I look forward in the weeks ahead to discussing these and other issues important to LGBT service members and their families with Senator Hagel and his designees.

    I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
    @indiemcemopants on Twitter

    by Scottie Thomaston on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:35:44 PM PST

  •  hate to say this . . . (0+ / 0-)

    But I wonder if a Hagel nomination is a smokescreen to divert attention from the Republican-manufactured brouhaha over Benghazi. Hear me out.

    Republicans are still up in arms over the Benghazi nonsense, which they somehow read as grand conspiracy theory. They're out for blood over it. First, they went after Susan Rice. She withdrew. Then they went after Hillary Clinton and made up nonsense conspiracies about their illness. Now that she's on the verge of recovery, they seem to be itching to go after Clinton before allowing the Kerry nomination to go forward.

    If you're an advisor to POTUS, perhaps it makes sense to put forward a weak nominee for another high-profile position at the exact same time that you expect another situation to blow up, to suck some of the media oxygen out of the room. And better to make the fall guy someone who's not even a member of the Democratic Party than a party regular.

    The above seems downright Bushian and somewhat silly to me, but it wouldn't at all surprise me if this is what they're thinking.

  •  snark petition at whitehouse.gov (0+ / 0-)

    ask Obama to appoint a GOP custodian for his commander-in-chief function:

    http://wh.gov/...

    "Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place." -- Mandela

    by agoldnyc on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:36:52 PM PST

  •  Great news (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco, winsock, FistJab, vespers, Rusty Pipes

    Kudos to Obama for hanging tough on this one.

    Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary

    by Paleo on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:40:08 PM PST

    •  Like the tagline Paleo! (0+ / 0-)

      In the summer of 2006, when Lebanon was being pounded by bombs by Israel, Hagel was one of the few congresspeople willing to sponsor an alternate to AIPAC resolution about the conflict.  Senator Feinstein, who has co-sponsored such legislation with Hagel, says that she thinks he would be an excellent choice.  As a supporter of Churches for Middle East Peace, I appreciate Hagel's willingness to think outside the neocon box that so dominates the thinking of Republican leadership.

      It isn't nice to go to jail ... but if that's freedom's price

      by Rusty Pipes on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:06:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So now dKos attacks the President from the right? (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paleo, poco, FistJab, bevenro, InformedDiva, vespers
    •  They're missing the big picture (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      docmidwest, Alexandre, poco, FistJab, vespers

      It's not his party ID or past statements regarding gays, which he's renounced, it's his willingness to pursue a policy that is in America's national interest, and his skepticism regarding the use of force.

      Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary

      by Paleo on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:46:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Narrow parochialism dominates many discussions (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        docmidwest, poco, vespers

        here. Big picture arguments are routinely discarded for heated debates on tiny little corners of policies which have very little impact on the whole. The forest is often lost site of for the trees.

        "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

        by Shane Hensinger on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:50:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Petition started to protest FDR's appointment of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alexandre, InformedDiva

    Republican Frank Knox as Secretary of War.

    Of JFK's appointment of Republican-leaning Robert McNamara as Defense Secretary

    Of Clinton's appointment of Republican William Cohen as Defense Secretary.

    How dare Obama break the tradition of Democrats only appointing Democrats.

    Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary

    by Paleo on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:55:24 PM PST

  •  Because we all know Democrats are incapable? (0+ / 0-)
    Chuck Hagel to be nominated for secretary of defense
    Just more of the same old pathetic from Obama.
  •  A small, innocent question (6+ / 0-)

    Why should I presume to know who would best fit what the President's criteria is for Secretary of Defense?

    He knows him quite well, and I trust the President to make a good decision on this.

    A second query: Why do we have to think that the only way this President can do a great job is to break every precedent?

    We are the better party, but I refuse to think we have every answer in every cabinet position that must be filled.

  •  He might be a bigot or worse. I don't care. (5+ / 0-)

    Heck, he might kick his dog and fart in people's faces. Who cares? His position on the role of the US military is all that matters to me. Next to Ralph Nader, or Kucinich I can't think of anyone Better. Okay, Barney Frank.

