Well, fuck me. I thought I was on a DEMOCRATIC forum.

[MotherPetrie]

But I've just been reading post after post lauding Chuck Hagel of all people.

Lots of DEMOCRATS here on this board would be perfectly fine with President Obama nominating this very conservative REPUBLICAN with his very conservative (i.e. PRO-war, PRO-Wall Street, ANTI-female reproductive rights) voting record to the very influential and visible position of SECRETARY OF STATE.

Going on record in my own thread to state my total opposition to Chuck Hagel being part of the Obama Administration in any way.

I HOPE this is only a rumor. If it isn't, it's just another slap in the face from the president to his base who are NOT Repubicans and expect him to have a Democratic cabinet!

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. Well, you're on record. Not that anyone gives a shit. Someone has to stop this....

partisan bullshit, or we're all gonna die. You need to understand that the president's cabinet acts at his behest. They don't have to agree with him, but they do have to be subordinate. Get over yourself.

[MotherPetrie]

7. No, I am not a good Repubican who blindly approves everything "mypresident" does.

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. Oh, I'm sure you don't "blindly approve of everything 'my president' does".

As to the rest of your post, only you know.

[LukeFL]

57. As a woman- that will be a bad move

From the Predident. Especially after Clinton has done such good work.

[donnasgirl]

217. Chuck Hagel

Is the republican version of our Vice President(Great Man) Joe Biden,some democrats actually see the need for a partison politics,the man is as moderate as it gets.He is not beyond listening to someone and coming to an informed decision,in other words he does his homework and does it well,it is called working across the isle and it is what this country needs.

[Scootaloo]

9. I'll stop the "partisan bullshit" when the Republicans stop being the party of bullshit

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. So you agree that Dems should only work with Dems, and vice versa?

[MotherPetrie]

13. That's not what he said or what I said. "WORKING WITH" is not the same thing as NOMINATING To

cabinet positions! Especially the premiere SOS position. That is a reward NO Republican deserves!

[Tarheel_Dem]

15. Well apparently McCain, Graham, and Collins all agree with you. They want JK.

[intheflow]

51. They only want JK so Scott Brown can run for his Senate seat. n/t

[karynnj]

127. Every one 0of them has made positive statements about Kerry as a person and as

a Senator in the past. McCain listed Kerry in 2000 as a Democrat he could work with on foreign policy. McCain in his book on the Senate years praised Kerry's diplomatic work with Vietnam getting them to agree to conditions he thought would have been impossible. Not to mention he praised Kerry for the support Kerry gave him personally when he was attacked. I could find links where nearly every Republican - before SOS was an issue and Brown a possibility for the seat - praised Kerry effusively. Corker and Lugar did in committee after Kerry was with Kharzi and for his work on START. Graham was immensely impressed with Kerry on climate change - especially when he called Pickens because it could possibly help the bill. Both Collins and Snowe have praised Kerry on legislation they did jointly. Not to mention, it is almost a cliche that the Senate easily confirms their own - they know them as people as well as officials.

Obviously, that is not what they said in 2004 - but what Democrats said of Mccain 2008 did not match their earlier praise.

Therefore, I think their praise is honest. However, I do not doubt that they would love to win another seat and see it as possible. It doesn't matter that I think it unlikely as he couldn't run on his record and a second nasty election will be a loss. They could be right and me wrong.

I also suspect that they know Kerry is a strong voice in the Senate and on partisan issues, he is calmly, articulately and persuasively arguing against them. So, even without Brown winning, a Senate with ANY first term Democrat rather than Kerry might seem easier to them.

