Skip to main content

View Diary: Chuck Hagel's Dismal, Sordid Voting Record (97 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe he thinks that Hagel will be (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miss Blue, Pinto Pony, wlkx

    the best pick for SoD. Why must Obama's every motive be challenged? This is his pick to make, and if he thinks that Hagel will be the best pick, who gives a shit what way Hagel voted on a bill in 1999 or 2002? So Hagel is a Republican, so what? As soon as Obama does anything, there is this machine here that digs through the past to come up with all the reasons that he is wrong.

    Too bad. He's our president, and some of us think he's doing a fantastic job and doesn't need to be attacked from the left while every day he is attacked relentlessly from the right.

    •  Just say it: Obama is a Reaganite. (0+ / 0-)
    •  Oh, come on now. (10+ / 0-)

      It's completely fair to look at all of Obama's nominees and to find them wanting or find them superbly qualified as the case may be.    

      I happen to think that Obama is doing a pretty good job, but I reserve my right to think critically.  When a nomination such as Hagel's comes to the fore,  it deserves scrutiny.  

      It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

      by Radiowalla on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:07:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't kid yourself. These people (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Miss Blue

        criticize each and every decision and utterance of Pres. Obama. There's as much anti-Obama animosity amongst some here as there is on the right, and this nomination is just another opportunity for some to go on the attack. It's incredibly predictable, and no matter who Obama chooses there will be diaries decrying his terrible, awful choice.

        •  I don't know if this is the case (4+ / 0-)

          or not the case as I don't generally keep track of what you describe as "these people."  I merely responded to the substance of the diary which is Hagel's voting record and the record speaks for itself.  

          What do you think of his record, by the way?  That's what the diary is about.

          It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

          by Radiowalla on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:20:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I wouldn't have voted that way. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            But all that is completely irrelevant when it comes to assessing his fitness for Sec. of Defense. People here just hate the right, so want a person like Hagel to suffer (and certainly not get a big job). How much has been said here about his qualifications for this office? Barack Obama, who would have voted almost completely the opposite on the list above, seems to be satisfied that none of that matters in determining who is best fit for this office. I think that Obama is a smart man who doesn't make decisions based on retribution for prior votes or statements made years or even decades in the past. I am glad that it is on a blog that people are catty and in the White House that they are not, versus the other way around.

            •  Obama seems to have discounted (2+ / 0-)

              Hagel's voting record on these issues.  What I would like to know is:

              Has Hagel given any sign that he has changed his mind on earlier positions?  Did Obama even ask him about it?   What is Obama hoping for with Hagel at Defense?  Someone suggested that Obama plans big cuts to defense and doesn't want the blame all laid at the foot of the Democratic Party.   With a Republican at the helm, the Dems get some cover, and so on...

              Of course, since I am not in the inner circle of the White House, I will likely never know the answer to these questions.

              As for wanting Hagel to suffer,  that seems pretty far-fetched to me.  

              It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

              by Radiowalla on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:36:25 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Obama has met with Hagel multiple (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                times, we know that. And why would Obama ask him about every vote listed above? Obama has asked whatever questions he thinks most important, and they probably relate to issues involving defense. He also said the other day on MTP that the anti-gay statement Hagel made is not disqualifying as it represents his views in the past, not present. The politics of GLBT has changed enormously in the past decade, thank goodness. Yet some think it a good idea to seek revenge against all public officials who used to have gay-unfriendly views. I agree with Andrew Sullivan that such vengeance makes little sense.

                •  What is missing now is a statement about (4+ / 0-)

                  Hagel's present views on women's reproductive rights.  This is a very important issue for women in the military and I think it should be addressed publicly before he is confirmed.  

                  You trust Obama's judgement on these matters and, for the most part,  I do, too.  But I am not satisfied with the rationale for Hagel's nomination and I would like more clarification before he is confirmed.  

                  It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

                  by Radiowalla on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:54:16 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Who cares about Hagel's personal (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    views on reproductive rights? That has no bearing on this job. If someone in the senate wishes to ask him that question as part of the nomination hearings, that is their prerogative. But your insistence that a "statement" be issued by a Sec. of Defense nominee regarding his views on women's reproductive rights is a bit off-the-wall.

                    •  I did not ask for a statement (5+ / 0-)

                      I asked for clarification.  As Secretary of Defense he will have the power to influence the health care of women in the military and this is not a trivial matter.   It is not "off the wall" to be concerned.

                      It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

                      by Radiowalla on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:07:01 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  He'll still report to Obama. (0+ / 0-)

                        What do you think he's going to do, deny women in the military the right to contraception or something, and Obama will just stand by? Is this really your top concern when considering the civilian leader of the most powerful military in the world?