    On the other hand, I can't wait to watch the Rs tear into one of their own. I don't usually watch confirmation hearings, but I am definitely getting out the popcorn.

    Obama is shrewd.

  •  Let Repubs Block a Repub (0+ / 0-)

    Then we get a Democratic woman.

  •  those darn Repubs (0+ / 0-)

    They found a Senator who actually served in the military to criticize Hagel (a veteran himself) for having "so much disrepsect for the military".

  •  Tell me how Mitt Romney didn't actually win (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zemblan

    this election again?

    Why the F&*% are we doing this? Oh right, we need a bigoted, homophobic Republican running Defense now... Why? I don't know...

    Grrrr..... This is a poor appointment.

    "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

    by volleyboy1 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:32:14 PM PST

    •  How (0+ / 0-)

      Because we would have had someone like Joe Lieberman appointed defense secretary.

      Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary

      by Paleo on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:37:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm saddened we're on opposite sides of this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      volleyboy1, zemblan

      Nonetheless I will treat you fairly after my side wins the battle ;-)

      "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

      by Shane Hensinger on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:38:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Heh Shane... Don't worry - I will be either (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shane Hensinger, zemblan

        a gracious winner or loser depending on what happens.

        I will say this... As for Hagel... I really don't get why the President needs him. I can think of a few Democrats who have Military experience AND support the Democratic Party. General Clark, Admiral Webb, Bob Kerrey (yes I know he is hated around these here parts), and few others.

        Hagel is a bigoted homophobe (his "apology" was mere political expediency), AND he is a Republican. For goodness sakes, why does the President have to putting Republicans in places of power? Right, He doesn't.

        However... It doesn't matter what we think or say here... the President is going to do what the President does.

        "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

        by volleyboy1 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:48:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Honestly I think a lot of this has to do (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zemblan, bevenro

          with the president preparing a united front strategy for dealing with the witch's brew of the Middle East and in particular with a dual-track approach to both Iran and Israel. Perhaps I'm mirror-imaging but those two issues are going to come to a head soon and I believe, correctly in my opinion, the president views them as closely interwoven.

          "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

          by Shane Hensinger on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:53:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well yes.. there is that but the only thing Hagel (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            zemblan, sandbox

            will do is antagonize the Israelis. I get that having someone to be a "Yes man" to PM Netanyahu is not in anyone's (including Israeli) interests, but Hagel and his commentary about the "Jewish Lobby" is straight out of the hateful W & M playbook. Even so... I don't think Hagel would be that hardline and he is certainly not going to be the hero the Drooling Ron Paul anti-Semites or their allies on hard left want. The Sec. Def. does NOT set Middle East policy.

            I don't though disagree with you that both Iran and Israel are going to come to head particularly when the New coalition headed by Likud-Betainu (forecast for 35-36 seats), and consisting of the far Right Habayit Hayehudi,(forecast for 14-16 seats) Shas (forecast 11-12 seats), the religious UTJ (forecast 6 seats), and the insane Otzma Yisrael (forecast 2 seats), "takes the field".

            But with them, watch for Iran to step it up as well....

            Not sure I think Hagel is the man to handle this and I would trust the three that I mentioned far more than him.

            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

            by volleyboy1 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 05:07:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Great pick (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paleo

    The President's 2nd term cabinet is looking very strong indeed.

  •  Well gay servicemembers (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shane Hensinger, craigkg

    better double hope DOMA falls at the SCOTUS in June if they ever want any kind of equity for their partners.

    I hope Hagel follows through on Panetta's half-way decent leadership on sexual assault, although I'm not optimistic.

    "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."—Dan Savage

    by Scott Wooledge on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 04:38:52 PM PST

  •  He's a huge reason US has done nothing on climate (0+ / 0-)

    Details here: http://www.dailykos.com/...

    DOD has the largest environmental footprint in the world, and Army and Navy have been taking important steps forward in that regard under Obama.  I hope Hagel doesn't bring that progress to a crashing halt, and I hope he doesn't introduce an anti-environmental voice to the Cabinet.  

    Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two make four.  If that is granted, all else follows. -- George Orwell, 1984. Now on Twitter.

    by kindler on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 05:00:36 PM PST

  •  He will piss off the Teabaggers, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco, InformedDiva

    he will piss off the Neocons still in the pentagon, and he will not let the Israelis work us like a puppet any longer. I think he's fine.

    Barbara Buono for NJ Governor 2013, Terry McAuliffe for VA Governor 2013

    by interstate73 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 05:13:15 PM PST

  •  IMHO, I think the POTUS cabinet is his (0+ / 0-)

    prerogative.

  •  Gays need to remember that they are Americans (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alexandre

    1) To some extent, I was bemused by the whole quarrel over gays in the military.   My father served in the Army during the Korean War -- and he was puzzled as well.  He said there were gays in the Army then, people knew it and no one cared so long as they did their job and didn't hit on a straight too strongly.  He said they mostly kept to themselves socially.
    2) Gays are my fellow countrymen -- and no American should have to suffer loss of jobs, insults,etc for being gay.
    3) But this is about the Secretary of DEFENSE.   And gays need to stop grinding their particular ax and look at this as American citizens.
    4) We had over 4500 American soldiers killed in an unnecessary war.  In part because Joe Lieberman invited Bibi Natanyahu in 2002 to address the US Congress and American People and tell us that we needed to take out Saddam before he used his nukes on us.  Did Mossad ever find those nukes?
    5) The people touting Hillary Clinton for SecDef evidently don't remember Israeli billionaire Haim Saban dumping $15 Million into the Democratic races in 2000-2002 -- and then boasting to Haaretz over how Bill Clinton had Chelsea fetch soft drinks for Haim whenever he deigned to visit the White House.   Check out wikipedia's article on him -- then google "You made it big, you jerk" and "Haim Saban".  
    Haaretz pulled part of that Avi Shavit interview --but the Muslim Brotherhood saved it.  I read the Haaretz original -- and the brotherhood's copy is exact.
    6) Does anyone  remember Howard Dean being knifed in the back by billionaire S Daniel Abraham in the 2004 primary -- after Dean merely said the US needed to be an objective referee in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks?
    See
    http://forward.com/...
    and scroll down to "Fat Contribution"

    Note: Forward was wrong -- S Daniel Abraham actually dumped $200,000 into that "Sabotage Dean" campaign.  And Dean couldn't even find out who was behind it until months later because of the FEC quarterly reporting requirements.  

    And the knife AIPAC Steve Grossman stuck into Dean --right before the Wisconsin vote--was a classic.  As the Forward article notes.

  •  I have Binders of Candidates.... (0+ / 0-)

    ...who would make a better choice. How about a transformation female Democrat? Why is everything Obama does pale, incremental, and piecemeal? Where is the vision, the fire, and drive to actually change direction, change the discussion, change the language of a topic as important as military policy?

    I'm tired of hearing all the excuses about why this President can't grow a spine and actually begin re-framing a public policy issue in Democratic, progressive language.

    For example, Obama totally bought the fiscal cliff nonsense, parroting every linguistic frame the Republicans devised. The Republicans know that language matters, and they use if very effectively (as propaganda, for example "death tax").

    On military matters, this is an opportunity to at least change the language and the discussion and the financial insanity of this bloated bureaucracy. Instead, this site is full of BS about how a President gets to pick "who he wants to work with".

    What, exactly, is Obama afraid of? He's set for life, already re-elected, and behaves with his tail between his legs, looking over his shoulder constantly, shirking leadership at every turn.

    This is just another example of why Obama was the least worst alternative, not the best, in 2012.

  •  But, hey, maybe we should do like Newt Gingrich (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alexandre

    press our lips firmly to the fat buttocks of Republican Billionaire Sheldon Adelson -- and auction off the lives of 20,000 Americans for the invasion of Iran -- in exchange for Fat Sheldon's $150 MILLION  in campaign donations
    to beat Obama.

    Obama isn't just bitchslapping Bibi --he bitchslapping Mitt's sugar daddy.   I say we let him get on with it.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

  •  I support Hagel for DOD. (4+ / 0-)

    I won't sign your petition, Hunter, and I'm surprised that I feel so strongly about it.

