Aa
Obama to nominate Hagel for defense secretary: Democratic aide
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-name-former-senator-hagel-defense-secretary-democratic-150413765.html
"The president wants him, because he trusts him and he's an independent voice," a source close to the situation said.
"The president wants him, because he trusts him and he's an independent voice," a source close to the situation said.
"Well, they're republicans so I wouldn't expect that they would.......or could listen.
After all, they do live in a parallel universe."
I third it!!! ROFL!
Sorry but you know I suddenly feel FREE!!!
"Well, they're republicans so I wouldn't expect that they would.......or could listen.
After all, they do live in a parallel universe."
"Hahahahahaha!"
I second that!..lol
After all, they do live in a parallel universe."
"Hahahahahaha!"
I second that!..lol
"Well, they're republicans so I wouldn't expect that they would.......or could listen.
After all, they do live in a parallel universe."
Hahahahahaha!
After all, they do live in a parallel universe."
Hahahahahaha!
Well, they're republicans so I wouldn't expect that they would.......or could listen.
After all, they do live in a parallel universe.
Mike
After all, they do live in a parallel universe.
Mike
Now you know they are NOT going to listen....SMH..
GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination
By Julian Zelizer, CNN Contributor
updated 6:07 AM EST, Tue January 8, 2013
(CNN) -- Some Republicans are itching for a fight on President Barack Obama's nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary.
Sen. Lindsey Graham warned that Hagel would be the most "antagonistic secretary of defense toward the state of Israel." Neoconservative guru William Kristol is already cranking up the attack machine, focusing on Hagel's statements about Israel and Iran. Although some Democrats are confused about the Hagel appointment, with some upset about remarks he made several years ago about homosexuality, if there is to be a fight it will probably come from the right.
Republicans would do well to avoid this path. In all likelihood, such a nomination fight would only hurt the Republicans, who are already reeling politically from the election and the battle over the fiscal cliff.
Why is a fight over Hagel a bad idea for Republicans? The most obvious is that they would be attacking a member of their own party. Even though Hagel has been a maverick and someone who was critical of his party, pushing in recent years for a centrist approach to foreign policy, he is a genuine Republican, as his voting record reveals.
A mobilized GOP opposition fighting against the inclusion of one of its own in a Democratic administration would only fuel frustration with the rightward drift of the party. After a move that demonstrates Obama's true interest in bipartisanship, this would bolster the critics who say the GOP is to blame for gridlock in Washington.
Hagel is also a staunch advocate for veterans and the military. Republicans have always tried to make the claim that Democrats are weak on defense and that they are the party of national security.
Although Hagel has been a skeptical hawk, he is a Republican hawk nonetheless. One does not have to work too hard to imagine what the optics would be like if Republicans go after Hagel, who would be the first Vietnam veteran to hold the position.
It would give Obama the opportunity to position himself as the person really standing behind a robust national security state. Since taking office, Obama has repeatedly tripped up Republicans on this issue, outflanking them to the right on the war on terrorism. This would simply continue that trend.
The final reason that taking on Hagel is extraordinarily risky for the GOP is that Hagel's most famous maverick move was coming out as a critic of President George W. Bush's war in Iraq despite the fact that he had supported the original resolution to use force if necessary.
Given how unpopular that war remains, a symbol for many Americans of the mistakes that Republicans made on foreign policy when in power, the last thing that Republicans probably want is a renewed debate on Iraq.
By bringing that war to an end, Obama has provided one of the greatest services to the GOP that it could have hoped for, allowing it to move on to other national security issues.
Even some of Hagel's potential liabilities might turn out to be much less significant than expected. After all, despite his comments about Israel, the truth is that Hagel voted to provide Israel with aid and he has voted for sanctions with Iran. The record is much murkier than some of the statements on the Sunday morning talk shows would suggest.
Republicans have often shot from the hip in their attacks on the Obama administration. It is easy to imagine the president and his advisers anticipating attacks on Hagel that will only work to their favor.
Senate Republicans might want to think twice about this vote on a former colleague and focus their attention on more constructive debates.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/opinion/zelizer-gop-hagel/?iref=obinsite
By Julian Zelizer, CNN Contributor
updated 6:07 AM EST, Tue January 8, 2013
(CNN) -- Some Republicans are itching for a fight on President Barack Obama's nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary.