[daleanime]

215. And how honest have they been in their dealings with Rice.

[Seedersandleechers]

224. Where were all these republicans when Kerry was getting swift-boated?

[savannah43]

268. I believe the strategy is called "being kicked upstairs."

[quakerboy]

56. No, they want senator Brown back.

[blueorchid]

254. blueorchid

That is correct. Gov. Patrick can appoint someone but it is Ma. law since 2009 that
in 146 to 160 days there has to be a special election. Brown won in a special election
here in Ma. because people don't show up to vote like in a Presidential election. Right
now Ma. doesn't have another strong Democratic candidate in the wings to keep Brown
from winning the second special election. Special election time frame doesn't allow
for a new candidate to be firmly established. After his recent defeat, Brown still had up his fund
raising site just in case there is an opening. Gov. Patrick has already stated that he
will remain Gov. until his re-election. Brown is hoping to stay in Washington by hook or by crook or run
for Governor when re-election time comes around. We in Ma. will be plagued by
Brown for years to come - bet on it. Kerry must stay in the Senate. Along with
Senator Warren replacing Senator Kennedy's seat, Ma. finally has a strong Dem.
representation again. We can't under any circumstances have Brown undercut
Senator Warren in the Senate.

[hrmjustin]

256. Welcome to DU! Can't the legislature just change the law again and make the seat a governors appoint

and the special election can be held in 2014.

[zentrum]

62. You're kidding right?

They just want to eliminate JK as a Democratic seat in the Senate. It's another way to hurt us and disempower Obama.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

157. No they don't...

They want Susan Rice who is quite a big interventionist herself and is also heavily invested in Canadian Oil Fields....Keystone Pipeline ring a bell? The State Dept. will have the final word on moving forward with that pipeline. The Republicans are daring (as if he is a boy who cannot resist such temptation) the president to nominate Rice. Then, after a token resistance, she will be approved by a wide majority.
Scott Brown lost by 8 points to Warren, there is no guarantee he would win against a decent Democratic candidate....

[Fumesucker]

180. Yeah, Republicans just fucking love John Kerry

[AlinPA]

245. Thanks for posting that. GOP were handing out those goddam stickers and McCain and

his ilk said nothing. Republicans hate Kerry, it's foolish to think otherwise.

[Jakes Progress]

241. Clueless and tone deaf to how republicans lie.

Your view make Democrats an easy mark.

[jberryhill]

19. It is not a "reward"

Treating these kinds of things like candy to be dished out as "rewards" is an unproductive posture.

[MotherPetrie]

28. Of course it is a reward.

[jberryhill]

42. No, these are very important jobs...

...which, in order to be done, require high intelligence and extensive knowledge and an extraordinary skill set. They are important to the security and prosperity of the country.

I have no particular shine about Hagel, and I am confident that Obama will appoint whomever he believes is best able to do the job in the way he wants it to be done. And that will not be a process of reviewing a Christmas shopping list to reward the good little boys and girls.

[Laurian]

247. They are both rewards and important positions.

I'm sure there are Democrats deserving of a reward who are more than capable of doing the job, so why go to Hagel? I'm pretty tired of the one sided bipartisan crap.

[sabrina 1]

25. I totally agree with you. The SOS in a Democratic Administration should be a Democrat.

Makes you wonder why a Democratic President would consider giving such a powerful position to a member of the party that during the campaign he told us were not doing a good job for the American people which is why we should elect Democrats. Well, we agreed. It's astounding to see people advocating returning Republicans to power after the people threw them out.

We have two parties, not one.

[Tx4obama]

32. Obama has not said the vetting is for SoS. It could be for Director of CIA.

See comment #30

[ReRe]

72. I'm going to wade in here and hope I survive with my head intact...

I think the balloon is that he might be considered for Sec of Defense. No?

And everyone needs to remember what balloons are for....they are for reactions.
So react away!

[Tx4obama]

74. I agree. If not Director of CIA, then Sec of Defense. But NOT Sec of State.

I'm leaning more towards CIA, because...

Chuck Hagel is currently the Chairman of President Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board
Assumed office: October 28, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel

And Petraeus is a registered Republican - if he's replaced by Hagel then it wouldn't be much of a change in regards of party affiliation.

[femrap]

227. Well, if we can

throw Hagel under the bus for dealing in opium and every other drug, I'm all for it.

[robinlynne]

175. OF COURSE!

[savannah43]

269. I once read some one describing the two parties as "one shirt, two pockets."

Apt, I think.