    Maybe it will take a Republican to finally root out the neocon gophers that the Obama administration has tolerated.

    Hagel and Kerry both voted for the 2002 AUMF, and they both turned against it eventually.  Kerry's flip flop was opportunistic and we can only hope it was sincere.  Hagel's decision ruined his name as a Republican, earned him the lasting enmity of the neocons.  

    Typically, the road to success in the Obama administration is through mediocre acceptance of the status quo.  Perhaps Obama thinks he will get that by nominating a Republican.  But I think Hagel will be less status quo than any Democrat Obama would choose.

    Besides: It will be fun watching the Republicans try to bash Hagel.

  •  There are gays in the military (0+ / 0-)

    so why are we going to let their lives be sacrificed because the Israel Lobby thinks it's a good idea?

    Anyone who is an American citizen deserves my loyalty and support.   But Loyalty is a two-way street.

  •  One more important reason I support Hagel. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alexandre, Enzo Valenzetti

    We should have learned a lot from the Iraq adventure.

    One thing we learned was this:

    That there are a lot of assholes on the left that are easily persuaded into wars of adventure for "humanitarian" reasons, apparently gullible enough to believe that dropping bombs on people for their own good will work out well in the end because America is so fucking special that it's our job to fix all the bad people in the world.  Wilsonian Interventionism, it was called.  It's a wonderful complement to the neocons of the right.  

    It's one reason that I don't give an automatic pass on foreign policy to just any Democrat.  It's one reason I opposed Hillary Clinton in 2008 and will oppose her again in 2016.

    The other strange thing we observed during the Iraq war was that some of the best and simplest arguments were the pragmatic ones that came from the right.  

    For instance, I remember Dick Armey (yes, Dick Armey!  Teabagger CoupMeister!) saying that he opposed the war because it sounded like him that they were planning to invade a country that hade never done anything to us, and that he considered that not the American way of doing things.  

    So well said.  

    They eventually changed his mind on that, and he was all on board for shock and awe.  But even people on the right knew that this was a terrible mistake.

    Iraq was not a Republican war.  It was an interventionist clusterfuck based on lies and rationalizations.  

    So I don't endorse Democrats for DOD just because they are Democrats.  Some of the worst people imaginable on foreign policy are Democrats, sadly.  Just as bad as the worst Republicans.

    •  Bravo! In other words, Hagel is a true... (0+ / 0-)

      conservative. Working with true conservatives, who are well aware of the lunacy of social engineering projects like state building, is something that Democrats should be able to do.

      Unfortunately, both sides have more or less completely forgotten what true conservatism, in the tradition of Edmund Burke, is. In our society, what passes for conservatism is highly ideological right-wing extremism. True conservatism is non-ideological.

  •  mainstream journalists love this guy (0+ / 0-)

    Like glen greenwald and ray mcgovern with these entrenched mainstream journalists pushing for him, how can he lose?
    Really those 2 guys do know a lot more than me about military stuff, its their job to know it

  •  Did you initiate this petition, Hunter? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bmastiff

    The speculation (and outright smears) about Hagel have been going on for a few weeks.  It's only in the past few days that the opposition to him has shifted to memes about his being unqualified, homophobic or Republican.  Right Web ("tracking militarists' efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy") has some relevant updated articles about Hagel and the top Democratic candidates, Carter and Flournoy ("The Democrat many neocons want to see as the next SecDef over Chuck Hagel").  

    During the Bush era, this website was a leader in debunking the neocon lies that led us into a war of choice in Iraq and the destruction of the careers of prominent people, like Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, who tried to oppose those plans.  During the Bush Administration, this site was a leader in working for more and BETTER Democrats.  Given that the top Democratic contenders for DefSec have supported neocon-initiated wars of choice, this anti-Hagel petition does not further the cause of getting better Democrats or avoiding wars of choice from the playbook of the Plan for a New American Century.

    It isn't nice to go to jail ... but if that's freedom's price

    by Rusty Pipes on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:42:34 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site