Skip to main content

Seriously, of all the possible reasons to oppose Hagel's nomination, the issue that he MAY be a republican may be the most asinine. But even that is suspect as this interview from this past March showed.

Hagel Questions GOP status

Al-Monitor: Do you still consider yourself a Republican?
Hagel: I don’t know what the Republican Party is. I know why I registered a long time ago; my first vote was in the Mekong Delta absentee in 1968. But we’ll find a new center of gravity...  After the American people speak in November, that gives us some new possibilities. If the president is re-elected, like most two-term presidents, your fifth and sixth years can be your most productive.
Right there, he dodges the question and then this coupled with the evidence that he's supported only Democratic Senate candidates like Bob Kerrey, makes me suspect he's no longer a Republican.

I know many seem to have intense anger towards him for the remark that he made in the 1990s (which was a popular sentiment among even Democratic politicians) but ignore that. He seems to be a guy who doesn't have a party and simply wants to help his country.

The fact that he is close with President Obama and is of the "realist" foreign policy camp and will implement President Obama's policies (as any cabinet official would) should bolster his candidacy amongst the left not restrain him.

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

  •  Yes, he's still a Republican. (4+ / 0-)

    Ignoring his past actions, votes and behavior would be a mistake.

    Remember, he didn't apologize or retract his slur about James Hormel for 14 years, not until he was forced to.

  •  I Like That The Necons Hate Him (12+ / 0-)

    That is in his favor for me.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:14:39 PM PST

  •  he registered as a republican in 1968? (4+ / 0-)

    and suggests he still would be a republican if the party was the same as it was in 1968? the nixon era? that's comforting.

    he might not be a republican anymore, but he's no democrat.

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

    by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:14:47 PM PST

  •  He didn't say the word no (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Meteor Blades

    It is an easy question that doesn't require a fan dance.

  •  Yes (5+ / 0-)

    A homophobic anti-choice Republican.

    Next question?

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

    by dhonig on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:33:27 PM PST

    •  Was Bill Clinton one? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gooserock, poco, MichaelNY

      Still hasn't apologized for DOMA...

    •  Add anti-environment. n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scott Wooledge, offgrid

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:17:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But does the Secretary of Defence have (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        much to do with environmental policies? Or is his voice more heeded on questions regarding the Pentagon budget, war on Iran, policies regarding Syria, etc.?

        It's *Gandhi*, not Ghandi

        by poco on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:26:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          Though, actually, the Pentagon has a lot of green initiatives just for logistics reasons -- using less gas makes the military more mobile.

          Ignore his votes, though. They reflect nebraska, where any climate change legislation would likely hurt the cattle feed lots.

          (The livestock industry produces more greenhouse gases than the auto industry, you know.)

          "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

          by Bush Bites on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:44:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  More. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, side pocket
          In a rare moment of bi-partisanship, the Senate Wednesday removed an amendment from the Defense Appropriation bill that would have prohibited the Department of Defense from buying green energy to fuel the military’s ships, planes, and vehicles. That amendment was added by the Armed Services Committee earlier in the year. The vote to remove it was 62-37 with 11 Republicans crossing party lines to buck the fossil fuel industry.

          The effort to block the Pentagon’s clean energy program in the Armed Services Committee and in the full Senate was spear headed by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK).

          The Pentagon is pushing for $1.4 billion in next year's budget for investments in clean energy, including hybrid electric drives for ships, more efficient engines, better generators and solar power.

          http://www.examiner.com/...

          "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

          by Bush Bites on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:46:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Even under Bush, there were moves... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, Scott Wooledge

          ...by the Pentagon to become green. And the Quadrennial Defense Review of 2010 includes:

          Climate change will affect DoD in two broad ways. First, climate change will shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that we undertake. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.  

          Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the  world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration. While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas. In some nations, the military is the only institution with the capacity to respond to a large-scale natural disaster. Proactive engagement with these countries can help build their capability to respond to such events. Working  closely with relevant U.S. departments and agencies, DoD has undertaken environmental security cooperative initiatives with foreign militaries that represent a nonthreatening way  of building trust, sharing best practices on installations management and operations, and developing response capacity.  

          Second, DoD will need to adjust to the impacts of climate change on our facilities and military capabilities. The Department already provides environmental stewardship at hundreds of DoD installations throughout the United States and around the world, working diligently to meet resource efficiency and sustainability goals as set by relevant laws and executive orders. Although the United States has significant capacity to adapt to climate change, it will pose challenges for civil society and DoD alike, particularly in light of the nation’s extensive coastal infrastructure. In 2008, the National Intelligence Council judged that more than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels. DoD’s operational readiness hinges on continued access to land, air, and sea training and test space. Consequently, the Department must complete a comprehensive assessment of all installations to assess the potential impacts of climate change on its missions and adapt as required.

          There are three more pages of that.

          Given that the Secretary of Defense will be heavily involved in writing the 2014 QDR, which comes out in just 13 months, I think his stance on global warming makes a good deal of difference. And Hagel's stance on that is one of climate-change denier.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:46:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Scott Wooledge, MichaelNY, corvo, askew

          The US military is the single largest user of petroleum on the planet.

