Skip to main content

I do not oppose Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, but I sure won't applaud this right wing pig.  He did oppose neo-cons, and I give him credit for that, and he came to understand the error of his vote to invade Iraq, for which I also give him credit.  In addition, he opposes a war with Iran.  And I understand that he favors further cuts at the Pentagon.  That's enough for me to defer to the President's choice for Sec of Defense and not oppose the choice (as if anyone gave a shit whether I opposed or supported).  

But I will not participate in the applause and claims about how Hagel is a good person.  He's not.  Leaving aside his comments about Hormel, he opposed a man for the position of ambassador because he was an out-of-the-closet gay.  Not just words, but active discrimination.  Wait until you see his voting record below.  Every vote against equality.   He's okay on immigration, but very poor on labor rights.  He did vote once to raise the minimum wage, after years of opposing any increase.  

Along with voting for the AUMF, he supported some other biggies during the Bush administration:

Voted for the Patriot Act
Voted for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts

Zero rating by NARAL.  Voted to ban abortions on military bases.  Has a terrible voting record on engery and the environment, tax policy and labor.  His voting record is bad on affirmative action and very anti-gay.

I am disappointed in his selection.  There are plenty of decent people who could do the job.  Like I said, I don't oppose it, but I don't like it and will not join in any whitewashing of Hagel merely because President Obama appointed him.  And I sure won't call my senators and ask them to confirm Hagel.  But I won't call and ask them to oppose.  I'll sit this one out.

More of his votes after the orange squiggle.  You can review them there and retch, or follow the link for an even greater list of all his key votes over an ignominious 18-year senate career.

Reproductive health of women:

Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)

Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)


Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)


Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)

Chuck Hagel On the Issues

A zero on reproductive rights.  Yes, President Obama sets policy, thank God, but this is a man with a proven record of discrimination agaisnt women and opposition to reproductive freedom.  No friend of women or gays in the military as I see it.

How about civil rights.  Well, his record is not friendly to African Ameircans or gays:

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)


Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Issue a commemorative postage stamp of Rosa Parks. (Dec 2005)
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)

Chuck Hagel On the Issues

But he loves big business:

Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 87% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Chuck Hagel On the Issues

He did vote for one minimum wage increase.  

Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time. (May 1997)
Rated 8% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Chuck Hagel On the Issues

The war on drugs?  Seems to like it:

Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Chuck Hagel On the Issues

On Energy and climate change?  Abysmal:

Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)

Voted NO on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)

Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)

Voted NO on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)

Voted NO on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)

Voted NO on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)

Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)

Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)

Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)

Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)

Voted NO on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)

Voted NO on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)

Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)

Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)

Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)

Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)

Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)

Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)

Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)

Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007) [WELL, IT'S SOMETHING I GUESS]

Chuck Hagel On the Issues

The environment?  Pretty bad.

Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)


Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)

Chuck Hagel On the Issues

Loves trade agreeemnts that screw American workers:

Voted YES on promoting free trade with Peru. (Dec 2007)
Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
Voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority. (Nov 1997)
Rated 92% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Extend trade restrictions on Burma to promote democracy. (Jun 2007)
Chuck Hagel On the Issues

You can look at other votes at the link.

Here's some quick glimpses:

Rated 78% by NTU, indicating a "Taxpayer's Friend" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the CTJ, indicating opposition to progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)


Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation. (Dec 2006)


Rated 22% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

Chuck Hagel On the Issues

All in all, a shitty and disgusting voting record.  We know Mr. Hagel by his works.  

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

  •  But, he's got this winning smile. (9+ / 0-)

    and that counts for a lot!

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 08:29:05 AM PST

  •  When you look at this sorry mess (16+ / 0-)

    of a voting record you have to wonder, "what in the hell is Obama thinking?"

    If I were a woman serving my country, I'd be plenty worried about having Chuck Hagel involved in my personal business.  

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 08:32:46 AM PST

    •  Yep. It's that old bipartisanship (6+ / 0-)

      siren he listens to, I guess.

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 08:35:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's my concern (18+ / 0-)

      I don't trust him to address the growing problem of sexual abuse within the military. Like Tom, I defer to the President because no one gives a shit what I think, but along with his anti-gay remarks, he needs to answer for his terrible history on women's issues.

      P.S. I am not a crackpot.

      by BoiseBlue on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 08:42:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

        It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

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

        [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

            It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

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

            [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

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

                [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

                    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

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

                    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

                        It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

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

                        [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

                        Radiowalla's comment.  

