Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense

Obama talks of bipartisanship, and I think this is the perfect way to do it. Any thoughts?

Personally, I'm not interested in bipartisanship, and while Hagel is right on THIS war that's all he's right on.

:toast:

:thumbsup:

member of the opposition party. John Kennedy and Bill Clinton among others had Republicans in their cabinet.

But that doesn't mean I have to like it. :)

Where is it written anyway that cabinet positions have to be filled with "famous" people?

I'm betting there are tons of qualified people out there who aren't right-wing Republicans.

Those two, Bill Richardson and Sebelius are in my top four.

:)

needs to be greater than 8 years IIRC. Webb's a nice one, although he's in the senate and can be a very strong presence there (and have a good chance of being reelected in a purple/red state.

That is all.

I don't want that man anywhere near power.

He's been ok on the war issue, but on aboslutely, positively, NOTHING else. He's a far-right-wing whackjob.

No homophobes should be permitted in Defense.

this campaign. I'm pretty ready for a Bill Clinton holiday myself.

I am sick to death of people who evidently didn't live through 1993 and won't read a fucking history book telling out and out lies about the era. DADT WASN'T BILL CLINTON'S IDEA. It was forced down this throat by a HOMOPHOBIC US SENATOR, named Sam Nunn. This ins't my opinion, it is unalterable, historic fact. Bill Clinton couldn't legally remove the barrier to gays serving since it was a law, a law against sodomy that had to be removed by Congress. Those of us who were alive then know the score. The rest of you need to read a history book.

The UCMJ said soldiers could not participate in sodomy, it didn't say that gays or lesbians couldn't serve. There are laws that say you can't drink and drive, but there is no law that says an alcoholic can't get a license.

Something else to remember. When the institution of don't ask don't tell took effect, the number of gays discharged from the military for being gay more than doubled. Now here's the irony, it wasn't because the military saw a huge upswing in gays serving in the military. In fact, it was estimated that fewer gays joined the military under Clinton.

Yeah, I remember history. Bill didn't have anything shoved down his throat, he willingly bent and called it a compromise instead of standing up for principle.

I would have respected him more if he put forth a signing statement and fought it to the bitter end. Odds are, he would have won when it went to the SC.

sorry but discharges didn't more than double. In fact, if you take out one base, where they went through the stratosphere, they would have gone down, instead they increased slighlty, not doubled. No the law didn't say you couldn't be gay, but it did say you couldn't commit sodomy, which was very broadly defined (blowjobs counted as sodomy). So that pretty much any gay sex at all counted. Thus, unless a gay man or lesbian was willing to be completely chaste, he or she couldn't serve. The simple fact is the Hagels of the Senate, (not literally him since he wasn't there, but figuratively) are why we have DADT. Clinton wanted to let gays serve. Congress threatened to, and had the votes to, not only prevent gays from serving via the sodomy law but codify a ban. Remember the sodomy decision was only 7 years old then and had no hopes of being overturned. I will fault Clinton for not removing the one base commander who went bananas but other than that his hands were tied.

throughout most of the Clinton years. (I left in '97). Every unit I was in saw a major upswing in the discharge of gays from the military. 5th ID, 2nd ID Korea, 3rd ACR, 2nd AD, SETAF ..... the lists go on and on. I finally left after my best friend got discharged for being gay.

Rethugs had a majority in Congress, but it wasn't veto proof.

Clinton folded, plain and simple.

but many of them supported the ban. Sam Nunn, Robert Byrd just to name two. The fact is Clinton had a losing hand since even the status quo, which was the best a veto could deliver, still de facto, banned gays. All commanders had to do was investiage any soldier they thought might be gay, ask them under oath if they committed sodomy and arrest them for the sodomy or the lie.

There's no room in a Democratic administration for Hagel. None.

Good heavens - he gets more ringing endorsements around here than all the anti-war Democrats ever do.

Folks, even a broken clock is right 2 times a day.

in the soon to be former administration. Another crazy guy heading up Defense right now is exactly what we DO NOT need!

I bet you all of them would disagree with your assertion that Chuck Hagel would be another crazy guy heading up Defense.

for a Democratic administration.

Are there no anti-war Democrats with armed service experience?

If he's going to put a Republican in the cabinet (and it should be JUST ONE), why not Lincoln Chaffee?

(Good for him). He's now an independent.

But I agree with your point. A moderate? Sure, if they're qualified. But they're getting very hard to find these days.

to begin with. That's a nonstarter for me. Anyone willing to curtail my rights to my own body... well that says a huge amount to me about their political philosophy as a whole.

There aren't many currently active in the GOP who would be acceptable to me, no. The party has purged any moderates in favor of far right conservatives, reeking of their so-called "family values" and perfectly willing to stomp on the civil rights of anyone or any group that gets in their way. It's become a pretty contaminated party.

We used to have a pretty good stock of moderates here in the northeast. Even here, they've become far more rare.

Chuck Hagel is not one who could ever lay claim to that title, however. A moderate he is not.

you really do not know much about him. And I would venture to guess that you do not know much about what Obama is saying either.

that the SOD will be dealing with!

Iraq isn't the beginning, and hopefully not the ending, of our involvement in the world, militarily and in a defense way.

