Skip to main content

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) leaves a news conference in Omaha, Nebraska March 12, 2007. REUTERS/Dave Kaup
Former Nebraska Senator, Republican Chuck Hagel
The potential nomination of former Senator of Nebraska Chuck Hagel has pretty much gotten out of control.

In quintessential strange bedfellows mode, we can find Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall, Glenn Greenwald and Pat Buchanan (now reduced to posting at World Net Daily where he belongs) defending Hagel from what they see as unfair attacks from the right on his views on Israel. It is probably correct that the Israel objections from the terrible trio of Sens. McCain, Graham and Lieberman and others are unfair, but it doesn't mean objections to the man are incorrect. (See: broken clock.)

Objections from the right have now totally eclipsed those from the left, but Markos Moulitsas spoke for many when he said on Dec 14 "No Republicans at Defense":

Hagel is a Republican who voted for all of George W. Bush's pet wars. .... And yes, while he has reneged on his past support for our nation's disastrous wars, there are plenty of good qualified Democrats who weren't idiotic enough to support them in the first place.

It's time for Democrats to embrace the fact that yes, they know what the hell they're doing on matters of national security.

Markos kicked off a campaign to raise progressive objections to Hagel. And it is very strange that Obama pretty clearly won the foreign policy and national security debate, and yet, does not seem inclined to grant his party the mantel of leadership on those issues.

The right's Israel-based objections seem to fit a constant and tiresome Republican talking point. Way back in 2008 primaries, The Weekly Standard wrote about "Obama's Jewish Problem", the New York Times and numerous other outlets did that year as well. And it gets trotted out with great regularity including this cycle, like this from CNN. The trouble with this stubborn meme is it refuses to actually manifest itself in any measurable way. The Jews stubbornly continue to vote for Obama by overwhelming super-majorities.

On issues of Obama's supposed lack of support for Israel, the right wing appears to be in an endless chorus of crying "Wolf!" Hagel has just become the latest focus of that trope.

The whole dust-up seems to endow a lot more power in the Def Sec to set policy than he probably has. Sure, he's an influential voice in the national security and foreign policy team. But the inertia on America's Israel policy comes from Congress, lobbyists--both foreign policy and military. There's also the "conventional wisdom" that informs every beltway bloviator, who are able to create a self-fulfilling reality. And the inertia of many, many decades probably doesn't leave a lot of room for any single player to move the needle too dramatically. I'm not convinced any president has much latitude. What is this supposed outcome, Israel is attacked and America shrugs? We stop sending foreign aid? We stop sharing intelligence and arms? None of this is going to happen no matter who is Def Sec.

The Def Sec has far more unilateral latitude to influence internal policies of the military than bigger picture stuff like Afghanistan and Israel foreign policy, which require massive coalitions to change course, and these coalitions can be built more easily and effectively directly from the White House. And on some of the major issues being debated in military circles, Hagel has proved himself over his long career to be no friend to those constituencies, to put it mildly.

(Continue reading below the fold.)

There is the matter of his rather awful record in the Senate where he racked up a 0% rating from NARAL, 11% from the NAACP, and 14% with National Organization for Women, 0% with Human Rights Campaign, indicating little, if any, support for the concerns of women, people of color or the LGBT community.

The general discussion of his 1998 remarks that LGBT people are unfit to serve their country when they are "openly, aggressively gay" has provided more heat than light.

The bickering has focused on whether Hagel should be "forgiven" because of his politically conveniently timed apology or not (an apology which was not actually delivered directly to the man who was the focus of the attack).

Lost, and almost totally unaddressed is what are the policy implications of Sen. Hagel's alleged evolution on LGBT issues?

Reports to the contrary, LGBT equality is not yet a done deal in the military. There is still the matter of partner benefits. There still remain a handful of regulations that could be revised independent of the Defense of Marriage act that could bring some equity of compensation and benefits to gay and lesbian servicemembers. The second column in the table below are all benefits that may be endowed to gay and lesbian servicemembers but remain denied due only to Department of Defense foot-dragging:

Included in the discretionary benefits currently denied are spousal identication cards, cited in the Pentagon's own Working Group study as not requiring DOMA repeal to deliver. Moving on this might have avoided the recent and ugly Fort Bragg incident of spousal discrimination. This case placed a sharp focus that leadership can provide guidance, or they can remain apathetic and silent, as Fort Bragg's leadership has chosen to be in the face of arbitrary discrimination against some military families. The Department of Defense's sloth in revising relevant regulations will enable situations like this to continue into the foreseeable future.

Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan
Consider the case of cancer-stricken Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan of the New Hampshire National Guard. Governor-Elect Maggie Hassan announced Morgan will lead the pledge of Allegiance at her Inaugural Ceremony. It's a great honor, but with only months to live, Morgan would like nothing more than to know her wife and daughter's future are secured by her Veteran's Benefits, as any parent or spouse would wish.

Would Hagel support any measure to deliver equity to families like Morgan's? No one knows.

No one seems inclined to ask if Hagel would consider the status quo acceptable, or if partner benefits are among the issues he'd like to see addressed over his potential tenure? Will the military voluntarily revise the necessary rules and regulations, and would Def. Sec. Hagel support or oppose that? That is really a much more relevant question than whether he really feels bad about being mean to Ambassador nominee James Hormel 15 years ago.

For military women, progress continues in fits and starts. Legislation that would require the discharge of servicemembers who have been found to have sexually assaulted other service members just passed Congress. This should be a no-brainer, but a report shows that almost as often as not—38 percent of the time—this has not historically been the case.

And Leon Panetta is arguably the first Secretary of Defense to take concrete action to address disgraceful issue of high rates of sexual assault in the military.

But, the latest bad news on sexual assault rates was just delivered Dec. 27; still way too unacceptably high.

About half of women sent to Iraq or Afghanistan report being sexually harassed, and nearly one in four says she was sexually assaulted, according to new research by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

It has never been the case that nothing can be done, it has always been there case that there is just no political will to do it. Is Hagel the man to follow through on Panetta's overtures?

Women's access to abortion services in the case of rape was also recently affirmed by legislation. This bill attracted Panetta's objections to the dismay of women's servicemember advocates, so clearly there's still a lot of work to be done on this issue in moving the military culture to be more supportive of women.

Even in the face of this legislative affirmation, half the battle for women's choice is not legality but access. Hagel's 0% rating from NARAL and strong pro-life views lend little confidence that there won't be serious obstructionism from the Department of Defense in implementing this mandate from Congress.

The American Civil Liberties Union has also placed the role of women in combat into the national conversation. They filed a lawsuit, contending that denying women combat positions has the affect of creating a brass ceiling. Will Republican Hagel work to open opportunities for women to advance in the ranks at the DOD? No one knows.

A lot of this stuff boils down to political will to prioritize these issues. Whether they are "important" enough to make actual policy changes, or pushed aside in favor of "more important things." There's really nothing in Hagel's history that suggests he cares a bit about any of these concerns and much to suggest he'd be an enemy to progress.

In the 2012 election, Democrats quite effectively made the case that the Republican party was the enemy of women, people of color and gays, and to a very good electoral outcome, check the crosstabs. Could the administration honestly expect the base to rally around an pick who has never proven himself to be a friend or ally to any of the constituencies Democrats aggressively courted over the last year?

The expectation just weeks after the election is extraordinary. Sen. Claire McCaskill isn't the only one getting whiplash around here.

It's hard to picture who's excited for Hagel, or why anyone cares whether the Hagel trial balloon sinks or floats.

Mostly the argument for Hagel seems to be that only Chuck Hagel and only Chuck Hagel alone is capable of stopping the neocons, and anyway, any other pick would be much worse.

