Skip to main content

Multiple news outlets including CNN, Washington Post, and Politico are reporting that President Obama will nominate former Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) to be Secretary of Defense, tomorrow, as is reported by Scott Wilson in Obama to nominate Chuck Hagel for defense secretary, source says.

Hagel would add a well-known Republican to the president’s second-term Cabinet at a time when Obama, after a bitter presidential campaign, is looking to better bridge the partisan divide.

But Hagel’s expected nomination has drawn sharp criticism in recent weeks, particularly from Republicans who have questioned his commitment to Israel’s security. ...

In an appearance Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called Hagel’s selection “an in-your-face nomination.” ...

“A lot of Republican opposition is rooted in the fact that he left his party on Iraq,” the senior administration official said. “And we think it will be very hard for Republicans to stand up and be able to say that they oppose someone who was against a war that most Americans think was a horrible idea.”

Hagel was awarded two Purple Hearts for wounds received in the Vietnam war, and has been a strong advocate for veterans. However, he infuriated Republicans by turning against the Iraq war, and criticizing Republican shibboleth positions on Iran and Israel.  

My opinion is that when a President wins reelection and decides he wants certain people to be in his cabinet, unless the confirmation hearing finds some major disqualifications, the Senate ought to confirm. The hearings should not be a process where the losing party tries to micro-manage the President's foreign policy, or  uses it for excessive political grandstanding. But, even if they want their symbolic moments to make their points, which they are entitled to do, they ought to give the president his choices, without delay so he can get on with the urgent business of the Executive branch.

Just on general principle, I would have preferred we chose a Democrat to cultivate for future power, and I also note some of Representative Barney Frank's concerns over Hagel's insensitive remarks, in 1998, about the GLBT, however, in this case, these concerns do not seem as if they should disqualify a Presidential choice after apologies have been made about something that happened long ago. I don't excuse or condone, his statements, and find them to be wrong, and in fact almost wrote a post yesterday opposing him, just that this does not seem sufficient to derail a nomination one made, based on what little I know now.  

It is also conceivable that having a Republican as Secretary of Defense may be politic at a time where we are going to need a top to bottom review of military spending, with substantial consolidation, closing of no longer need bases, ending of obsolete programs, and other rationalization to avoid having our social programs take that brunt of the substantial reductions in government spending in store for us now that we've established our tax revenue base at 18% of GDP while government expenditure are currently at 23% and the GOP has drawn a hard-line-in-sand that there will be no new revenues.

I do not believe that most citizens, even Democratic and Republican activists, comprehend the magnitude of the consequences implied by a 5% of GDP shortfall of tax revenues relative to government spending at a time the House GOP controls the debt-ceiling and budget initiation. Please note this means if we slash all government spending equally, we will need reductions of all programs, including DOD by 22%, while the GOP and quite of few, if not most Democrats, declare they want no more cuts to defense spending, which has nearly doubled since the Bush administration.

So, the Secretary of Defense is going to play a vital role in either downsizing the miltiary, or changing the nation's mind, and that of the House GOP, about raising additional tax revenues from corporations, and the super wealthy - or more likely a combination of both. Having a Republican may prove to be advantageous in this regard.  

But, the bottom line is that if the President want former Senator Chuck Hagel to be his Secretary of Defense, we ought to support him, and the Senate should confirm him quickly.

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

  •  Tip Jar (19+ / 0-)

    The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by HoundDog on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 12:23:18 PM PST

  •  George Will today: (13+ / 0-)

    "Presidents should have considerable latitude in who they want in cabinet posts.  They should be able to nominate and have their choices.  After all, they are there to enact the President's agenda, and they leave with the President".

    Or something to that effect.

    "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 Jan 06, 2013 at 12:27:51 PM PST

    •  This is one of those rare cases I agree with (8+ / 0-)

      George Will.  

      And, supporting the Presidents cabinet nominations unless some considerable disqualification should arise has been a long-standing tradition in the Senate. And, I see none arising, so I think the GOP will try to score a few debating points and let it go forward as they should.

      What they did with Susan Rice was shameful, and should not be allowed to change the precedent.