Sen. Lindsey Graham warned that Hagel would be the most "antagonistic secretary of defense toward the state of Israel." Neoconservative guru William Kristol is already cranking up the attack machine, focusing on Hagel's statements about Israel and Iran. Although some Democrats are confused about the Hagel appointment, with some upset about remarks he made several years ago about homosexuality, if there is to be a fight it will probably come from the right.
Republicans would do well to avoid this path. In all likelihood, such a nomination fight would only hurt the Republicans, who are already reeling politically from the election and the battle over the fiscal cliff.
Why is a fight over Hagel a bad idea for Republicans? The most obvious is that they would be attacking a member of their own party. Even though Hagel has been a maverick and someone who was critical of his party, pushing in recent years for a centrist approach to foreign policy, he is a genuine Republican, as his voting record reveals.
A mobilized GOP opposition fighting against the inclusion of one of its own in a Democratic administration would only fuel frustration with the rightward drift of the party. After a move that demonstrates Obama's true interest in bipartisanship, this would bolster the critics who say the GOP is to blame for gridlock in Washington.
Hagel is also a staunch advocate for veterans and the military. Republicans have always tried to make the claim that Democrats are weak on defense and that they are the party of national security.
Although Hagel has been a skeptical hawk, he is a Republican hawk nonetheless. One does not have to work too hard to imagine what the optics would be like if Republicans go after Hagel, who would be the first Vietnam veteran to hold the position.
It would give Obama the opportunity to position himself as the person really standing behind a robust national security state. Since taking office, Obama has repeatedly tripped up Republicans on this issue, outflanking them to the right on the war on terrorism. This would simply continue that trend.
The final reason that taking on Hagel is extraordinarily risky for the GOP is that Hagel's most famous maverick move was coming out as a critic of President George W. Bush's war in Iraq despite the fact that he had supported the original resolution to use force if necessary.
Given how unpopular that war remains, a symbol for many Americans of the mistakes that Republicans made on foreign policy when in power, the last thing that Republicans probably want is a renewed debate on Iraq.
By bringing that war to an end, Obama has provided one of the greatest services to the GOP that it could have hoped for, allowing it to move on to other national security issues.
Even some of Hagel's potential liabilities might turn out to be much less significant than expected. After all, despite his comments about Israel, the truth is that Hagel voted to provide Israel with aid and he has voted for sanctions with Iran. The record is much murkier than some of the statements on the Sunday morning talk shows would suggest.
Republicans have often shot from the hip in their attacks on the Obama administration. It is easy to imagine the president and his advisers anticipating attacks on Hagel that will only work to their favor.
Senate Republicans might want to think twice about this vote on a former colleague and focus their attention on more constructive debates.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/opinion/zelizer-gop-hagel/?iref=obinsite
Why Hagels is not a Shoo-In. Hagel -- a man without a party
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/07/16394159-first-thoughts-hagel-a-man-without-a-party?lite
By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower
*** Hagel -- a man without a party: This afternoon, President Obama will tap former GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel to be his nominee to lead the Defense Department. Hagel’s biggest obstacle to confirmation isn’t his controversial comments about Iran and Israel or his “overly aggressive gay” remark. Rather, it’s that he’s a man without a party. If Hagel were a Democrat, for instance, you would have seen someone like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) embrace his potential nomination on “Meet the Press” recently instead of being tepid about it. And if Hagel were a true-blue Republican -- having campaigned for Mitt Romney and other GOP candidates last fall -- you wouldn’t have seen folks like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) speak so critically of him. But Hagel’s in no-man’s-land territory, the place where the public says it wants many public officials to be, but where Washington can eat folks like this alive. He’s a Republican who later opposed the Iraq war, whose wife endorsed Obama in ’08, and who campaigned for Democrat Bob Kerrey in 2012. In recent times, every cabinet nominee from the opposition party (Bill Cohen, Norm Mineta, Bob Gates, Ray LaHood) has sailed through easily. But since we started covering politics, Hagel might be the first cabinet nominee from the opposition party who doesn't have the backing from that party. It’s amazing how things can change: Republicans universally support John Kerry for Secretary of State, but oppose Chuck Hagel for Defense.