Chris Hayes asked, "Is Hagel the ideal figure to lead the Defense Department?" It's hard to imagine there is an affirmative argument he is.

Sign the petition: President Obama, please select a Democrat as your 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

  •  Good addition to this issue, Scott... (46+ / 0-)

    ...This contributes more ammo to the case against Hagel. The idea that his views on "social issues" have nothing to do with running the Department of Defense is ludicrous.

    There are other issues, too. As I wrote Nov. 30 in Hagel said to be under possible scrutiny for secretary of defense. Bad idea:

    Remarkably [Leon Panetta] is only the seventh Democrat to hold the [secretary of defense] job since it was created to replace secretary of war 65 years ago. All told, 16 Republicans have served for nearly 51 years in that job, while Democrats have served for only 13, with the avidly nonpartisan George C. Marshall in charge for one. No Republican has ever appointed a Democrat to the post. Every Democratic president save Jimmy Carter has appointed a Republican as secretary for at least one term of his presidency.

    Why? Apparently because even Democratic presidents have bought into the Republican propaganda that you can't trust Democrats when it comes to the nation's defense. Remind me again about how well that Bob McNamara thing worked out? [...]

    It's past time for Democrats to always choose their own for this post. Not just any Democrat, of course. But there are plenty of ability to do the job.

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

    by Meteor Blades on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 06:28:00 PM PST

  •  Thanks for the diary and the petition, Signed nt (6+ / 0-)
  •  no Chuck Hagelians in the Cabinet (7+ / 0-)

    yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:02:55 PM PST

  •  I'm not interested in the "Israel objections" (13+ / 0-)

    That's all bullshit first and second, he's not said anything nearly harsh enough against the apartheid Israeli government. I do have a problem with his previous war cheer leading though and a bigger problem with some of his 19th century social views. I'm with Markos. There are plenty of qualified Democrats. Obama should pick one of them.

    "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

    by MargaretPOA on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:06:21 PM PST

    •  There are Arab Israelis in the Knesset (4+ / 0-)

      Israel is not an apartheid state.

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

      by dhonig on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:29:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't be absurd (8+ / 0-)

        Of course they are. Examples are many and varied. In fact, the Israeli Supreme Court had to overturn a ban on an "Arab" politician running for the Knesset, imposed by the central elections committee. Clearly there are some very apartheid elements in the Israeli government. That's but one example but I'm not going to waste time digging up more. It's pointless to argue with an ideologue for whom facts and reality are irrelevant.

        "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

        by MargaretPOA on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:38:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  read your own words (6+ / 0-)

          the israeli supreme court ruled on behalf of an arab? does that sound like something the apartheid judiciary would have done?

          there are plenty of good reasons to criticize israel, but hyperbolic criticism makes it easier to dismiss the legitimate reasons.

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

          by Laurence Lewis on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:53:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I said there are ELEMENTS (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WattleBreakfast

            of the Israeli government. But, again, I can't argue with a person who is determined to dispute everything I write. Nor am I going to try.

            "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

            by MargaretPOA on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:52:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  i wasn't aware (0+ / 0-)

              that i was disputing everything you write. "elements of" could apply to anything and anyone.

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

              by Laurence Lewis on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:56:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  There are equally nutty elements in every govt. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zemblan

              In fact, it's arguable that both left and right in the U.S. lay claim to some pretty nutty politicians, at least the equivalent if not worse than the extremists in eretz Israel.  I make this judgment from the perspective of an old fellow with dual citizenship, who's observed the best and the worst in both nations for more years than I care to admit, lest the Kossites in charge lock me in the antiquities storeroom.

              Dhonig is absolutely correct in stating that Israel is not an apartheid state.  Arab citizens have unfettered suffrage, and full access to the courts for redress of infringements, as do all other minority citizens.  Can the same be said of the United States?  Not always, although the U.S. has greatly improved in that regard in my lifetime.  Israel's suffrage record for minorities certainly can't be matched by any other states in the Middle East.  Critics of Israel need to remember that it is a Jewish state, created by Jews for Jews, when no other nation on Earth wanted us, and even so, we have willingly extended full religious and political freedoms to our fellow citizens of varying religions and race.    

              Regarding Hagel, there are many honest objections to choosing him for the job, some of which were enumerated in the opening essay and following posts.  However, a secretary of defense's primary job is maintaining military readiness, and prosecuting the president's orders in war, and not chasing his own social issues agenda.  Any changes in social policies should come from the president and from Congress, and not from an appointee.  If Hagel is appointed, and if he follows the president's directions, then he will be doing as good a job as could any Democrat in the same position.    

  •  Obviously gotta agree with Kos. (16+ / 0-)

    I see little point in handing over Defense to a Republican.  The Republican party doesn't deserve life jackets, we should be tossing them anchors until they fade away and some sane party begins to emerge to take their place.  A 'fiscally conservative' party that actually is fiscally conservative would be a nice change of pace from one that claims the title, but is simply cover for bleeding the country dry and shoving cash into the pockets of the rich.

    •  Yes. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW
      A 'fiscally conservative' party that actually is fiscally conservative would be a nice change of pace from one that claims the title, but is simply cover for bleeding the country dry and shoving cash into the pockets of the rich.

      Renewable energy brings national global security.     

      by Calamity Jean on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:50:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'd rather nominate Wesley Clark... (15+ / 0-)

    ... for Sec Def.  It's criminal that we're not using his experience and wisdom.

  •  in support of hagel (8+ / 0-)

    i think hagel might be an excellent choice
    i think people are too caught up in identity politics. ok hes not a democrat. hes not a woman.
    but you know what, he might be a very good choice.
    he has travelled the world. he has worked with dod.
    hes in favor of nuclear arms reductions.
    he has called the afghan war on the wrong track.
    he is not a blind suppporter of israel.
    probably he is not pro- gay but i am confident he would follow obamas lead. and his ideas on that arent really central to the position.

    Obama 2012...going to win it with our support!!!

    by mattinjersey on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:10:55 PM PST

    •  As far as I'm concerned (11+ / 0-)

      His bad qualities and sketchy record on non white male issues far outweigh any half assed good qualities he has. Hell Ron Paul is almost as anti war as I am but you'll never find me cheering for him either.

      "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

      by MargaretPOA on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:14:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  well (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alexandre, poco, Not A Bot

        the primay job ois to lead the national defense, its not to determine lgbt policy. i suspect the social policy would be spearheaded by obama
        so if you are making your argument based on your perception of his attitude towards gays, that may not be the best metric.

        Obama 2012...going to win it with our support!!!

        by mattinjersey on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:19:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not just LGBT people (7+ / 0-)

          He has 19th century social attitudes about women and racial minorities as well. You can't tell me that somebody thinking in such a backward manner is going to be an effective leader. WWII, for example, was a racist war. Hitler lost because he decided that England and America were soft. He thought Russians were sub human. Japan did the same thing, they assumed that the US didn't have a stomach for war so they attacked, even though everybody knew they couldn't compete with American industrial strength. They attacked based on the assumption that we were too "decadent" to fight back. Many Americans were slaughtered because they had some stupid, racist ideas about Japanese enemy soldiers and their own African American divisions. I don't want somebody in that position to be making similar assumptions about Iran, for example, based on stereotypes.

          "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

          by MargaretPOA on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:27:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, and his anti-gay comments (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Anorish, Alexandre

          were from the 90s. It was a different time. Clinton signed DOMA, and now he gets props from the LGBT community for recently coming out for gay marriage.

          Hagel's apology for his slurs against the ambassador seemed sincere, and the ambassador accepted the apology.