      The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

      by HoundDog on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 12:40:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Did he say this when Susan Rice was smeared? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HoundDog, Egalitare, Aspe4, bear83

      President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

      by Jacoby Jonze on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 12:48:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. Just for the record I would oppose nominating (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, Egalitare, OleHippieChick

        George Will of any awards for wisdom, consistency, or anything else, I was just saying that I agreed with the principle that the Senate ought to give the President his nominations for the Executive Branch cabinet unless major disqualifications emerge.

        George Will has shown himself to be a man of "principles of convenience," but perhaps, slightly less so than the majority of GOP pundits.  We see here at least one example of standing up to the mainstream GOP talking points, and there have been a few others, we should give him credit for, so we do not erode to the same level as our most partisan GOP adversaries.

        The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

        by HoundDog on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 01:09:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Senate (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoundDog, a2nite, bear83, poco, OleHippieChick

    might not be so keen to confirm him quickly.

    He is not the GOP "flavour of the month". I guess the Dems will fall in line, but we haven't changed the fillibuster rules yet.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    by twigg on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 12:27:52 PM PST

  •  Should have nominated (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoundDog, Sark Svemes, Egalitare

    a Dem.

    •  Noted, and I agreed in my post, but now that he (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Argyrios, Pluto, bear83, Kathy S

      has nominated Hagel, we should support him, in this case.

      Not because we should always march in lock-step to everything the President says or does, but because to oppose him in something as critical as a Senate nomination should require a vastly greater threshold of cause, than we are even remotely close to here.

      Hagel does have impressive qualifications and he apparently has a very close relationship with President Obama who trusts him.  

      The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

      by HoundDog on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 12:45:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I completely understand this sentiment... (10+ / 0-)

      But I think the GOP are in large part so ginned up about Hagel because they know he's going to push the Obama FP agenda with a [R] after his name.  

      I'm not sure this sends the message that Repubs are the Defense party anymore than you could say Dems and Obama are just as strong or not more strong on National Security/Defense that Republicans are coming to work in their administration.  Pres Obama is the President afterall and Hagel is agreeing to work to implement his agenda.  

      President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

      by Jacoby Jonze on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 12:53:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Excellent point. And we are going to have a great (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        need to be seen as absolutely solid onf Americans national security and defense to continue to wind down spending as well as troop level to pre-war level,  in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as achieve the magnitude of cuts to the "defense" and intelligence budgets needed to sustain any viable level of social programs.

        The many obsolete weapons programs that need to be shut down as part of this rationalization have strong constituencies in every congressional district.  

        The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

        by HoundDog on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 01:14:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, he should have. And I have had... (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HoundDog, a2nite, Pluto, Egalitare, Addison, bear83

      ...plenty to say on this subject, including here. (Some people argued when that was written that this was all ludicrous speculation and the chances of Hagel being nominated were slim.)

      I still think this nomination is a bad choice for a variety of reasons, including Hagel's very bad environmental record and climate change denialism (and even the Pentagon believes climate change is a national security issue). There are better choices in the Democratic Party. But now that Obama has clearly decided, I'm not going to actively oppose Hagel. Obama has made his choice despite the arguments against. If he listened to them, he clearly disagrees. I will not unite with neoconservatives against this bad nomination because my objections are most definitely not theirs and I will NEVER give them ammo.

      Republicans have filled the Secretary of Defense slot 79% of the time since the post was created 66 years ago. No Republican president has never nominated a Democrat for the post. Every Democratic president except Carter has had a Republican in the post for at least part of his term(s) of office. I think that's ridiculous and fits into the long-standing GOP meme that Democrats are weak on defense. But it's the president's choice and if he does not get confirmation for Hagel, the follow-up nominee with any chance of being approved would likely be worse on those issues where Hagel is decent.

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

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 12:56:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed. I was not aware of his problematic (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto, Egalitare, bear83, OleHippieChick

        environmental record, and even had a post outlined reporting Barney Franks sentiments as well as encouraging President Obama to nominate a younger Democrat so we could improve our "brand" have greater policy conformity. And article came out a few days ago reporting Rep Barney Frank's opposition suggesting Hagel has more than just one problems with GLBT issues, of which I a strong supporter of.