*** And a tough fight ahead: That said, Hagel does have a constituency of one -- and that’s the president of the United States. But it’s not going to be an easy fight. In fact, we’ve heard that as many as 10 DEMOCRATIC senators might be “no” votes on Hagel, or they at least start out as “no” on Hagel. So Hagel will have a lot of work to do, especially in his individual meetings with Democrats. Yet we hear that Senate Armed Services Chairman Jack Reed (D) will campaign heavily for Hagel, and that could flip Dem votes; Reed is very close to Hagel and very well respected on both sides of the aisle. Here’s something to chew on: What message would it send if Hagel -- a decorated war hero, a Vietnam vet, a two-term senator who served in office without scandal -- doesn’t get confirmed? As administration official told the New York Times, “At the end of the day, Republicans will support a decorated war hero who was their colleague for 12 years and has critical experience on veterans’ issues.” But as we argue above, Hagel’s bigger problem might be with Democrats, not Republicans. And don’t be surprised if you start hearing this complaint from Democrats: “Why does our party continue to pick Republicans (like Cohen, Bob Gates, and now Hagel) to head up the Defense Department?”
*** The nut of Hagel fight: There are two basic lines of attack against Hagel. One has to do with whether he’s a true ally of Israel. Detractors point to some votes Hagel made when it came to Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as some votes on Iran sanctions. But supporters of Hagel note he always voted in favor of full funding of Israel aid and did sign on to key pieces of legislation that did target Iran’s nuclear program and did target Hamas. Then, of course, is the quote attributed to Hagel where he referred to pro-Israel groups as “the Jewish lobby,” which is offensive to both pro-Israel supporters and Jews who do not like to be lumped in with the AIPAC’s of the world. Gay rights groups are not excited at all about Hagel because of comments the Nebraska Republican made against a gay ambassador nominee from the Clinton years, when he referred to James Hormel as “openly aggressively gay.” Former Congressman and (and potential TEMPORARY Massachusetts senator) Barney Frank has been highly critical. So there is a lot of “cover,” if you will, for someone on the left or right who WANTS to oppose Hagel to find a political reason to oppose him. But realize, some of the real reasons for folks to be against Hagel won’t be the issues we discussed above. For some Republican senators, it will simply be the fact that many of Hagel’s former Republican colleagues have not gotten over Hagel’s high-profile flip on the Iraq war. And for some Democrats, it’s the frustration that the president is turning to his SECOND Republican to run the Defense Department.
*** Why Obama is sticking with Hagel: So with all this potential political controversy surrounding Hagel, one might ask, “Why is Obama sticking by him?” There are two big reasons. One, he likes the idea of a man who wore the uniform who will NOT be intimidated by the generals at the Pentagon. And two, with the budget fights dominating the next few years in Washington and the issue of downsizing the Pentagon on the table, what better person to have leading the downsizing argument than a former Republican senator.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/07/16394159-first-thoughts-hagel-a-man-without-a-party?lite
By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower
*** Hagel -- a man without a party: This afternoon, President Obama will tap former GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel to be his nominee to lead the Defense Department. Hagel’s biggest obstacle to confirmation isn’t his controversial comments about Iran and Israel or his “overly aggressive gay” remark. Rather, it’s that he’s a man without a party. If Hagel were a Democrat, for instance, you would have seen someone like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) embrace his potential nomination on “Meet the Press” recently instead of being tepid about it. And if Hagel were a true-blue Republican -- having campaigned for Mitt Romney and other GOP candidates last fall -- you wouldn’t have seen folks like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) speak so critically of him. But Hagel’s in no-man’s-land territory, the place where the public says it wants many public officials to be, but where Washington can eat folks like this alive. He’s a Republican who later opposed the Iraq war, whose wife endorsed Obama in ’08, and who campaigned for Democrat Bob Kerrey in 2012. In recent times, every cabinet nominee from the opposition party (Bill Cohen, Norm Mineta, Bob Gates, Ray LaHood) has sailed through easily. But since we started covering politics, Hagel might be the first cabinet nominee from the opposition party who doesn't have the backing from that party. It’s amazing how things can change: Republicans universally support John Kerry for Secretary of State, but oppose Chuck Hagel for Defense.
*** And a tough fight ahead: That said, Hagel does have a constituency of one -- and that’s the president of the United States. But it’s not going to be an easy fight. In fact, we’ve heard that as many as 10 DEMOCRATIC senators might be “no” votes on Hagel, or they at least start out as “no” on Hagel. So Hagel will have a lot of work to do, especially in his individual meetings with Democrats. Yet we hear that Senate Armed Services Chairman Jack Reed (D) will campaign heavily for Hagel, and that could flip Dem votes; Reed is very close to Hagel and very well respected on both sides of the aisle. Here’s something to chew on: What message would it send if Hagel -- a decorated war hero, a Vietnam vet, a two-term senator who served in office without scandal -- doesn’t get confirmed? As administration official told the New York Times, “At the end of the day, Republicans will support a decorated war hero who was their colleague for 12 years and has critical experience on veterans’ issues.” But as we argue above, Hagel’s bigger problem might be with Democrats, not Republicans. And don’t be surprised if you start hearing this complaint from Democrats: “Why does our party continue to pick Republicans (like Cohen, Bob Gates, and now Hagel) to head up the Defense Department?”