          Asking about his current views on DADT repeal are proper and important (he says he supports it), but I think we should move past the stuff from the 90s

          You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

          by tomjones on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:34:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fair Enough (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            politicalceci, sidnora, LSophia

            I haven't researched his previous statements but say we give him the benefit of the doubt that he's changed and forgive his past statements?  That doesn't answer the question of (if Hagel is nominated) why President Obama didn't find a Democrat to fill the position.  

            I'm tired of Republican Presidents giving us Transportation while Democratic Presidents offer Republicans Defense and Treasury.

            If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid.

            by Senor Frog on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:54:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Correct me if I'm wrong (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LSophia, Zack from the SFV

              but Leon Panetta, current Sec of Def, is a Democrat.

              You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

              by tomjones on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:01:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And Democrat Is How That Position (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                politicalceci, 4Freedom, LSophia, sfbob

                needs to stay.  There is no need to give such an important position back (see: previous SoD Gates) to Republicans so they can pat themselves on the back that they are still king of national security.

                Perception is important.  If Democratic Presidents continue to play this game, they handicap their own party.  

                If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid.

                by Senor Frog on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:18:37 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  He used to be my Representative (0+ / 0-)

                   as a Democratic House member from the Monterey Bay area on the central California coast. I voted for him the first time he was elected when I was an eighteen year old freshman at UC Santa Cruz. Panetta was a good Congressman who kept in close contact with his district. He voted fairly progressively on issues which represented the views of his constituents.  Of course being in Congress is a very different job from being the head of the CIA or Defense Department.

                Diehard Swingnut, disgruntled Democrat, age 54, new CA-30

                by Zack from the SFV on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 11:23:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  he got 0% ratings (5+ / 0-)

            from the human rights campaign from 2005 to 2009. is that acceptable?

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

            by Laurence Lewis on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:56:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No (0+ / 0-)

              Its 2012.

              You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

              by tomjones on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:59:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Its worse than that (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sfbob, IM, Laurence Lewis, Skipbidder

              When he "apologized" he said his 1998 comments don't reflect "the totality of my public record." His public record in the United States Senate spanning two terms from the 105th through the 110th Congress shows his 1998 comments were more in line with the "totality of [his] public record" than his terse "apology."

              Let's be clear, Hagel opposed what is commonly know as the Hate Crimes Bill (variously known by other names through its history). He never sponsored it, favored watered down hate crime language that excluded sexual orientation in the military's hate crimes regulations and voted to filibuster motions to invoke cloture on the Hate Crimes bills when they came up in the Senate.

              Hagel's "public record" on employment non-discrimination is just as bad. Not only did he refuse to sponsor or vote for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, he voted against adding sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination portion of the Senate's Standing Rules on Employment Practices and refused to adopt a non-discrimination policy for his senatorial office that included sexual orientation and gender identity.

              He voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed bills that would lessen the impact of DOMA on same sex couples such as the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, Uniting American Families Act and the Tax Equity for Domestic Partner and Health Plan Beneficiaries Act.

              On HIV/AIDS, he declined to cosponsor the Ryan White Care Act and twice opposed legislation designed to expand medicaid to provide assistance to low-income people with HIV. The only time he voted to help the victims of HIV/AIDS was his vote for the Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act in 2008 (his last full year in Congress), which reauthorized PEPFAR, President Bush's global HIV/AIDS initiative to treat mostly non-American HIV/AIDS victims (i.e. not TEH GAYs who constitute most American HIV/AIDS victims).

              Out of the 6 HRC scorecards from the 105th to 110th Congress, Hagel got 5 ZEROS and one 20 (in the 110th entirely earned on his PEPFAR vote). That's on a 100 point scale. That spans over 40 votes spanning 12 years with just one yea for the LGBT position.

              Sorry, his "apology" to Hormel and the LGBT community is entirely too tardy and politically expedient. If he has truly had an epiphany on LGBT equality, then he needs to do more than just issue a 54 word apology for heinous comments made 14 years earlier that slandered an entire community.

              I don't trust Hagel and quite frankly I don't believe him. His comments and votes on LGBT issues are reason enough oppose Hagel's nomination without even taking into consideration President Obama's (R-1982) misguided reaffirmation of the notion that Democrats are not capable of running the Pentagon.

              "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

              by craigkg on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:06:44 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  The target of his comments said: (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            4Freedom, craigkg, sfbob, IM, Plox

            James Hormel said, upon being told there was an apology:

            “I have not received an apology,” Hormel, who is a major figure in Democratic politics, told me. “I thought this so-called apology, which I haven’t received, but which was made public, had the air of being a defensive move on his part.” Hormel added that the apology appeared to have been given “only in service of his attempt to get the nomination.”

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

            by Scott Wooledge on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:22:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Scott: You quote WP, the newspaper that supported (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              IM

              the Iraq war and opposes Hagel on the ground that he believes the military budget is bloated and needed to scale back.  

              What WP reports is not exactly what Ambassador Hormel says on his Facebook:

              Senator Hagel's apology is significant--I can't remember a time when a potential presidential nominee apologized for anything. While the timing appears self-serving, the words themselves are unequivocal--they are a clear apology. Since 1998, fourteen years have passed, and public attitudes have shifted--perhaps Senator Hagel has progressed with the times, too. His action affords new stature to the LGBT constituency, whose members still are treated as second class citizens in innumerable ways. Senator Hagel stated in his remarks that he was willing to support open military service and LGBT military families. If that is a commitment to treat LGBT service members and their families like everybody else, I would support his nomination.
              I hope you will amend what you wrote above.
              •  I quoted Hormel himself. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                craigkg, sfbob

                You are contending that the Washington Post fabricated his quotes?

                I assure you that isn't the case.

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

                by Scott Wooledge on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:26:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  My contention is that WP is hell bent to (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  IM

                  torpedo Hagel's potential nomination. Its reporting on this matter is dishonest.  If you compare what Amb. Hormel says on his facebook with what is reported in WP, it is easy to see that they do not convey exactly the same message.

                  It would be fairer if you mention in your writing that neocons Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Jennifer Rubin, Dan Señor are all against Hagel.  One might ask why. Perhaps you should also mention that that Hagel supported President Obama over McCain and Mitt Romney and he endorsed Joe Sestak over Pat Toomey, and Bob Kerrey over his Republican opponent.  

                  •  No it's not dishonest reporting. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    craigkg, sfbob

                    Hormel said it. He said it to several outlets. He said other things, but impinging the Post doesn't mean he didn't say it. I posted it because other people were speaking for him, so I thought I'd provide the actual words he said, however inconvenient they are.

                    And I DID mention neocon opposition, did you not read the piece? I didn't read off the list names.

                    I don't always believe the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

                    That's foolish calculus. No matter who Obama nominated the right wing would bitch. That's a given.

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

                    by Scott Wooledge on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:10:42 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Hormel's Wapo comments (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Scott Wooledge

                    were made before the White House probably leaned on Hormel to soften his position. The Facebook statement was made several hours after WaPo published his initial reaction and several people have surmised those comments prompted a call from someone high up in the administration telling Hormel to back off. Hormel's initial reaction is spot on IMO.

                    "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

                    by craigkg on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:11:31 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  If you'd like to write all this, do so. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    craigkg

                    I don't have to write the essay you'd like written, you're capable of doing it yourself. I wrote the essay that expressed my perspective on it.

                    It would be fairer if you mention in your writing that neocons Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Jennifer Rubin, Dan Señor are all against Hagel.  One might ask why. Perhaps you should also mention that that Hagel supported President Obama over McCain and Mitt Romney and he endorsed Joe Sestak over Pat Toomey, and Bob Kerrey over his Republican opponent.  