        You articulate one of my points better than I did, in your comment, that now that the President has made his choice, after hearing the opposing views, unless addition problems come up we have to take into account the political ramifications of helping the GOP defeat the President right at the beginning of his term, and especially after their disgraceful treatment of Susan Rice.

        This objection breaks down into several sub-points:

        1) If the GOP succeeds in blocking this nomination, after blackballing Rice we would risk setting the opposite precedent that a winning President's cabinet choices need to meet the policy vision of a losing minority party, rather than merely have no major disqualifying issues.

        2) If President Obama were to lose this nomination if would have major implications limiting his perceived power and effectiveness for the remainder of his term.

        3) Having Democrats join the GOP in such efforts would exacerbate existing fault lines in the Democratic Party.

        4) MB's point about cultivating the Democratic Brand and emerging future super-star Democrats for later advantage.

        I arrive at these conclusions only with regard to this specific case, not as blanket principles that would apply to all cases. If any President would try to unravel our New Deal, Great Society, Medicare, Medicaid, or other major devastating cuts to Democratic progressive social programs I would oppose them no matter what party they claimed to be.  

        Then my separate point has to do with the political advantage of having a Republican lead efforts to rationalize defense spending, as well as share the predictable backlash.

        Because to not make devastating cuts to our social spending we are going to need both major new revenues and substantial rationalization of military spending back to previous average ratios to GDP when our national security was still protected.  

        I recognize this articulation may seem Machiavellian for a progressive idealist, but I am one of the "pragmatic progressive idealists."  I have no objection to doing political calculus to achieve noble goals and to balance complex ethical and socio-political ambiguities.  

        I only object  to Machiavellian calculations when there are used to subvert the common good, and or when they are done incompetently leaving out critical unintended side effects of the sort we are trying to include here.  

        The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

        by HoundDog on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 01:56:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  do you have any suggestions? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, poco, OleHippieChick, mangusta

      Hagel is a combat vet.  He's been endorsed by both John Kerry and Max Clealand.   He's probably less hawkish than any dem who is qualified for the job.

      Praxis: Bold as Love

      by VelvetElvis on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 01:07:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He should nominate a person who he wants (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to work with and fits his agenda.

      President Obama is the one who will be working with the Secretary of Defense.  So he should nominate the person who fits his agenda the best.

      Barack Obama for President '12

      by v2aggie2 on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 10:58:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hagel is a thumb in the eye to Netanyahu (15+ / 0-)

    and the Likud. Fair enough, given how they piss over our interests by exacerbating the Muslim world's anger at us for being allied with Israel's land-grabs and the open-air prison of Gaza.

    Despite the many many many wrong things about Hagel, I find it good that the President is clearly trying to put our relations in the middle east on an overall sounder footing for our own interests. As the quote goes "Nations have interests, not friends."

    The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

    by Jim P on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 12:33:27 PM PST

    •  That's what this is really all about (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HoundDog, annieli, poco

      It is the neoconservative establishment that is driving the opposition here. I hope their concerns are well-founded.

    •  I see this an advantage as Netanyahu has proven to (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jim P, yella dawg, mangusta

      be a considerable obstacle to achieving a peaceful two state solution, while demographically and politically, time may be running out.

      Having a Secretary of Defense, President, and Secretary of State with sufficient courage, and wisdom to stand up and say so when they see differences in our visions of our nation's and world's national security with the failed vision of the right-wing "Greater Israel (which ultimately makes a two state solution impossible) Likud extremists may be a pre-requisite to achieving a peaceful two state solution.

      Just as I remained a patriotic American while I opposed  the destructive neocon policies of the Bush administration, I remain a strong supporter of Israel and Palestine while opposing the right-wing zealotry of the Netanyahu and his neocon-like Likud-Shas coalition, or whatever new one emerges.

      Senator Hagel's courage in not toeing-the-line to Netanyahu's sometimes unreasonably extreme statements is a plus for his credibility in my opinion.  My understanding is that at least one progressive independent American pro-Israel groups has taken the same position, as have many of our most ardent pro-Israel advocates here.  

      The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

      by HoundDog on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 12:57:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Problem being is Israel has elections in February (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        And the far right extremists will use the nomination of Hagel to sell "We're on our own,  better elect us as only the extreme right can protect you now".  