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

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

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

                        [ Parent ]

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

                          You do realize he'd be working for Obama?

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

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

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

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

                            Move on.

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

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

                            [ Parent ]

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

            You people should know that by now.

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

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

            [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

              America—We built that!

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

              [ Parent ]

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

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

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

          by Scott Wooledge on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 05:58:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

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

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

        P.S. I am not a crackpot.

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

        [ Parent ]

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

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

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

        [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        [ Parent ]

  •  What I find galling about (13+ / 0-)

    some of the Hageliography going on here is the attempt to paint all those opposing his nomination as either a) neo-cons or b) in thrall to Israel.  Some of us have a principled opposition to the knee-jerk nomination by a Democrat  of a Republican to be SecDef.  And, that opposition is further christalizyed by his record (not his recent words) on LGBT issues.

  •  Sheesh. That's fucked up. (7+ / 0-)

    Isn't there a woman also under consideration?  Has there ever been a female Secretary of Defense?

  •  Dang you, TomP! You've done it again. (6+ / 0-)

    Given me the right information to make a better informed opinion.

    < /snark>

    Your take on Hagel's nomination mirrors my own.  That said, I had no real information to backup my gut feeling--outside of the fact that he's another 'moderate' Republican.

    Thanks for your diaries, information, and always great comments.  Somewhere along the way, I hope to see you selected as a Front-Pager.

    "Hate speech is a form of vandalism. It defaces the environment, and like a broken window, if left untended, signals to other hoodlums that the coast is clear to do more damage." -- Gregory Rodriguez

    by Naniboujou on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 08:50:16 AM PST

  •  Good work Tom (8+ / 0-)

    Hagel is a prime example of another supposedly moderate Republican that goes wingnut neocon almost every time the rubber hits the road. Progressives, however, are supposed to love him for simply having a few brief moments of lucidity.

    There's no shortage of solid progressives who wore the uniform that could have served in this post admirably but Democrats keep taking the Nixon bait on this one. It's still somewhat shocking to those of us old enough to remember how Nixon's rat fuckers were able to paint George McGovern, who was awarded the distinguished flying cross for flying experimental aircraft into the teeth of the Luftwaffe, as a commie pinko weak on defense. Almost fifty years later Democrats still haven't managed to remove that slime from the bottom of their shows.  

    The only good thing I have to say about this nomination is that, like myself, Hagel was enlisted and would be the first such individual to hold this post.  

  •  I agree, I'm no fan of this (9+ / 0-)

    Democrats putting Republicans in for defense theme. He had a Democrat, he could find another. My guess (my hope?) is that Obama wants to use Hagel's record on cutting defense against GOP hawks, and won't let him pursue the rest of his conservative agenda.

    There is nothing so ridiculous that some philosopher has not said it. -- Cicero

    by tytalus on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 08:54:34 AM PST

  •  Good thing he's not getting a domestic policy gig (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Simplify, Enzo Valenzetti

    I don't understand what his domestic policy votes and beliefs matter to being the SecDef.  

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

    by Jacoby Jonze on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:12:23 AM PST

    •  Show who he is. That's all. (0+ / 0-)

      But, yes, he may be less harmful there.

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:49:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you are a woman in the military (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluemeanies, TomP, askew

      you might have good cause to worry about what your Secretary has in store for you.

      Will you be able to get birth control, the morning after pill, an abortion?  Or will he impose his extremist social views on your ovaries?  

      It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

      by Radiowalla on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:01:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They matter because climate change, women, (3+ / 0-)

      gays and trade are part of his job.

      Remember the huge drought in Russia, which caused Russia to shut down grain exports, which caused the price of bread to soar in the Middle East, which prompted the Arab Uprising, which toppled governments in Egypt and Libya?

      Climate change will increasingly cause mass migrations, starvation and wars.  If Hagel happens not to believe it's happening, that will handicap him in his role of SoD, and undermine preparedness.

      Will he support or deny reproductive rights to servicewomen? Will he actively discourage rape in the armed forces and service academies?  Will spousal benefits be made available to all married personnel, gay or straight?

      I don't care so much about his personal views as I do about the policies he will pursue.  If he pursues policies in line with his past comments, convictions and votes, the defense of this country will suffer.

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

      by Bob Love on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 12:24:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I do... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mr Robert, jayden
    I do not oppose Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense,
    Why?  The idiot is literally taking a high end, powerful job from a Democrat.