                    •  Decent people care about his non-personal views (5+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Bob Love, TracieLynn, Mokurai, Radiowalla, TomP

                      on reproductive rights. To say they're "personal" is absurd. He voted six times for banning servicewomen from being able to get an abortion in military medical facilities WITH THEIR OWN MONEY even if they are stationed in countries where abortion is forbidden for civilians (and he succeeded). In twelve years' time. He also thinks pregnancies caused by rape are "irrelevant" when talking about his no-exceptions-anti-choice position because they don't happen a lot - while fully knowing that a servicewoman is twice as likely to be raped by a fellow American than a civilian is, even, and that the majority of abortions in the military are performed because the subject was raped.

                      Hagel's past has had more than serious consequences for hundreds, if not thousands, of valuable people in the military. Many people got fired for returning home to be able to get an abortion, while many others' careers were terminated because (surprise!) literally forcing unwanted pregnancies to continue creates single moms. And you're calling these views "personal"?

                    •  By adding the word "personal" you misrepresented (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      Radiowalla's comment.  

                      The question is how he will apply or deny servicewomen's reproductive rights as Secretary of Defense.  That question is completely germane to the job, and has nothing to do with his personal views.

                      "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

                      by Bob Love on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 12:02:23 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Right, he's going to do that. (0+ / 0-)

                        You do realize he'd be working for Obama?

                        •  Let's go back to why you changed (0+ / 0-)

                          Radiowalla's comment. Frankly, changing a policy question into a question about "personal views" disqualifies you from serious consideration.

                          We already know you think of everyone who critiques Obams's appointments as "them".  

                          And repeating your same 1.5 points in comment after comment is strike three.

                          Move on.

                          "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

                          by Bob Love on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 12:31:33 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

        •  "These people" is too broad a brush. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Scott Wooledge

          You people should know that by now.

          "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

          by Bob Love on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:56:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's you who's over-reacting. Liberals tend to be (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TracieLynn, wlkx, Scott Wooledge, TomP

          critical thinkers but not hero worshippers or true believers.  So naturally when you have a large collection of vocal ones as here, very few of them are never going to be critical of even the liberal President realistically imaginable and, on any almost given issue, at least some of us are going to be critical.  That may give the impression that there are many here that are ALWAYS critical of PBO, but it's more like there's always at least a few who are critical on any given issue but that those being critical differ substantially from one issue to the next.

          For example, I despised his appointment of Geithner and Summers, and, from what I've heard so far, I doubt I'll be much happier with his next Treasury appointment.  But I'm actually somewhat positive about Hagel -- yeah, he's a schmuck in some ways, but he said a lot more critical things about the Iraq War than, say, Hillary did; and, more importantly, he believes that military spending can be significantly reduced without comprimising defense and that war on Iran is a really bad idea.   Most importantly, he's somebody with those views who can get confirmed.  (Are the R.'s really going to show so transparently what they're about as to turn down one of their own?).

          As with the contrast between the Geithner & Hagel nominations, there are many, many things that PBO has done that I think are fine or even great and many that I think were mistakes or downright awful.  What else would you expect of a liberal with a functioning brain?  Am I supposed to suspend critical thought and just shut up simply because I voted for the guy?  

          •  Several Rs have been on Fox being precisely (0+ / 0-)

            that transparent about how Hagel is now the enemy, after years of praising him even with his views on Iraq. IOKIYAR, and not for an instant if you are not.

            America—We built that!

            by Mokurai on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:48:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  It's Ok to praise them (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        when we like them, like Susan Rice. Questioning them, like poor Larry Summers or Timmy Geithner, is simply unpatriotic.

        "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 05:58:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I can't think of anything more boring or (7+ / 0-)

      anti-democratic than smiling and nodding at everything POTUS does. I support the guy and I overall like the job he's doing. But I still have a voice, and I get to use it. I think Obama could pick someone much better than Hagel. That's not challenging Obama's motives in any way.

      P.S. I am not a crackpot.

      by BoiseBlue on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:11:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  To which I say: more and better Democrats. nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

      by Bob Love on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:54:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, excuse my confusion (0+ / 0-)

      back in 2009, after vowing to NOT appoint lobbyiests, Obama appointed Raytheon lobbyist for 2nd in command of the Pentagon.

      Last year the Pentagon paid the Raytheon Corp., its fifth largest contractor, a cool $10 billion for its missiles, missile shields and a constellation of electronics. This year President Barack Obama is putting Raytheon's recently departed top lobbyist in charge of the Pentagon's day-to-day management.
      You know what I think?

      I think Obama delegates these decisions, looks at and listens to those advising him, and goes along with their picks.    I compare it to looking at brochures for a new car and choosing one without looking under the hood or kicking the tires.  That's what I think.

      And who can truthfully say to this community that some of his choices are not, at the very least, quizzical?

      And let's all take a moment of silence to be THANKFUL that we are allowed to rant freely, only at the risk of being chastised by some very parental-sounding voices here.

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 12:54:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site