        It's already happening.  

        President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

        by Jacoby Jonze on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 01:08:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I love Sen Graham, blocks Susan Rice... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, OleHippieChick

    and now is pissed off because he can't block Hagel.  Well he might try, but it will put his loyalties bare for all to see.  

    GOP Senate wants is drunk on it's obstruction of justices and legislation that it wants to obstruct top cabinet picks.  

    Funniest damn thing I heard was a high ranking Republican staffer bemoaning the lack of diversity in the nominations - where was this guy to defend Susan Rice, a woman and an African American who McCain, Graham, Ayotte and others blasted and smeared on trumped up CT silliness?

    I do worry now that Rice and Flournoy have been passed over (though one or the other probably gets the National Security Adviser gig if Donilon becomes Chief of Staff).  And Lew is likely heading to the Treasury - so arguable the big three cabinet spots - State, Defense and Treasury will be filled with white men.   I do believe Lew will be a short term Secretary to get the Administration through the sequester/fiscal cliff stuff once and for all and he'll probably retire completely to private live in early 2015 at the latest.  I feel that Lael Brainard will be nominated as his deputy Secretary of Treasury and she'll be his heir apparent there and first woman Treasry Secretary when he retires.  She wouldn't be the right choice now as the big negotiation is coming in late February and Lew knows all the players and negotiated with them whereas Brainard would be coming in and needing to get up to speed etc.  

    President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

    by Jacoby Jonze on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 12:48:05 PM PST

    •  I'm hoping Jarrett will get CoS n/t (0+ / 0-)

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 02:50:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  She might be too close personally to the Prez. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm coming around on the idea of leaving Lew as COS as reports are he's damn good at it.  Also it would open up the Treasury spot potentially to a lot of elite female candidates.  

        President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

        by Jacoby Jonze on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 06:18:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why is close to the Prez a bad thing? (0+ / 0-)

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

          by Bush Bites on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 06:38:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think she's better on the outside... (0+ / 0-)

            Using her unofficial power/connection to the President to offer advice and pull him to the left on issues.  I don't think her controlling access completely would be a good thing as I like the President to hear all sides.  Also in her unofficial representative role she can visit/meet with folks speaking for Pres Obama without having to have an official itinerary.  

            President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

            by Jacoby Jonze on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 07:13:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Turn this into a relitigation of the Iraq War. (5+ / 0-)

    Good way to make the Repubs look bad and take away the "anti-Israel" malarky.

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

    by Bush Bites on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 01:03:31 PM PST

  •  Hagel is of the Scowcroft school... (12+ / 0-)

    Pres Obama is of the Scowcroft school of FP.  George HW Bush has Scowcroft run his FP.  Republicans hate this because it's center-right, and forces them to either agree with Obama or preach a neo-con agenda.  

    In Bush 41's WH, there was a constant struggle between the Scowcroft realists and the Neo-Cons with Cheney and the usual names.  Scowcroft won out on the internal struggle, Neocons licked their wounds until Cheney made himself VP and brought in all his neo-con buddies in to run the Bush 43 foreign policy.  One of the major breaks and battles between the Scowcroft folks and Neocons in the Bush 41 WH was to go into Baghdad during Desert Storm and take out Hussein then.  This is why Cheney and Co were so hard pressed to invade Saddam and lied America into war - they wanted to "finish the mission" from Desert Storm.  

    Also interesting that Bob Gates was a Scowcroft guy, and when George W. Bush mentally checked out early in his second term and Rumsfeld needed to be replaced, Gates was brought in as suggested to Bush 41 from outside of his Administration at the time.  He couldn't bring in somebody from inside given all the mess in Iraq so he had to look outside (I assume he went to his father actually).  This is very important because in 2007 Cheney really wanted to invade Iran and again there was a struggle in the WH, this time Gates vs Cheney and Gates won out, mostly because Bush didn't have the fight in him for another war and Gates probably would have resigned and created a huge shitstorm.  Bush just wanted to go back to his suburban life in Texas by then.  

    President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

    by Jacoby Jonze on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 01:06:17 PM PST

  •  Republicans arguing amongst themselves. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'll just sit here with my mouth shut and enjoy. I wouldn't take bets against them call Hagel a Kenyan muslim sympathizer.