    This remind me of Obama praising lottery winners for keeping their job.  (Which he has done; too lazy to look it up).

    Why would you praise some lucky shmuck who suddenly has $40 million in the bank, yet refuses to quit his $13 an hour job so the unemployed guy down the street can take his spot in the factory & go to work?

    Same principle.

    Obama places some right wing hack in a spot that literally robs a Democrat of a job.

    Somebody exlpain to me how this is apart of Obama 9 dimensional chess act.

    I'm worse at what I do best/ And for this gift I feel blessed. - Kurt Cobain

    by wyvern on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:18:00 AM PST

  •  What makes him uniquely qualified for SecDef (5+ / 0-)

    that he should get the position over a Democrat?

    (That is a question to those supporting him.)

    The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

    by Beelzebud on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:51:38 AM PST

    •  President Obama's choice should be enough (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jfdunphy, Theston, Beelzebud, TomP

      Fact of the matter is Pres Obama knows Chuck Hagel on a much deeper and more personal level than anybody here does based on reading a few article critiques and scanning his Senate voting record.  Pres Obama also knows Michele Flournoy and has a close professional relationship with her.  

      The fact that he is a Republican with this horrid domestic policy voting record might make it easier for him to build relationships/win support in the Pentagon.  He can appeal to the lifer bureaucrats to put their politics aside like he has and how his ideas (which are the Presidents) are right for the country and instead of fighting him from the shadows every step of the way, they should get on board.  

      Michele Flournoy would be an historic choice, but just like Pres Obama breaking the race barrier and needing to head and shoulders better than past Presidents because he's judged on a different scale, so would Ms. Flournoy.  I'm not saying she's not up to that challenge, but it does come with many potential pitfalls.  She'll be judged with much more skepticism by Republicans and the manly-men military club already, then if the President's agenda is DoD spending cuts and no war with Iran the piling on of how a woman was a political choice to begin with and now her and Obama are putting America at great risk and destroying the military will become a firestorm.  If you have a Republican former Presidential candidate, war veteran (enlisted man at that) with pretty conservative views saying we can cut the military and standing in the war of the Iranian war drumming - it's a much easier sell I think.  

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

      by Jacoby Jonze on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:39:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wlkx, TomP
        If you have a Republican former Presidential candidate, war veteran (enlisted man at that) with pretty conservative views saying we can cut the military and standing in the way of the Iranian war drumming - it's a much easier sell I think.
        iirc the Pentagon already supports cuts in military spending. It's the dickheads republican members of Congress who refuse to cut military spending who need convincing on this issue. Of course, these are the same idiots who always say we should "listen to the generals" on military issues until the generals tell them something they don't want to hear.

        I prefer the choice be a Democrat but I'm more interested in results than party when it comes to reducing military spending and ending wars. If Obama believes Hagel is the man to achieve those goals then so be it.

        Not this mind and not this heart, I won't rot • Mumford & Sons

        by jayden on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:17:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for a reasonable answer. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You make a few good points.   I'm still not sold, but there are some good qualities about him, I can't deny.

        The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

        by Beelzebud on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:17:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  He's a republican, so... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, TomP

    I'm not surprised by his hypocrisy, or his republican views. He's definitely not the person I would have picked, but unfortunately, I wasn't consulted...

    But, the one thing that I would hope if he did become the Sec. Def., is that he would push for an exit from Afghanistan sooner rather than later.  

    Between the $198.2 billion budgeted in FY2012-2013 for the ongoing Afghanistan war (not to mention the 3.7 Trillion and Counting as of Aug 2011 for war since 2001) and the ever mounting death toll it is time to bring the troops home.  It is time to stop the needless and significant drain on the Treasury for a war that

    "shows no credible measures of effectiveness".
  •  Why is he not nominating Michele Flournoy? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF, TomP

    "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 Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:46:28 AM PST

  •  Can someone remind me of the last time a Democrat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love, TomP

    served in a Republican cabinet?

    Can someone remind me of the last time a Democrat's name was floated for a position in a Republican cabinet and the conservatives cheered and wet themselves in delight?

    Unless the point is blame a Republican for cuts to Defense, even when a Democrat is in the White House, I don't see the logic of appointing a Republican as Secretary of Defense .

  •  :::sigh::: (4+ / 0-)

    Thanks Tom.  I'm not happy about this man's voting record and you did a great job spelling it out.  I don't see any benefit to having him as SoD except to appease some in the GOP, and as Rachel Maddow pointed out, even some who liked the guy in the most recent past have backed off supporting this choice by our President.  (IF Hagel is his choice.  I take it his choice will be presented to the Nation on Tuesday?)