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

                    by Scott Wooledge on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:11:54 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Some kossaks will tell any lie to win an argument (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            craigkg

            here. It would appear you are one of them.

            Hagel's apology for his slurs against the ambassador seemed sincere, and the ambassador accepted the apology.
            The first phrase of your blockquoted sentence represents your opinion, to which you are entitled. The purported recipient does not share your opinion, or even acknowledge such an apology was made. The bolded phrase is an easily disprovable LIE, which took less than 5 seconds to bust in a search. I add the link here for you, since you seem to have completely missed it in the diary post. You finish with
            Asking about his current views on DADT repeal are proper and important (he says he supports it), but I think we should move past the stuff from the 90s
            which (in my opinion) is an example of straight white male privilege rearing its ignorant head on a blog and in a post where it truly does not belong or have credence. The questions are important but his only history on the subjects isn't? Pfui, as Nero Wolfe would have said. That "reasoning" is similar to the kind of 'apples and oranges are both fruits' argument which you demonstrated in your comment here:
            Clinton signed DOMA, and now he gets props from the LGBT community for recently coming out for gay marriage.
            Clinton signed DOMA to avoid a further push for a constitutional amendment. This historical FACT from the '90s is known to every honest commenter on this blog. Hagel worked very actively to defend both DADT and DOMA during his 12 years as a senator. If you didn't know that, a search engine would have educated you prior to your writing that fatuously ignorant line.

            Scott Wooledge (great post, Scott, thanks) spent his entire post below the fold talking about why 'stuff from the '90s' which is still unresolved is very important in picking the next SecDef, which you blew off with that line.

            Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

            by davidincleveland on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:25:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I apologize for suggesting you were lying. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sfbob, IM, Skipbidder

              On that issue, I was mistaken, and had I followed my own advice (by double checking for an update) before excoriating you, I'd have saved myself the humiliation of having to publicly admit I am guilty of what I accused you of.

              The purported recipient does not share your opinion, or even acknowledge such an apology was made. The bolded phrase is an easily disprovable LIE, which took less than 5 seconds to bust in a search. I add the link here for you, since you seem to have completely missed it in the diary post.
              I was corrected by another kossak, which I acknowledged here. I am truly sorry for my affront to you.

              Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

              by davidincleveland on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:51:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  But as Secretary of Defense (5+ / 0-)

          he has a strong input on how policy is implemented in regards to the military. It wasn't a fluke that Bob Gates was left in charge at Defense to oversee the dismantling of DADT, and he did a credible job from what I can tell. We don't need someone who's going to stonewall and drag his feet on implementing changes, whether it's putting into place the programs that are acceptable under DOMA (Scott's Column 2) or expanding coverage to all military spouses if/when DOMA is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

          "If we ever needed to vote we sure do need to vote now" -- Rev. William Barber, NAACP

          by Cali Scribe on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:19:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Say what? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WattleBreakfast
            It wasn't a fluke that Bob Gates was left in charge at Defense to oversee the dismantling of DADT, and he did a credible job from what I can tell.
            All hail Orwell!!!

            Bob F-ing Gates pushed to keep DADt off the agenda in 2009, opposed any sort of moratorium (Congressional or executive) on DADt discharges, fought tooth and nail against the California DADT case that twice resulted in a Federal Court Order barring DADT enforcement and stonewalled the "training" for DADt repeal to be complete after he left office so it wouldn't occur on his watch. Justr because he said some nice words about TEH GAYS in a January 2010 Senate hearing doesn't make him a saint on LGBT issues. His actions have spoken much louder than his words.

            "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

            by craigkg on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:20:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Where do you see "identity politics" (21+ / 0-)

      in the unease of Democrats about a candidate who has an anti-woman, anti-black, anti-LGBT voting record? That's about his beliefs and his anti-rights votes, not his "identity." I prefer Democrats who believe that every American should have the same rights even if they are not a straight white Christian make.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:24:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well put (12+ / 0-)

        Bigotry isn't "identity politics". It's just not.

        "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

        by MargaretPOA on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:28:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  OK (0+ / 0-)

        well kos' primary argument is that we can't have a Republican. so that to me is identity politics.

        And anti-woman, anti-black, anti-LGBT. I think that is perhaps a bit strong. I would agree that he is not a liberal in his views, but yet I would expect that Obama would not nominate him if he were not to follow Obama's lead in these areas.

        Fundamentally the job of secretary of defense is to determine defense policy. So if you don't like his views on abortion, is that really the right thing to look at? And wouldn't we expect that he follows Obama's lead on that anyways?

        My preference would be to look at his positions on defense, something the criticism of him hasn't even touched on.

        Obama 2012...going to win it with our support!!!

        by mattinjersey on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:28:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  those things DO matter (0+ / 0-)

          His positions on the race, sexual orientation, gender, and abortion all have a great deal to do with the position. I'm just not sure I trust him to handle these issues in the way and with the force that someone who actually believed in our positions did (rather than someone who didn't believe in our positions but had to enforce them out of circumstance).

          That has more to do with my own personal opposition than does the fact that he's a Republican. The (R) part is relatively minor to me. (Although more important to others from a framing perspective.)

          The fact that he got it right on one war doesn't cut it for many (most?) of us.

          The plural of anecdote is not data.

          by Skipbidder on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:25:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  And you don't think (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Senor Frog, craigkg, LSophia

      a Democrat exists who's qualified and at least as good on those positions? Both Clark and Sestak, who've been suggested upthread, seem eminently qualified. You're arguing that a Republican who sounds somewhat like a Democrat on a couple of issues would be a better choice than a Democrat, who would sound like a Democrat on a whole range of issues.

      Just to show you the flaw in this line of reasoning, can you imagine a Republican president - even a relatively sane one, say, Poppy Bush - appointing any Democrat to this position, or any other significant cabinet slot?

      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

      by sidnora on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:28:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  clark and sestak (0+ / 0-)

        I know Wes Clark is often on TV. But I am not sure he would be a good secretary of defense.
        Anyways the point with Hagel is that Obama worked with him and Obama trusts him. That relationship is why Obama is interested in him. He doesn't have that relationship with Clark or Sestak.

        Obama 2012...going to win it with our support!!!

        by mattinjersey on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:29:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm sure that his solution to Afghanistan being (0+ / 0-)

      on the wrong track is to add 50,000 troops.

      that was our president's terrible fucking idea, and he's a republican too.

      big badda boom : GRB 090423

      by squarewheel on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 11:01:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pretty typical (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    iburl, craigkg

    Obama makes a choice that fucks progressives hard to appease Republicans. Republicans oppose it anyways.

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:10:57 PM PST

  •  Two areas where a SecDef's opinions would (12+ / 0-)

    make a big difference are those on LGBT issues - since the military has a lot to implement - and climate change - a huge threat multiplier.

    Scott has done a very good job laying out Hagel's views on LGBT issues, and I'm now convinced that he will be an obstacle to integrating the military.

    The real problem may be climate change, where Hagel made his name opposing a climate treaty.

    It's time to unfrack California before it gets fracked. @RL_Miller

    by RLMiller on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:11:48 PM PST

    •  Excellent point but I suspect he's changed... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RLMiller, winsock, 4Freedom

      his spots on that too.

      Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

      by Ian S on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:27:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He's changed his spots (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scott Wooledge, Anorish, poco, 4Freedom

        along with the entire country in many respects.  People seem to forget that homophobia was largely the status quo in this country not so many years ago.

        Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

        by winsock on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:34:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you honestly "think" that this has changed, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RLMiller
          People seem to forget that homophobia was largely the status quo in this country not so many years ago.
          the dream world you inhabit is any victimized person's nightmare. I could have chosen fifty other examples of the same rampant homophobia alive and well, just from 2012's national news, but the spirit of christmas present moved me to that one.

          Big strike one for you. Perhaps you'd like to tell us that American society is post-racial next? Or would you prefer to inform us that we are all post-sexist for your next joke?

          Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

          by davidincleveland on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:41:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Did I say homophobia is dead? (0+ / 0-)

            Of course it isn't.  But why do you think DADT was the best Clinton could do in 1993 to fulfill his campaign pledge of ending the military ban on homosexuals?  DADT wasn't ended until last year.  And even still, yes, homophobia remains.

            Same-sex marriage is another case in point.  Obama did not support it until this year, 2012.  People evolve -- society evolves.  It doesn't happen overnight, it's a slow, ongoing process.

            I celebrate the progress.  And I commend those who are enlightened enough to change their views for the good rather than condemn them for their past views, with which I don't happen to agree.

            Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

            by winsock on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:00:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your commendations would be commendable if they (0+ / 0-)

              were based on reality. This is incorrect,

              Same-sex marriage is another case in point.  Obama did not support it until this year, 2012.  People evolve -- society evolves.
              Candidate Obama supported marriage equality in 1996, when he ran for a very liberal district's state senate seat in Illinois. He 'devolved' from that political position while running for the US Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. His cited reason for his change of heart in 2004 (and 2008) was religious conviction.

              I never said you said homophobia was dead. You made that up. What I did was QUOTE you saying that homophobia was largely the status quo a few years ago, with your implication (prior to that line) that we've changed. I stopped short --for courtesy's sake-- of calling that comment bogus, BS, horseshit and obfuscation. Judging by your comment in reply to my laughter at your expense, I withdraw the courtesy of thinking you only hopelessly naive and uninformed.

              Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

              by davidincleveland on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:27:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  There is no question (0+ / 0-)

                that societal attitudes are changing.  A 1996 Pew Research poll showed 67% of Americans opposed to same-sex marriage, 27% in favor.  Today, the same Pew Research poll shows 43% opposed and 48% in favor.

                Since the 1990s (and before) there has also been growing support by Americans for acceptance of LGBT in society.

                This is not only my opinion but based on fact  And the younger generation is unquestionably more accepting of LGBT individuals.  Yes, we still have further to go, but much progress has occurred.

                Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

                by winsock on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 10:03:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Every cabinet member... (0+ / 0-)

      ...serves at the pleasure of the President, and carries out the President's agenda to the letter.  He can try like hell to influence Obama's policies in cabinet meetings, but if he goes maverick on the job and tries undermining the implementation of settled issues, he will surely lose his job.  

      I'm pretty amazed to see all the dithering from both sides on Rice, Hagel, and any other cabinet pick.  This is traditionally where the President is accorded the widest possible berth, and only patently unqualified picks are shot down.  It's the President's cabinet.

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

      by RIposte on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:33:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wish someone would remind (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        4Freedom, lirtydies

        Sen. McConnell and the right-wing media howlers of that point.

        "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

        by sidnora on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:33:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  17% (12+ / 0-)

    from the league of conservation voters. and pentagon policy does have major environmental impacts.

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

    by Laurence Lewis on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:14:16 PM PST

  •  We'll get another permanent war Democrat (8+ / 0-)

    Maybe it will even be a permanent war woman. Yay!



    Those who do not move, do not notice their chains. Rosa Luxemburg

    by chuckvw on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:15:07 PM PST

  •  Obama is a Moderate Republican (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Anorish, craigkg

    This is just the latest example of Obama accepting "Moderate" Republican values as the the values he prefers. None of this would bother me that much if not for the fact that people claim that he is a liberal.

    •  There is no such thing (6+ / 0-)

      It's a different world, and Obama is a moderate Democrat.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:25:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama is actually a hard right Republican (0+ / 0-)

      He is to the right of Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachmann, and Allen West. That would not bother me, except for all the people claiming he's a moderate Republican.

      You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

      by tomjones on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:39:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, that's just BS. n/t (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scott Wooledge, sidnora, poco

        "I have more than two prablems" - The Coach Z

        by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:06:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AaronInSanDiego, IM

        ...he's a double-secret super-duper hard right Republican, so far right he's to the right of John Birch, the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and Genghis Khan.  He's so far right he's to the left of Jerry Garcia.

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

        by RIposte on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:19:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  A hard-Right Republican would not (0+ / 0-)

        have said, on television, that he and his wife have no problem with same-sex marriage.  

        I can't think of one hard-Right Republican who would make a statement like that while in office.  Barry Goldwater came around in his twilight season, but most certainly did not mention it out on the campaign trail in the 60s.  

        Hagel has never said it.  His apology of recent days is correspondent to his wanting the DOD appointment and IMO does not represent a sea-change in his attitude toward social equality.  

        Hagel is more than a bit of an ideological throwback, IMO.  He also appears generally unwelcome in many political circles.  The hard-Right distrusts him.  Progressives distrust him even more.  

        I hope the President will choose someone else, most preferably a Democrat.  

        •  AuH2O (0+ / 0-)

          Good job to mention Goldwater in your comment.

          I'd gone to grab the Goldwater quotes to reply after reading the first two sentences of your comment. If I had read one more sentence, I'd have saved myself a search.

          Well, since I've done the search, I may as well give the link anyway...
          http://www.cs.cmu.edu/...

          I agree with your sentiment regarding the Hagel apology. Hormel initially didn't think too much of it either. Whether or not he came to change his mind based on his own counsel or based on outside persuasion, I don't know. It is up to him whether or not he personally forgives Hagel. I'm not ready to do so until he accompanies it with actions rather than words. I don't think the test of this should come as Secretary of Defense.

          The plural of anecdote is not data.

          by Skipbidder on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:37:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  petition (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, davidincleveland

    I think I already signed this one. Wish there was a way to log into my action account to refresh my memory. I have mentioned this at the help desk a few times in the past.

  •  Maybe Lieberman has designs on the position? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, Monitor78, Scott Wooledge

    I doubt he is ready for his political career to sunset just yet.

    Not that I'm advocating that, but wouldn't be surprised if McCain and co didn't publicly "suggest" him as the nominee.

    If not us ... who? If not here ... where? If not now ... when?

    by RUNDOWN on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:17:07 PM PST

  •  **NO** REPUBLICANS IN THE OBAMA ADMIN. (0+ / 0-)

    NONE.

    Get rid of any already in office.  PURGE them. FIRE THEM ALL.

    Pretty much anything everything that has gone wrong in the Obama Administration has been the result of him compromising, capitulating and otherwise bending over for the GOP.

  •  You say that the SecDef has limited power (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, davidincleveland

    to set policy? Didn't Rumsfeld have a lot more power than that? Did that occur because of the neutering of State under Powell and later Rice? Or was it because of his close association with President Cheney, whose ideas he was extremely in line with?

    Jon Husted is a dick.

    by anastasia p on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:21:52 PM PST

    •  Rumsfeld surely did a lot of damage (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      craigkg

      I don't believe he was the instigator, do you? I though fingers pointed at Wolfovitz, Cheney and a handful of other neocons who were jonesing for Saddam Hussein since the first cabinet meeting.

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

      by Scott Wooledge on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:30:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  no to Hagel (6+ / 0-)

    Plenty of reasons not to want Hagel at Defense. His voting record was terrible and so were his words.

    Ambassador Hormel may have forgiven him. That's his prerogative. It may be politically expedient to accept the apology from a larger strategic perspective. The fact that he lamely apologized, more than a decade later, may move him toward being qualified to be "Reasonably Decent Human Being". It doesn't make him qualified to be Secretary of Defense in a Democratic administration.