*** The nut of Hagel fight: There are two basic lines of attack against Hagel. One has to do with whether he’s a true ally of Israel. Detractors point to some votes Hagel made when it came to Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as some votes on Iran sanctions. But supporters of Hagel note he always voted in favor of full funding of Israel aid and did sign on to key pieces of legislation that did target Iran’s nuclear program and did target Hamas. Then, of course, is the quote attributed to Hagel where he referred to pro-Israel groups as “the Jewish lobby,” which is offensive to both pro-Israel supporters and Jews who do not like to be lumped in with the AIPAC’s of the world. Gay rights groups are not excited at all about Hagel because of comments the Nebraska Republican made against a gay ambassador nominee from the Clinton years, when he referred to James Hormel as “openly aggressively gay.” Former Congressman and (and potential TEMPORARY Massachusetts senator) Barney Frank has been highly critical. So there is a lot of “cover,” if you will, for someone on the left or right who WANTS to oppose Hagel to find a political reason to oppose him. But realize, some of the real reasons for folks to be against Hagel won’t be the issues we discussed above. For some Republican senators, it will simply be the fact that many of Hagel’s former Republican colleagues have not gotten over Hagel’s high-profile flip on the Iraq war. And for some Democrats, it’s the frustration that the president is turning to his SECOND Republican to run the Defense Department.
*** Why Obama is sticking with Hagel: So with all this potential political controversy surrounding Hagel, one might ask, “Why is Obama sticking by him?” There are two big reasons. One, he likes the idea of a man who wore the uniform who will NOT be intimidated by the generals at the Pentagon. And two, with the budget fights dominating the next few years in Washington and the issue of downsizing the Pentagon on the table, what better person to have leading the downsizing argument than a former Republican senator.
"but I wouldn't ex-pect the President to out right summon a republican."
I was wondering just that! WHY? Why is it that all the democratic Presidents have chosen republican Defense Secretaries meanwhile republican Presidents have NEVER chosen a democrat. I know Leon Panetta is a democrat (I think) but he is pretty much the only democrat that I know of that has held the position of Defense Sec. is it that the republicans ARE more knowledgeable in foreign policy? IDK...Enlighten me please! Anyone?!
The President for whatever reason is considering him so I have to respect his choice. Thanks to rachel Maddow on Friday night I know what a little more about Hagel. I am paying attention to him now. On the show, Rachel Showed Hagel's "resume" if you will.Turns out Hagel was a 2 time senator in congress, he was a supporter of the Iraq war but eventually realized that it was a horrible idea. He was against President Bush sending more troops into Iraq. I think his quote was " There's a parallel between Vietnam and Iraq. He was also opposed to Vietnam which he fought in and received 2 purple hearts..He is VERY outspoken and has and WILL speak out against his own Party. The only "stain" I see is the fact that he made a insensitive comment about a gay UN ambassador nominee. He said something to the effect of "we can't have a UN ambassador that is openly and aggressively gay"..Something like that! He only apologized recently which, I think is bogus because OBVIOUSLY the apology was because he's being nominated. In his apology he said he has "evolved" on the issue of gay rights. Do I believe him? not all the way. But then again, I think of when this one and only comment was made and it was back in the 90s. A LOT of people around that time were NOT warm to the idea of the LBGT community..I don't excuse his comment at all. I don't agree with what he said, but he said it. I am looking at the bigger picture. He seems to be quite qualified for the job and the President did say Hagel was an "independent voice"....We'll see...
I was wondering just that! WHY? Why is it that all the democratic Presidents have chosen republican Defense Secretaries meanwhile republican Presidents have NEVER chosen a democrat. I know Leon Panetta is a democrat (I think) but he is pretty much the only democrat that I know of that has held the position of Defense Sec. is it that the republicans ARE more knowledgeable in foreign policy? IDK...Enlighten me please! Anyone?!
