They're not the indepentent press we like to imagine they are.

no way are we going to be told the truth as long as this is the case. We have to get the press out of rich peoples control or we'll never see anything but continued spiraling down, no up for us peons

We have to do this, we just have too.

He seemed like one of the old fashioned conservatives--like my in-laws. I respected him for his vocal opposition to Bush's Iraq war.

He was not one of those Bush radicals who were out to drown the government and raid the treasury, but I thought of him as reasonable with the same goals as democrats of protecting and strengthening America albeit with different views on achieving those goals.

He left government because of those radical republicans who overtook the party.

I was unaware of his statements on gays and Israel. And those beliefs cause me concern.

So--should Obama choose him? Hagel is not one of the radical republicans. But neither is he a democrat with progressive views on the social issues.

What are the pros and cons of choosing him? Why not a democrat?

True, we do have a right to complain about bad picks, but I don't expect any President to choose his or her inner circle based on the popularity of that pick with the public or opposition party.

I don't like the tendency of Democratic Presidents to install Republicans in the DOD, mostly for framing reasons regarding who is and who is not capable of managing the military. Having said that though, I am personally OK with Chuck if Obama wants him. He has moved on gay ussues and will be loyal to the Obama Administration agenda on social issues. I like that he has the courage to stand up to the establishment. He certainly did to the establishment within his own Party. It will take that type of toughness to deal with the miitary industrial complex during the upcoming era of budget cutting.

I think you are correct--the choice is in part about framing. It is a good time, however, to change that old fashioned--and incorrect--belief that republicans are better at managing defense.

Having said that, I agree with you. Since his stance on Iraq and willingness to stand up to the great pressure to conform, he earned respect.


And yes, I do love to complain!

Whether he is one "out to drown the government and raid the treasury", is another thing.

If he is a Reaganite then he is just that, just less reckless and stupid than the grifter set of today.

I seldom saw that separation and more than flirting with the religious Reich, to boot. He is no cowboy neocon and I think that can be stated and even commended without whitewashing other areas.

At this point, it is like the President doesn't think a Democrat can do the job or something but then the cabinet leans right pretty hard regardless of party affiliation. I'd rather have a LaHood than a Salazar or by all means a fucking Duncan by leaps and bounds.

Team of Rivals, my ass. Team of corporate conservatives.

I wish he would tap DiFi so California could pop another good liberal maybe. The seat would appear quite safe and it would limit the mischief she can get into, or at least sequester it to where she has the most fell influence anyway.

I'm not enthusiastic about Hagel.

Why can't Obama appoint a Democrat to the Defense Department? Why are Democrats appointing so many Republicans to that post? This is not the first president to do that.

I'd like to see Obama appoint Kucinich to the Defense Department. I know I'm dreaming, but if we seriously want to cut our deficit, Kucinich would be the person to appoint.

Hagel appears to sincerely regret, and has repented, his comment about the "aggressively gay" State Dept official.

I said a silent Amen when I read his statement that he was a United States Senator, not an Israeli senator. Hagel spoke the truth when he mentioned how influential and intimidating the hard-line Israeli lobby can be. It's one thing to support the existence and the security of Israel, and Hagel has done that consistently. It's something else altogether to let the hardline rightwing Likud Party essentially dictate US policy, especially when that policy does not promote a peaceful resolution of the I/P conflict and goes against the interests of our own country.

I'm sick and tired of any critcisim levied against Likud or AIPAC being characterized as antisemitism.

Evergreen, I'm not suggesting your post makes that charge. What I am saying is that peaceful resolution of the conflict is thwarted by that accusation and even by the merest perception of prejudice against the Jewish State.

There is some value to having a republican who is sane in the administration. However, if he were chosen, I would like to have assurance that he supports our LGBT service members. I also think that with the unrest in the middle east, someone who has been in the political trenches and tells the truth might be helpful in avoiding some of the nasty impending possibilities re: Iran.

I suppose any domestic commentary would be limited to veterans issues, but it's a start.

On the other hand, the Democratic brand of strength on national security is one that has only recently been rediscovered. I'd hate to see it replaced by "Democrats are only good on national security because they choose republicans to actually do the work" or something.

...as good at defense. This is likely wishful thinking on my part, but...Obama would be placing this man in a very public position; Chuck be doing press conferences, speaking for national security, defense, etc. He's a republican--but he's also a "moderate" in (more or less) the best sense of the word (for a republican). And not afraid to call it as he sees it. In this position what he says will get a lot of attention. Not be swept under the rug or ignored.

Most republicans who still talk like him have been shut down or shut out by their party. Those who follow the party line are the ones who get to speak to the press, either as pundits or during conventions and such. They've been the ones in the spotlight for the last twelve years. I'm sure Obama is putting forward someone he thinks he can work with and who will do the job he wants him to do (stand up to defense hawks, avoid more war, bringing back troops, help vets and cut defense spending)....

BUT...I wonder if Obama also doesn't see an advantage to Chuck in presenting to America a republican who not only can and will work with him, but who isn't going to spew the party line. In a way, he might be offering an alternative to those who still check off "republican" when it comes to political affiliation. i.e. "You don't have to be like Bohner or Ryan, you can be like Chuck..."

Maybe Chuck is Obama's way of presenting an alternative to what the GOP looks like now, a way of shifting republicans left, back toward the middle?

We know Hagel was disgusted by the war, but do we have any info on his thoughts on the vile domestic opposition policies coming from the far right? I do really like the idea of seeing a republican as a good role model for how a politician should operate.

Even tho' he used to be a homophobe, I think like many people of that generation, he has evolved to understand that LGBT people should have equal rights with all of us. I was impressed when he turned anti Iraq war. I hope that he gets confirmed.

game played the day before.

"I voted to attack a sovereign nation without any credible justification because I really didn't know anything about what the hell was going on whatsoever".[/blockquote ]

How about we require our President to nominate someone a bit more wise and circumspect for the POSITION OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE?!?!?


Here's the thing with Hagel: He's a conservative, so he's not real bright, or deep, and he'll gladly do anything the 1% wants him to.

The perfect choice for Secretary of Defense ~ he'll protect the holdings and profits of 1% wealthy private interests no matter how many of the innocent 99% have to die in order to do it.

He's a fucking republican, folks!

Dennis Kucinich as sec. of "Defense."....

Wars without end. Amen.

was about it.

The country was in a post 9/11 mood. Bush played on the emotions of these senators. People like Biden and Hagel were not just sitting in the Senate getting lectured by others on why we should go to war in Iraq. They were called in to meet with Dubya. Face to face. Eye contact. They were lied to. Played like fools by that administration.

When they realized they were lied to, they were beyond pissed. And many spoke out in anger.
Chuck Hagel being one of them.

He is a good guy.
Yes it is unfortunate what he said about gays. BUT too bad for Chuck... he will not have a say in that. Not in this administration.

I was a fan of his when he began to speak out. And because he is a Viet Nam Vet & so angry about Iraq, you can be certain that he is not going to get us involved in other unnecessary wars.

This is Obama after all. If the Republicans reject Hagel, Obama's likely to "compromise" by nominating Wolfowitz

controlling the oil. Saddam was more than willing to sell on the open market. That interfered with American oil company profits.