    The combination of his anti-gay and anti-abortion votes and views should be strongly factored in here. They are both quite relevant to the position. From my perspective, they should remove him from consideration.

    The plural of anecdote is not data.

    by Skipbidder on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:22:32 PM PST

    •  Actually Hormel has doubts (3+ / 0-)

      about the sincerity of Hagel's "apology":

      “I have not received an apology,” Hormel, who is a major figure in Democratic politics, told me. “I thought this so-called apology, which I haven’t received, but which was made public, had the air of being a defensive move on his part.” Hormel added that the apology appeared to have been given “only in service of his attempt to get the nomination.”

      "If we ever needed to vote we sure do need to vote now" -- Rev. William Barber, NAACP

      by Cali Scribe on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:27:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  eventually accepted the apology (0+ / 0-)

        There is a follow-up, where Hormel accepted the apology.

        From Hormel's Facebook page:

        Senator Hagel’s apology is significant–I can’t remember a time when a potential presidential nominee apologized for anything. While the timing appears self-serving, the words themselves are unequivocal–they are a clear apology. Since 1998, fourteen years have passed, and public attitudes have shifted–perhaps Senator Hagel has progressed with the times, too. His action affords new stature to the LGBT constituency, whose members still are treated as second class citizens in innumerable ways. Senator Hagel stated in his remarks that he was willing to support open military service and LGBT military families. If that is a commitment to treat LGBT service members and their families like everybody else, I would support his nomination.

        The plural of anecdote is not data.

        by Skipbidder on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:53:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  As the Greg Sargent/WaPo link in this diary shows, (0+ / 0-)

      Ambassador Hormel has neither accepted his 'apology' nor recognized that Hagel has made one. The rest of your comment is spot on.

      Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

      by davidincleveland on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:51:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  apology (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        davidincleveland

        He did actually accept it.

        Sargent added a correction to his page. I've pasted it above.

        The plural of anecdote is not data.

        by Skipbidder on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:55:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I sit corrected. That update makes the comment I (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Skipbidder

          replied to 100% accurate. It isn't an excuse (merely an explanation) but I never read the update until two minutes ago, despite posting the link myself, including in this thread.

          Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

          by davidincleveland on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:37:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Ah get someone with "D", but with same history. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alexandre

    Obama will appoint a militarist regardless.  Hagel's problem isn't on gay rights, but as a sort of moderate militarist,  he would resist attacking Iran. In  terms of who Obama might appoint, forget the idea that the person will be some social reformer.  It ain't gonna happen.  

  •  Wes Clark would be a decent choice IMHO... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia

    Nobody can argue against his smarts and military knowledge and as for his glbt bona fides, well I think the Feb. 3 2004 Advocate magazine cover says it all. He's a Democrat and a hunk! What more could you want? ;)

    Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

    by Ian S on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:24:47 PM PST

    •  James Blunt would be a better SecDef than Clark. (0+ / 0-)

      The NRA is the Gun Manufacturer Lobby. Nothing more. Their pontification about the second amendment is nothing more than their ad jingle. They're the domestic version of the Military Industrial Complex.

      by Jacoby Jonze on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:29:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I could support Chuck Hagel.. if only he would (0+ / 0-)

    switch parties and put a (D) after his name.

    Who has time to care about policy?  We need more and better D's!  Yeah, baby!

    The excuses for Obama's behavior have long since passed the point of predictability neccessary to qualify as an absurd production of Kabuki Theater.

    by Johnathan Ivan on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:25:59 PM PST

  •  I agree with your points Scot and rec'd and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco

    tipped and I have signed the petition.  I do though think you ignored two factors that will influence PBO's decision.  The most important is that John McCain has already deep sixxed Pres. Obama's first choice for Sect. of State.  McCain is again leading the campaign against Hagel.  How will it look if it appears that McCain has veto power over Obama's Cabinet choices?  That is not going to sit well with the White House.  The second reason is that Obama and Hagel are friends.  Obama should not have brought up Hagel to begin with and he should still not appoint him now, but it will be understandable if he does because of the reasons I outlined above.

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

    by ratcityreprobate on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:29:24 PM PST

  •  I nominate Joe Sestak, Jr.. (9+ / 0-)

    a Democrat, a retired Admiral, and a former Congressman from PA ...
    (I also like Wesley Clark too)  

    both of them would be excellent choices ...

    Give your heart a real workout! Love your enemies!

    by moonbatlulu on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:36:06 PM PST

  •  Hagel is too close to the Bush sphere of (4+ / 0-)

    influence.  Furthermore, with the state of the world as it is today, we don't need Republican thinkers as they are now. The GOP is laden with propaganda and demagoguery.

    Instead, we need someone who is not so embedded in ideology to make decisions of national importance.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

    by politicalceci on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:36:29 PM PST

  •  Correct me if I'm wrong, (0+ / 0-)

    But aren't the Joint chiefs supposed to actually run the military?

    Isn't SecDef just the guy that runs the Pentagon/Department?  As in the business end of it?  Like the ordering, budgeting, and what not?

    Isn't this a department where actual business experience could help in terms of controlling costs?

    "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 Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:38:54 PM PST

    •  Whenever you consider (0+ / 0-)

      what the SecDef's portfolio might include, always keep Rumsfeld in the back of your mind.

      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

      by sidnora on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:38:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Since you asked for the correction, you are wrong, (0+ / 0-)

      going all the way back in our nation's history to Benjamin Lincoln and Henry Knox. Even before the present Constitution (1789) and preceding Articles of Confederation (1781-1789) became our governing law, US politicians and others were very specific and very vocal about not letting the uniformed services run themselves.

      Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

      by davidincleveland on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:05:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If Senate Republicans want to throw a hissy fit.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, shenderson, Scott Wooledge

    Over Obama's nominations, let them have at it with Hagel. Once they get that out of their system, we can move on with a Democrat.

  •  Perhaps we need a really long reflection on just (0+ / 0-)

    who should be Sec. of Defense.  Isn't is a fact that there has been no chief at the ATF for 6 years so maybe we need some really long inter-party discussion about this postion. Hegel is good on one point, I note: he seems to aggrevate all comers as unacceptable.  This is actually a good sign, since he will enter Defense with no cheerleading section from any quarter.  Perhaps, he should enter Defense with only a dog as a friend in Wash., DC.   Let we the poeple clock him.

  •  Diarist your point is well taken (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JackND, Anorish, Alexandre, poco

    However, if the prez wants Hagel he should nominate him, period. I'm no fan of the idea that only GOP members are capable to leading the defense dept but after the Susan Rice debacle I almost wish he follows through with Hagel's appointment.

    The defense Sec like all cabinet members follows the lead of the prez

  •  Another indication that Obama just doesn't get it (0+ / 0-)

    He could nominate Rumsfeld for Sec of State and Republicans would say he's too liberal. Why doesn't Obama understand this?

    I don't know what to say except that anyone who was expecting President Obama to come out as a stealth progressive after re-election better be ready for some head shaking times over the next four years when his first moves after the election are proposing to cut social security and backing off a tax hike for 250k, allowing Graham/McCain to nuke the Susan Rice nomination, and floating a Republican and Sec. of Defense when Penetta hasn't even decided to give up his seat yet. It's clear that his only action is a reaction. If progressives aren't putting pressure on him and making constant demands you can expect we will receive nothing except warmed-over Heritage Foundation leftovers for the next 4 years.