  •  I am in support of this nomination. That the (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zizi, bear83, poco, mangusta, OleHippieChick

    Crazy war mongering Right wingers are against him makes me solidly for him.

    I also like that he believes a fair minded solution is what is needed in the Isreali/Palestinian issue. Unlike some idiots in this country who have forgotten that what comes first is the national security interest of the United States and not any other country.

  •  Nuclear proliferation (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zizi, bear83, poco, OleHippieChick

    Hagel and the President are on the same side of this issue.  It was BHO's signature issue as a Senator.  That's the reason for the pick, expect some activity in this area.

    I like the fact that Hagel will be the first former enlisted person to be SecDef, and with Kerry, 5 purple hearts between them.

    I like the fact he was a VA undersecretary, there will be a thousand coordination issues between DoD and VA in the coming years.

    I like the fact that he supports exhausting non kinetic approaches before letting loose the dogs of war.  

    I don't like his history of climate change denialism, Defense really could be leading the way in energy technology.  

    I don't like his history of anti-choice and anti right to serve openly, especially as the fight to implement true equal access to military dependent benefits heats up.

    But, he is the presidents pick, and I support the nomination.  

  •  there are far too many alternatives who are (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    confirmable Democrats (Bob Kerrey, Jim Webb, Wesley Clark, Michael Lumpkin, John Nathman etc), but I see the usefulness of messing with the GOP senators.

    “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama XIV (-9.50; -7.03)‽ Warning - some snark above‽

    by annieli on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 05:00:48 PM PST

    •  Only a limited number of Democrats have stood up (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to the Israel Lobby.   Black congresswoman Cynthia Mckinney did --and was destroyed by a $1 Million tsunami of money flowing into her rural George district from New York and California.

      Howard Dean argued with Joe Lieberman during the 2004 Presidential debates that the USA needed to be evenhanded in the Israel -Palestinian peace talks -- and had his Presidential campaign torpedoed in the Iowa primary by a barrage of anonymous attack ads later discovered to have been funded by $200,000 from Israel Lobby billionaire S Daniel Abraham.

      To her great credit, Nancy Pelosi blocked Jane Harman from becoming Chair of the House Intelligence Committee after Jane Harman had rolled over for Dick Cheney and Haim Saban in the runup to the Iraq invasion.

      Bob Kerrey had that whole war crimes-massacre thing blow up from the Vietnam War.   Very few people would have had access to the classified files on covert Seal operations during that time.   I don't think Mr Kerrey was guilty of anything but he has some major enemies somewhere.

      Nominating Wesley Clark would be a MASSIVE mistake -- he lost a stealth fighter in Serbia and , what is worst, failed to bomb the wreckage before it could be carted away for analysis and reverse engineering.  

      That caused major damage to US national security that has not been acknowledged yet.   The UK Daily Mirror and BBC had  articles a year ago re how China's new stealth fighter was based on debris from the Serbia F117.

      Think about Chinese cruise missiles with nuclear warheads launched from ships off the US coast and hitting New York, Washington, Boston, etc without warning and you start to get the idea.

  •  Any rumors on Deputy SecDef? (0+ / 0-)

    Could Flournoy get that spot, as she was essentially the #3 before she left.  Ash Carter could stay there as well - but I've also read he could be pegged to become Secretary of Energy.  

    President Obama would have been a Republican in the 1980's.

    by Jacoby Jonze on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 06:19:47 PM PST

  •  Here's the rationale for the choice (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bush Bites, bear83, poco, whizdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

    by zizi on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 06:29:08 PM PST

    •  I thought that Hagel's getting the... (0+ / 0-)

      ...nomination was unbelievable speculation with no evidence and that Panetta hadn't indicated he was leaving.

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

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:07:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If we were gonna have a fight over SecDef (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I would have preferred a Democrat. Or if it had to be a Republican, Susan Collins (purely to open up her Senate seat).

    But if Hagel is Obama's choice, then Hagel it is. Now Democrats need to be tough on him, but mainly on getting specific about how to save money at the Pentagon.

    Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

    by bear83 on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 08:23:36 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site