The President for whatever reason is considering him so I have to respect his choice. Thanks to rachel Maddow on Friday night I know what a little more about Hagel. I am paying attention to him now. On the show, Rachel Showed Hagel's "resume" if you will.Turns out Hagel was a 2 time senator in congress, he was a supporter of the Iraq war but eventually realized that it was a horrible idea. He was against President Bush sending more troops into Iraq. I think his quote was " There's a parallel between Vietnam and Iraq. He was also opposed to Vietnam which he fought in and received 2 purple hearts..He is VERY outspoken and has and WILL speak out against his own Party. The only "stain" I see is the fact that he made a insensitive comment about a gay UN ambassador nominee. He said something to the effect of "we can't have a UN ambassador that is openly and aggressively gay"..Something like that! He only apologized recently which, I think is bogus because OBVIOUSLY the apology was because he's being nominated. In his apology he said he has "evolved" on the issue of gay rights. Do I believe him? not all the way. But then again, I think of when this one and only comment was made and it was back in the 90s. A LOT of people around that time were NOT warm to the idea of the LBGT community..I don't excuse his comment at all. I don't agree with what he said, but he said it. I am looking at the bigger picture. He seems to be quite qualified for the job and the President did say Hagel was an "independent voice"....We'll see...
It's politics. I think Mrs. Clinton is a very, very strong woman. I also think that there are at least 50 people who are as or more qualified for the job as she was. You'd have to dig around. There aren't a bunch of republicans that would want the job, but I wouldn't ex-pect the President to out right summon a republican.
Maybe he will nominate him, the obstruction will ensue, then he will nominate who he really wants? Doesnt matter who he nominates, just because he does so, there will be obstruction just cause they can imo. I dont know much about the guy other than he is a republican isnt he? And if the president trusts him, then that pretty much says he thinks he can depend on him. Hillary is a hard act to follow so this guy must be promising as far as his capability.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/06/16379487-senators-signal-tough-fight-for-hagel?lite
"Senators on Sunday indicated a tough confirmation fight for former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, President Barack Obama's reported pick to be the next Secretary of Defense.
On NBC's "Meet the Press," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that Republicans in the upper chamber would treat Hagel "fairly" but that his past statements on Israel and Iran will be subject to tough scrutiny.
...............
"I think there will be a lot of tough questions for Sen. Hagel, but he will be treated fairly by Republicans in the Senate," he added.
That statement fell short of McConnell's past praise for his fellow Republican, a Vietnam War veteran and Purple Heart recipient who served in the Senate for three terms. When Hagel left the Senate, McConnell called him "a clear voice on foreign policy and national security.".....
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a freshman Democrat from North Dakota, said that the looming fight over the expected nomination merely highlights the Washington gridlock disliked by the American public.
"Chuck Hagel is a tremendous patriot and statesman," she said on ABC. "He hasn't had a chance to speak for himself, so why all the prejudging? I don't know."
Gosh, as a 'smaller-gov't-is-better-gov't-Libertarian-anarchist' type I sure can appreciate all this obstructionist foot dragging that is bringing our government to a standstill. But even I get to the point where the automatic 'you say up I'll say down, you say yes I'll say no, foot dragging gets nauseating.
Lead, follow, or get the !@#$% out of the way.
"Senators on Sunday indicated a tough confirmation fight for former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, President Barack Obama's reported pick to be the next Secretary of Defense.
On NBC's "Meet the Press," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that Republicans in the upper chamber would treat Hagel "fairly" but that his past statements on Israel and Iran will be subject to tough scrutiny.
...............
"I think there will be a lot of tough questions for Sen. Hagel, but he will be treated fairly by Republicans in the Senate," he added.
That statement fell short of McConnell's past praise for his fellow Republican, a Vietnam War veteran and Purple Heart recipient who served in the Senate for three terms. When Hagel left the Senate, McConnell called him "a clear voice on foreign policy and national security.".....
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a freshman Democrat from North Dakota, said that the looming fight over the expected nomination merely highlights the Washington gridlock disliked by the American public.
"Chuck Hagel is a tremendous patriot and statesman," she said on ABC. "He hasn't had a chance to speak for himself, so why all the prejudging? I don't know."
Gosh, as a 'smaller-gov't-is-better-gov't-Libertarian-anarchist' type I sure can appreciate all this obstructionist foot dragging that is bringing our government to a standstill. But even I get to the point where the automatic 'you say up I'll say down, you say yes I'll say no, foot dragging gets nauseating.
Lead, follow, or get the !@#$% out of the way.
Aside from all the "politics" I think this is a good decision. I've got to dig deeper to find out more about Hagel but for now, he's cool...His experience is quantifiable for the job...
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