  •  It's kinda hard to blame Repubs for DOMA (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Anorish, squarewheel

    When Bill Clinton is the one who signed the act into law with the support of Democrats like Patty Murray. And SOS Clinton has yet to take a position in favor of marriage equality.

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

    by Shane Hensinger on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:51:05 PM PST

    •  Has she taken a position against it? (0+ / 0-)

      Why should she take positions on domestic political issues in her current role?

      "I have more than two prablems" - The Coach Z

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:30:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Where does this comment come from? (0+ / 0-)
      It's kinda hard to blame Repubs for DOMA

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

      by Scott Wooledge on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:33:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  same place... (0+ / 0-)

        that "blame" for the 2010 elections isn't really on Republican voters either... they were voting for and got what they wanted.

        It's Democrats that voted in 2008 but not in 2010 and allowed an outcome they didn't want...

        "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

        by JackND on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:45:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I know that I have disagreed with Scott and others (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      condorcet, bluemeanies

      about this, but my clear recollection is that DOMA was pushed to fend off a constitutional amendment drive that was brewing at the time that would have derailed much of the progress of the past four years and more.  (I understand that others have a difference sense of what it was about, but I'm presenting what the Clintons and their allies appear to have been thinking.  No pot-stirring intended.)

      It was mostly Republicans that wanted a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely being between heterosexuals and it was pretty much only Democratic states that would have held out against it for as long as possible.  (Remember: even if a legislature that takes control of a state for one term passes DOMA, it's not at all clear that the state's later renunciation of that approval has legal effect.)  So I think it's kinda easy to blame Repubs for DOMA.

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:40:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's the President's prerogative (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alexandre, poco, Shuksan Tahoma, whizdom

    to nominate the person he trusts and deems is qualified to do the job.  The SecDef serves at the pleasure of the President.  I support that principle and I support Obama in this regard.  Besides, I like the fact that Hagel served in Viet Nam as an enlisted man (Sgt E5).  It's a plus to have someone as SecDef who has a firsthand appreciation of the needs of the rank and file in the military.

    Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

    by winsock on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:53:09 PM PST

  •  Scott, we're of the same mind (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scott Wooledge, 4Freedom, IM

    You addressed many of my concerns regarding gay men/lesbians in the military under Hagel (we won't even discuss the continued lack of fair treatment for transgender folks), but I was unaware of his anti-choice status.

    My main opposition continues to be feeding the meme that only Republicans can be strong on national security issues. I'd like to see a good strong Democrat head up Defense. Not sure if Wes Clark has disqualified himself by clowning it up on TV with his reality show -- I've mentioned before that some observers think moving Shinseki from VA to DoD might be a viable possibility.

    Sure, "bipartisanship" worked well with putting folks like LaHood at Transportation; he seems to have been able to put the good of the nation's transportation ahead of any party loyalties. But I don't get that same feeling from Hagel; I worry that he'd do whatever he could to undercut the Obama Administration.

    "If we ever needed to vote we sure do need to vote now" -- Rev. William Barber, NAACP

    by Cali Scribe on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:04:51 PM PST

    •  Really the women's issues (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      4Freedom, Skipbidder

      worry me more than  the LGBT issues. The sexual assault issue has been swept under the rug WAY TOO LONG. And we need a leader that believes women can be an asset in the combat positions they wish to serve.

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

      by Scott Wooledge on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:35:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  WHO? (0+ / 0-)

    "It's time for Democrats to embrace the fact that yes, they know what the hell they're doing on matters of national security."

    But WHO is the Democrat who has the chops to be Secretary of Defense?  The only one that comes to mind is Hillary Clinton, but she is already Secretary of State and wants to get out of government for a breather.  The only other one I can that of is Joe Lieberman, and THAT would be a natural.  He is already enough of a Republican that the Pentagon would prosper mightily under the leadership.  And he is a Jew, so that settles the "Israel problem."

    Outside of those two, I have no idea of any non-Republican who could be a legitimate Secretary of Defense

    •  He could nominate Eric Shinseki (4+ / 0-)

      to move from VA Affairs to Defense, then find someone else to handle the VA.

      I've also heard the name Ashton Carter mentioned; not that familiar with him so can't speak to qualifications. (Defense/national security isn't one of my areas of expertise; I tend to be more concerned with domestic issues.)

      Other people above have mentioned folks such as Wesley Clark (which would have pleased my late father-in-law) or Joe Sestak. There are plenty out there, if folks just bother to look.

      "If we ever needed to vote we sure do need to vote now" -- Rev. William Barber, NAACP

      by Cali Scribe on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:34:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You lost me at "THAT would be a natural" -- (3+ / 0-)

      probably forever unless I forget about it, as is likely.

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:41:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wesley Clark (2+ / 0-)

      Eric Shinseki
      Joe Sestak
      Jim Webb

      All eminently qualified.  All with serious chops.  All Democrats.

      •  others too (0+ / 0-)

        A little further net might get you

        Duckworth or Cleland. (She may not be deemed quite ready yet, and he might be thought too old, but either has the military experience as well as appointment experience as well.)

        Perhaps Bob Kerrey should be on the list as well.

        The plural of anecdote is not data.

        by Skipbidder on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:45:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Not wasting any time going to the mat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scott Wooledge, 4Freedom

    to fight hard for another Republican SecDef.  

    The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

    by Beelzebud on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:14:31 PM PST

  •  I think you heard something incorrectly (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    4Freedom
    On issues of Obama's supposed lack of support for Israel, the right wing appears to be in an endless chorus of crying "Wolf!"
    If you listen carefully, I think you'll find that it's "Wolfowitz!"

    Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

    "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
    -- Saul Alinsky

    by Seneca Doane on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:33:59 PM PST

  •  Those of you who are (6+ / 0-)

    a)claiming this pick was made to appease Republicans or b)picking Hagel is some ratifacation of republican and Bush foreign policy are only showing how completely clueless you are of Chuck Hagels posture towards the Bush administration from 2004 onwards.

    Chuck Hagel was arguably better than 100% of democratic senators on Israel and Iran, the two big headaches Imo. Unlike almost all the democrats he never signed those AIPAC letters and was pretty much the only senator defending Arabs in the 2006 conflict.

    If your beef with Hagel is on social issues fine, but if you are an anti-interventionist and worried about war with Iran, I can confidently predict he's better than any democrat Obama's considering.

  •  Hagel has no friends - kind of inverse bipartisan? (0+ / 0-)

    I've heard no specific criticism that holds water but he just always come off to me as a crank. For some reason Hagel's name has been floated over the years and never picked. Sometimes, some positions, a candidate with no alliances and no friends has merit...a hatchet man type...this surely doesn't seem to be one of those times or positions. Anyway no one picks a floated name after it sinks to the ground so it's kind if an academic question.

  •  there's only one reason for hagel at DOD (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Remediator

    It would make mccain's head explode.  There is no other reason and really, that ain't enough.  A Democrat should be appointed.

    A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

    by dougymi on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:00:47 PM PST

  •  The Israel lobby has smeared Hagel so viciously (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stivo, IM

    that his candidacy is now about whether the Israel lobby has the right to veto appointments of US government officials. I think everybody understands this.

    Thus, not supporting a Hagel nomination at this point is to implicitly say that the Israel lobby is not a problem, because the interests of the US and Israel are identical.

    If the Israel lobby hadn't started a McCarthyite smear campaign against Hegel, then progressives would be in the position to debate whether it might be better to nominate a Democrat instead.

    •  i would say it is more about (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alexandre, IM

      power of neocons, hawks and defense lobbyists, but outsized power of the israel lobby is also important.

      hagel's positions on foreign policy and military, though common across the political spectrum in pentagon, embassies, think tanks, etc, and among many powerful people in DC, are being attacked in the media as outside the mainstream.