    My question to Mr. President: WHY?

    I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

    by KayCeSF on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:31:16 AM PST

  •  Glenn Greenwald's defense of Hagel choice (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    But at the very least, Hagel's confirmation will be a much-needed declaration that some mild dissent on foreign policy orthodoxies and Israel is permitted. It will shatter AIPAC's veto power and dilute the perception of the so-called "pro-Israel community's" unchallengeable power. It will ensure that there is at least some diversity of viewpoints when it comes to debating endless war, belligerence v. negotiations, and MidEast policy. It will highlight the typically-suppressed differences within the GOP and the country about America's war posture. In sum, as Matt Duss very persuasively detailed in the American Prospect, Hagel's confirmation would bring some incremental though potentially substantial benefits.

    Given the steadfast and usually unquestioning support most liberals have given this Democratic President as he's pursued policies of aggression and militarism, they should refrain from opposing one of the few prominent dissidents on these matters absent some very compelling reasons. So far, nothing remotely compelling has been offered. If this nomination actually happens, this will be one of Obama's best appointments and boldest steps of his presidency. It would be ironic indeed, and more than a bit unfortunate, if liberals decide to make this nomination one of the very few times they are willing to oppose their party's leader.

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

    by Jacoby Jonze on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:31:30 AM PST

  •  I couldn't agree more. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Democrats usually appoint Republicans to DoD to cover their ass. It's a form of appeasement. I dare say no one who considers himself to be a Republican is qualified to serve at such a high level of government.

    Sadly, folks will say that all the concerns you mention are peripheral to the core job. But the environment, women and gays are all now essential parts of the military, and, considering  the military's historical role in protecting commercial interests, so is trade.

    And does he know anything about cyber warfare? Is he technically knowledgeable enough to protect us?

    He's just another XXth century politician in a 2kc world.

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

    by Bob Love on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:53:53 AM PST

  •  Let's all agree, he is a jerk and a pig. (0+ / 0-)

    He could be a Martian, hostile, bigot, slimy, violent, irredeemable parasite. What is important to me is that he is as close to a dove as one could hope for. Secondly, it will be so much fun to watch the Republicans go after each other. Obama is a fucking genius, IMHO.

  •  I think you have to ask what has priority (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    1) DOD now controls an enormous percentage of the intelligence community.   I think it is highly important that the Secretary be someone who won't help lie us into another unnecessary war that kills 4500 Americans, cripples thousands more for life and steals $3 Trillion from the poor, the sick and the unemployed.

     Iran is a major decision -- it is imperative that the National Interest be of higher priority than the $150 Million campaign donations that billionaires like Sheldon Adelson use to buy Congress.

    That the debate over war --and the evaluation of intelligence -- be balanced and objective.

    2) I also prefer that the Secretary be someone who has seen fellow servicemen die , who knows the high cost of war and who will support it only if necessary.  

    3) I don't see where Hagel is likely to have any effect on gay rights -- nor  why people are giving inflated concerns priority over points (1) and (2).   If the Israel Lobby manipulates us into another unnecessary war, gay servicemen will die as well as straights.    

    4) Loyalty is a two-way street.   If you want people to support your complaints, you have to have some consideration for the welfare of your fellow Americans.  Which means not singleminding grinding your particular ax and ignoring larger concerns/adverse effects on your fellow citizens.

  •  What frustrates me (0+ / 0-)

    tremendously is the implicit statement, here, that there aren't competent Democrats who could handle the position.  

    Honestly, I know 10+ -- whether Senators, Think Tank heads, people already in the Administration, etc ...

    When was the last time an R President appointed a D SecDef or SecState?

    Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

    by A Siegel on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:20:53 AM PST

  •  we always cave to the "daddy party" (0+ / 0-)

    Why can't we have a Democratic SoD for once?  Let's stop letting the Republicans ALWAYS run the Defense Department.  What is the point of winning these elections if we don't get our way the majority of the time?  It's non-stop capitulation from Obama.  I'm tired of waiting on Obama to just issue a signing statement to push through some of his judicial appointments that are constantly held up for no reason.  If it's not time to stand up to them now, when will it be?

    They say elections have consequences, but I see mostly preservation of the status quo.  So much for "Change we can believe in; 2nd term edition, this time it's for realz"...  These nominees make me sick to my stomach.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site