        •  Absolutely (0+ / 0-)

          A few years ago a SecDef said the greatest threat to the US was lintel change. Ever hear of the ARMY Corps of Engineers? Where does the biggest chunk of the US budget go and where will green money et spent, if at all?

          Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

          by dhonig on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 06:56:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  It's really irrelevant at this point (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, poco, v2aggie2, MichaelNY

    We're not electing him.  He''ll serve in an appointed position.

    The question is, is his defense and foreign policy outlook more Bush/Cheney or Obama/Biden?  Answer is pretty clear.

    Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary

    by Paleo on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:45:12 PM PST

    •  actually (0+ / 0-)

      the question should be whether he's any good, not whether he's as bad as the bushies.

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

      by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:48:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bush/Cheney were lockstep... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scott Wooledge

      ...with a couple of exceptions (like bombing Iran). Obama/Biden have had quite divergent views on the subject. But Biden and Hagel certainly have one thing in common, they both were avid backers of the Iraq invasion.

      Biden on Oct. 10, 2002, on the floor of the Senate:

      "Saddam is dangerous. The world would be a better place without him. But the reason he poses a growing danger to the United States and its allies is that he possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking, with his $2 billion a year illegally skimmed from the U.N. fund for food, his Oil for Food program, for peace program, that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
      Biden's Op-ed in the Washington Post in September 1998:
      "Saddam is dangerous. The world would be a better place without him. But the reason he poses a growing danger to the United States and its allies is that he possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking, with his $2 billion a year illegally skimmed from the U.N. fund for food, his Oil for Food program, for peace program, that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:22:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have come to support the Hagel nomination. (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paleo, winsock, kyril, poco, Bush Bites, MichaelNY

    The fact that right-wingers and the usual war hawk Dems are aaginst him makes me content with his nomination. I hope the Obama camp relishes the fight that is to come and I in fact welcome it.  

  •  There's another point to be made, which (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, Bush Bites, v2aggie2, MichaelNY

    is that Pres. Obama has a clear idea now what he'd like to see the military evolve into. Gates has made headway in transforming us into more of a special forces and drone-based military, and Obama has a continued agenda for the next four years. He needs to pick a nominee who he thinks would best carry out his vision for the Dept. of Defense. Since we cannot know his vision, we are in no position to judge the merits of this pick. This is Barack Obama's prerogative 100%.

    If Hagel were recently on record saying "bomb, bomb Iran" or something like that, THAT would be relevant. Not all this other shit.

    •  "Since we cannot know his vision..." (3+ / 0-)

      Wow.

      During the Vietnam War, many Democrats told those of us who were opposed that we didn't have all the inside information that the administration did so we could not justify our objections to war, could not judge it on its merits.

      They were right. What we knew to be true was just a slice of the godawful reality, that being that both LBJ and his Republican Secretary of Defense knew the war could not be won but kept sending men to kill and be killed anyway.

      I wasn't happy with Gates, but I understood at the time why Obama picked him given all the other crises he had going, and Gates was certainly not Rumsfeld. His pick of Panetta was not great, but it was a slight step in the right direction. Hagel seems to have moved in a better direction on some aspects of foreign policy since 2005-08. But there are Democrats out there with far less hawkish views than Hagel's who would be better choices.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:29:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You had to mention drones, huh? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      "Cleanup, Aisle 5!"

      (Though I agree with you.)

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:34:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Using drones in iraq or afghanistan may (0+ / 0-)

        bother many people today. But this is nothing compared with the future. We're going to have local police with drones as well as private drones. They won't have bombs on them (hopefully) but they could have cameras, and guns.

    •  Susan Rice's possible nomination (0+ / 0-)

      was derailed by the guy who coined that phrase with the public.

      Is that irony?

  •  If that's what he calls himself nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  I'm more concerned if he's still an (4+ / 0-)

    anti-woman, anti-gay dick. They come in all party affiliations.

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

    by Scott Wooledge on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:29:38 PM PST

  •  Chuckie has not been in GOP love for some time. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, whizdom, poco

    I'm still kinda mystified why this is a surprise to so many.

    They've considered this guy a RINO... even, at one point, too supportive of gays.

    CH has indeed said some crap designed to get reelected with. But the key reason he's not still in elected office is he gave up trying to keep the nuts on the plate and let 'em roll off.

    He garners an Arlen Specter level of suspicion among dems, and for the same reasons. (Defectors are never truly loved, honey.) But he's not held the true views of the republicans for some time.

    cheerleaders need not apply.

    by kravitz on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:47:17 PM PST

  •  Rep or not, he "Faces opposition if... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, worldlotus

    nominated as defense secretary"...

    Senators from both parties are predicting a difficult confirmation due to controversial statements the former Senator has made in the past...

    ..."I don't think he's going to get many Republican votes," Graham said...

    Meanwhile,

    ...At least two other candidates remain under serious consideration — former Pentagon policy chief Michele Flournoy and Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter...

    Interesting times...

    •  The objecting Democrats will fold (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      EthanR, corvo

      they won't cross the President just to make women and gays happy.

      It remains to be seen if the neocon wing of the GOP is influential enough to get a filibuster off the ground.