    •  Bull FUCKING Shit! (0+ / 0-)

      His smearing of James Hormel is enough for me to oppose him, even if he kissed Bibi Netanyahu on Dizengoff Square.

      The idea that this HAS to be about Israel is total bullshit.  Are some trying to use his views on Israel to block the nomination?  Sure. But to say as you do that "not supporting a Hagel nomination at this point is to implicitly say that the Israel lobby is not a problem" ignores ever other objection to him, which are well described in the diary.  

  •  I understand Kos' objection, but (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stivo, Shuksan Tahoma

    on "partisan" grounds.  

    But I think one has to support Hagel's nomination in the context of our era.  Republicans should not have veto power over cabinet posts (nor should Israel) and Obama has a sorry record on fighting for ANYTHING, let alone his own people, when when are create controversy (see: Van, Valerie, etc.)

    Just ONCE I would like to see Obama fight back against all these snotty noses, and despite "Hagel being a Republican," he HAS evolved politically, and essentially adopted what should be the standards we use to decide when to start blowing up sovereign nations, and our own children in the military.  That sort of evolution (and having it happen in a public way) should be rewarded by Progressives, not condemned "because he's a Republican."  

    Obama should fight for once, and we should support him if he's willing to finally find some backbone against Republicans and the pathetic so called neo-conservatives.

  •  If the President has made his (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    condorcet, Skipbidder

    decision, it's his to make.  I've emailed the White House to urge him to choose a Democratic nominee for Defense.

    There are, may I say it, binders full of Democrats who would make a better fit than Chuck Hagel.

  •  I'm not convinced by this argument. (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not a Hagel supporter, but I'm not convinced by what I read here either.

    I would be convinced by the simple argument that a D pres should seed to find the best possible SoD who is also a D.  That I would find to be a simple, defensible, winnable argument.

    But, as much as I wish that the SoD were a pacifist such as myself, I don't expect to see an anti-war activist nominated for the position.  

    That's why I'm less persuaded that Sen. Hagel's past civil rights record should be the deciding factor.

    I'd rather see someone with a flawed domestic civil rights record and a nuanced perspective with respect to - for example - Iran and Israel - in the role, than somebody who meets my liberal, domestic criteria but is ham-fisted and reactionary in the foreign-policy realm.

    To conclude as I opened, I'm not a Hagel supporter, but I'm not convinced by the arguments presented here either.

  •  is Hagel a stalking horse similar to Susan Rice nt (0+ / 0-)

    yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:30:12 PM PST

  •  I grow weary (0+ / 0-)

    of watching Democrats surrender the National Security meme to the Republicans. We have 2016 to think of, we don't need to reinforce any perceived weaknesses in the Democratic party.

    I also grow weary of watching women who want to serve our country being raped and abused by their own (theoretically) "brothers in arms." This disgraceful treatment has gone on far too long - at the very least, bringing in a neutral person, rather than one with a poor track record like Hagel, would be a start.

    •  Male soldiers rape female soldiers... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shuksan Tahoma

      so we need a female SecDef.

      Both India and Pakistan have had female presidents. Has that made rape any less normal in either of those countries? No.

      This thread is becoming a parody of postmodern identity politics. The position of SecDef is about national security, i.e., how to run the American empire. It is not about LGBT or women's issues.

      •  blunt, but true. I agree. (0+ / 0-)
        •  True? Really? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lirtydies, Skipbidder

          I never said we needed a female SoD for the sake of having one. There are at least five candidates who are equally qualified as Hagel, all of whom are Democrats, neutral or positive on women's or LGBT issues, all of whom are eminently qualified to serve as SoD.  BTW, all but one of them are Caucasian men:

          Eric Shinseki
          Joe Sestak
          Wesley Clark
          Jim Webb
          Bob Kerry

          Is Chuck Hagel really so much better than any of these other candidates? If so, I'd be interested in hearing what makes him so great.

      •  Please indicate where I suggested (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lirtydies

        that we needed a female SoD.

        If you had looked at my earlier posts, you would have noticed that I advocated for Wesley Clark, Eric Shineski, Joe Sestak, or Jim Webb, none of whom are women, all of whom are eminently qualified to maintain our National Security and "run the American Empire."

        I fail to see why Chuck Hagel is any more qualified than they are, and they have the benefits of 1) being neutral, rather than antithetical on LGBT and women's issues and 2) being Democrats.

        •  My apologies (0+ / 0-)

          But I don't think that Wesley Clark should be considered, since he's the one who started this whole "humanitarian intervention" business with Kosovo. And humanitarian intervention is just liberals'/progressives' version of aggressive US imperialism, their wrapping the neocon project in different paper.

          The others you mention might be good choices, but I'm not sure that they have any more chances of being confirmed than Hagel has.

          •  Fair enough (0+ / 0-)

            I think Bob Kerrey or Jim Webb would have a decent chance, though, due to "Senate Collegiality" stuff - and they are both Democrats.  Shinseki, also, seems politically neutral, and would be able to serve as of June 2013.

            I am informed that Sestak would need a waiver to serve, but if it only has to come from the Senate, I think he would be able to get one.

            Just FYI, though, I do know some Kosovars who think Clark hung the moon. They don't care much about the imperialism business. They just care that they and their families are still alive, as it was viewed as quite a serious threat at the time.

            •  The main person I've seen floated as the back-up (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              IM

              is Michèle Flournoy. She is in bed with the neocons.

              It's very nice to bring up the names of Democrats well qualified to be SecDefs who act in America's interest. The problem is, we have no indication that the person who Obama actually appoints, if it is not Hagel, will not be worse than Hagel.

              •  Ick - not a fan (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Alexandre

                If they want a woman, there are some retired women with general or admiral rank who would do just fine.  Not so sure if Claudia Kennedy could pass the Congressional hearings, but someone similar - i.e. Ann Dunwoody or Patricia Tracey would be fine.

                I'd love to see Sestak get it, provided he could get a waiver.

                •  Duckworth (0+ / 0-)

                  If you wanted a woman, are there issues with Tammy Duckworth?

                  The plural of anecdote is not data.

                  by Skipbidder on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:48:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, she just won her House seat (0+ / 0-)

                    so she might not want to be SoD just yet.  Plus, she's a Lt. Col., not yet flag rank, although I don't know how much that matters.

                    •  prolly wasn't a viable suggestion (0+ / 0-)

                      I don't know if her rank matters either.

                      She also has experience at VA as an undersecretary. (Or Assistant Secretary I guess they are calling it now.)  

                      I think she's probably a big longshot to be the nominee.

                      I had misremembered my history. For some reason I had thought she had won in 2006 to replace the Henry Hyde seat. I forgot that she barely lost. I thought she had lost a reelection bid.

                      The plural of anecdote is not data.

                      by Skipbidder on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 12:17:23 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

  •  hagel (0+ / 0-)

    is a republican and therefore a war monger, thats the problem.

  •  not a problem with Hagel it's a problem with Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    craigkg

    he's the one who wants to appoint him, right ?

    so why is it Hagels fault that our Demcratic president is in love with the republican war machine ?

    big badda boom : GRB 090423

    by squarewheel on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 11:02:42 PM PST

  •  Be careful what you wish for, (0+ / 0-)

    I hear Senator Lieberman is about to have some free time available...

  •  We Can Do Better (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alexandre

    We can do better than Hagel for Secretary of Defense, but the truth is that he was pilloried by the right for calling for a sensible relationship with Israel, and one that is entirely within the mainstream of American thought. They seem to think that Israel should run U.S. foreign policy. That's completely bogus and doesn't help either country.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site