And truly, I don't get all the Hagel love. What's so special about his position? What is it he offers that many other people with idealogies (across the board) more in line with Democratic ideals don't have?

Anyone who thinks Hagel would be a good choice for a cabinet member should think again.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

the lead cabinet positions must all go to Democrats.

I generally like him in that position.

Chuck Hagel on Civil Rights

Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag
desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate
crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping.
(Oct 2001)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual
orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities &
women. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-
owned business. (Oct 1997)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting
record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec
2006)
Rated 11% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action
stance. (Dec 2006)

and need strong Democratic leadership. In fact, the whole government is ailing because of this misadministration.

Hagel can you on to a stink tank or where ever, best of luck to him.

We wouldn't be in Iraq right now, and we wouldn't have 8 years under an unelected drunken shit for brains chimp in the White House if not for the existence of electro-fraud machines. Chuck Hagel himself would not be in the Senate without these machines.

He's returned to sanity when it comes to Iraq. Great, glad to hear it. But don't mistake that for fucking Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus.

or the Democratic Party equivalent of neocons represented by groups like the Progressive Policy Institute or The New Republic.

Sen Hagel has generally believed in a bipartisan approach to foreign policy.

Sen. Hagel is very much a pragmatist on foreign policy issues

Sen. Hagel is at least somewhat sensitive to concerns of the people of the Middle East. Or at least he understands the importance of listening to people in the region.

Given that there is no possibility whatsoever that an out and out dove or anti-Imperialist would be chosen -- and given that Sen. Hagel very early on ( at least by early 2004) very publicly and very strongly criticized the Bush Administration for not working with the Democrats on Foreign Policy -- and given that an Obama Administration with a Democratic controlled Congress would have a need to demonstrate they are genuinely bipartisan -- and given that Sen Hagel is a very experienced person in foreign and defense matters --
and given that his personal foreign policy and defense views would be reasonably compatible with President Obama's -I personally think he would be an excellent choice.

Which isn't meant to be an endorsement of him or hagel ipso facto but just mentioning that there is a precedent for it,

They actually existed back then.

Hagel is anything but.

military policy/strategy, because that's really the primary job description (and I ask that because I genuinely don't know the answer). I mean here cohen seems to be cautioning against withdrawal from as late as this time last year <http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/30/856/>, which is definitely more hawkish than what hagel was seeing at the time. I guess the bottom line for me is that if I had a mechanic who could get my car working, I wouldn't care if he's a pro-life repub, I can pay him for his work without accepting and authorizing his totality as an individual, but again I'd need to find out more on his policies on Iran/middle east etc. before I'd endorse him.

He's no longer in the Senate, he had a great environmental record, voted against drilling in ANWAR, smart as a whip and a good Republican pedigree (though I think he's officially an independent).

I would also suggest William Weld as a possible Attorney General.

has to show the goods.

It should be a negligible position, with a negligible portfolio, imho.

And there shouldn't be more than one of em.

out there somewhere - maybe not currently in office, though. We used to have quite a number of them in the northeast. I happily voted for Lowell Weicker, for instance, rather than "Democrat" Joe Lieberman many years ago. His type weren't rarities then. Socially moderate, fiscally responsible (really, not just talk), basically "conservative" in the sense that they didn't rush to anything and tended more toward leaving well enough alone. Not Democrats, necessarily, but not the reactionary right-wingers and neocons that seem to characterize too much of the GOP these days.

I just think Defense is such a hugely important position - I'm not comfortable entrusting that to someone as far from Democratic ideals as Chuck Hagel.

though I'm fine with Bill Weld as AG.

far too often, and especially in the last 7-8 years.

Bipartisanship is NOT giving up Democratic ideals for some sort of half-way between both parties agreement. Not in this situation, it isn't.

We should certainly be willing and ready to meet and talk to and really listen to any serious people from the other party who are equally willing to listen to and work with the Dems.

The GOP has exploited our natural urge to conciliate for years. They use it to put us in a weak position. And then when finding themselves in the power spot, they act like the bully on the beach and laugh while kicking sand in our face.

What's needed is a willingness to work with anyone who wants to further *our* goals. And a willingness to genuinely listen to opposing positions. But no promise to compromise our ideals.

Sigh

Ron Paul in as Sec of Fanatic Supporters?

Why Hagel? Has he shown good judgment over a long term when it comes to Defense related topics, or is it just that he is right on Iraq? I don't know the man, but I am dubious in the extreme of any person willing to keep the R next to their name.

Um. No thanks.

National Security is a job for Republicans, which is exactly what Republicans want people to think. So why would you want to confirm that notion by appointing a Republican? Bill Clinton tried it, and once was definitely enough.

Here's a better idea: appoint a Republican Attorney General. Make it one of those guys that was screwed by Bush/Rove for not going along with their plan to prosecute Democrats during elections. I say appoint David Iglesias to be AG, and then appoint James Comey to be head of the FBI.

That'll scare the living shit out of 'em.

I would think that 9-11 followed by Iraq would be enough to persuade any thinking people that Republicans most certainly are not the party of national security!

that Democrats can't be strong on defense.