      I doubt it.

      It may be ugly, but he'll get confirmed, is my bet.

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

      by Scott Wooledge on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 04:50:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I guarantee you he'll support Obama policies (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        Given their obvious close friendship, why on earth would he try to cross him by hurting gays and lesbians or women? Hagel will follow Obama's policies. Just like ANY CABINET APPOINTEE.

        For example, looking at Ray LaHood's voting record, you'd think that he wouldn't support some of the progressive/liberal ideas that are coming out of the DOT. But HE IS. It's amazing what happens when you follow the President's policies AND you have the freedom to come up with your own.

        •  I doubt he'll prioritize (0+ / 0-)

          issuing same sex spousal IDs, as the Pentagon Working Group recommended in their study, but the DOD has not followed through on.

          He won't take OutServe/SLDN up on their challenge to issue a non-discrimination policy for LGB servicemembers either.

          And the sexual assault rate for women in the military has been unacceptably way too high for ages.

          I doubt it changes, or any policy changes occur to address it better under Hagel's watch. He won't address ACLU's lawsuit about women's promotion in the military.

          I'm sure women and gays' progress in the military will freeze under his watch at the status quo. A lost tenure.

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

          by Scott Wooledge on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 05:55:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Hate of neocons, plus coming cuts at DOD (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco, Bush Bites, offgrid, worldlotus

    The neocons hate Hagel. AIPAC probably hate him too. Add to that the fact that President Obama may want someone believed to be a republican, in order to have some political cover for implementing budget cuts.

    Another factor in the choice of Hagel  could be his experience as a member of Congress, and the relationships he has with many Senators.

    It's almost scary to see how some VERY powerful forces are assembling to block him. Seeing the level of opposition against Hagel, and where it comes from, I'm pretty sure he is a VERY GOOD choice.

    I hope Mr. Hagel and his family are prepared for the ugliness that's coming in the confirmation process. ( I've wondered if the delay in his nomination had anything to do with Mr. Hagel's vetting and/or some hesitation on the part of Mr. Hagel himself...)

  •  This entire "republican" backlash isn't even real. (0+ / 0-)

    Lieberman, who's leaving, is on voice of opposition and Lindsey Graham, the other voice, says he'll face "a challenging nomination"

    Where is all of this opposition coming from?

    I certainly can't find it.

    •  I agree. (0+ / 0-)

      I doubt most of the GOP caucus will join the three amigos. When push comes to shove they won't have 41 votes to filibuster Hagel. Don't confuse lots of chatter in the RW blogosphere with actual Senator positions.

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

      by Scott Wooledge on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 04:52:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, not a Democrat maybe (0+ / 0-)

    It's worth remembering that while the GOP has gone off into Lalaland, that not everybody who can no longer stand the party is someone we want "in the tent".  Yeah, we need a sane RW.  But we also need an assertive left wing.

    Just because the GOP no longer wants him doesn't make him one of the good guys.  He's a conservative, pro-corporate type.  That used to mean "Republican".  It may no longer be enough to be a conservative pro-corporate type to be a Republican.  But that still makes him a conservative pro-corporate type.  He's not really a friend.  He's at best an ally.

    That said:  I have no trouble with Obama appointing whoever he wants to his own cabinet.  I'd prefer a Democrat as SOD, but it's not a serious issue AFAIC.

    Quote of the week: "They call themselves bipartisan because they're able to buy members of both parties," (R. Eskow, Campaign for America's Future.)

    by mbayrob on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 05:26:18 PM PST

  •  Yes, he is, literally. (0+ / 0-)

    Of course, seeing as most Democrats are Republicans these days, I suppose he'd have the luxury of choice, should he decide to tire of his official party affiliation.

  •  This analysis pretty much explains why Pres wants (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worldlotus, MichaelNY

    Chuck Hagel. Foreign Policy analyst Steve Clemons explains the rationale behind the Hagel potential candidacy in an interview with Rachel Maddow. The money quote comes towards the end of the segment.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

    Rachel:
    What do you make of the criticism from the other side, particularly the criticism that Democratic presidents, in some cases have almost reflexively chosen republicans to run the defense department. and republicans are the national defense and democrats are not?

    Clemons:  
    Leon Panetta is secretary of defense now and he has put himself between Bob Gates and Chuck Hagel. but the second thing, and I mean this as no negative. There are very qualified, competent people in the Democratic party who are more than competent to run the department of defense.

    That said, the Democrats, many of them that came in with President Obama, that were also part of the concern that Americans don't trust Democrats to deploy power, to be forceful in the world have adopted in many of the institutions they have built in the last four to five to six years a pentagon-hugging strategy of not wanting to reform or cut because of the fear that they will be considered Vietnam Democrats, anti-military democrats.

    So to send in a Republican in an era of austerity to slash budgets and to basically send a message that at the end of this, we're going to apply intelligence and technology to our security platforms and come out with more security deliverables, even though we're spending less is something that i think President Obama thinks a Republican like Chuck Hagel can do better than other candidates that are in the field.

    "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them." -- Pres. Obama (1/20/2009)

    by zizi on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 07:44:53 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site