[sabrina 1]

47. How about Republicans work WITH DEMOCRATS. Notice how the person you responded

to worded that. Why admonish Democrats who HAVE tried to work with Republicans? I found that comment to be very strange.

Here's the attitude we need to take:

Republicans need to work with Democrats. That poster got it backwards.

We helped Democrats to WIN! Republicans need to be told 'we expect YOU to work with US.

No wonder we are always viewed as the weak party. Dems won! Republicans are not in a position to call the shots as suggested in that comment you responded to.

[tpsbmam]

290. Wish I could rec this post, Sabrina! I'll simply say a hearty & vociferous +1!!! n/t

[LukeFL]

60. I agree with you

[Scootaloo]

24. I think that Dems should not work with people who have a policy of fucking America over

[morningfog]

148. I think Dems should fucking destroy the repukes. We won the election, time to shut

them down. They are the ones who need to enter the 21st century.

[1StrongBlackMan]

164. Have we entered some alternate universe ...

where people believe (want to believe/act as if) the political world operates differently from the world they live in?

In football ...The coach sets the line-up. He/She picking an unpopular, but talented, player to start. The coach calls the play and that unpopular player had better run the play that the coach calls ... Period.

In industry ... The boss assigns an arrogant, brash, but accomplished, employee to head up a sales unit. The rest of the sales time doesn't like the guy/gal; but you can rest assured that the arrogant, brash, but accomplished, employee will work towards the boss' sales target ... Period.

[Tarheel_Dem]

168. Thank You!

[Cleita]

249. The operative word is the 'talented player', the 'accomplished employee'.

I don't believe any Republican, including Hagel, is in those leagues. President Obama is doing another one of his reaches across the aisle to a hostile party, who will try to figure out how to cut that arm off that he is reaching with. This could have worked in the fifties or even early sixties, not today.

[1StrongBlackMan]

255. Okay ...

but I think it a mistake to judge talent and/or accomplishment on a partisan basis.

[Cleita]

262. Like I said this worked fifty years ago, but things started getting polarized

right and left since Nixon got his bad ass and dirty tricks into office, so today you really can't back the man/woman, but you have to back the party or at least the policies of your party of choice. One of the reasons we have so many red states is that the politicians in those states will sincerely promise to address the concerns of the people of those states and they will throw them some crumbs to keep getting elected. However, by and large they have to follow the policies of their caucus, so they can't deliver on the promises they make at a national level.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

260. In my experience, the arrogant brash employee will work toward the boss' goals ONLY...

... because it benefits HIMSELF. At the first chance he gets, he will steal the boss' customers and go to the competition for a better deal for HIMSELF or open up a competing shop across town

[robinlynne]

173. Republicans get what they want by stnading firm and being partisan assholes. They are not going

to change., Being "nice" to them only gives them more latitude. It is bad for the country.

[butterfly77]

237. You can't be nice to these people?

Whatever deals they make they are plotting and planning how to lie,cheat,steal and hurt the American people in some way. They are only worried about how they can fill their pockets.

[Hotler]

221. It wouldn't hurt for the Dems and the president to tell.....

the repugs to go fuck themselves once or twice.

[Cleita]

248. In this day and age, I agree that Dems should only work with Dems.

The Republicans will not yield, so nor should we.

[Magoo48]

132. Well put.

[bluestate10]

27. The poster didn't say what you wrote. The concern was about a republican former Senator who

had a very conservative voting record, including being negative on some issues democrats say are important to them. I prefer a lifelong democrat like Wesley Clark or even moving the Veteran's administration head from the VA to the SOS or SOD posts, he has pretty good international experience.

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. I have absolutely no qualms about Wesley Clark working in this administration.

I just think the hyperbole re: Chuck Hagel is a bit over-the-top. I know this board, and ones like it, serve a very partisan readership. But the very people who feign outrage that this president might appoint someone with an "R" after his name, belies their constantly chiding others for supporting this president "just because he's a Democrat". Can you say h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?

Look, this president's entire professional career, even as a community organizer, seems to have been built on consensus building, and working with the opposition. I just want people to wake up and realize that there are forces among us who have vested interests in unending gridlock, and partisan bickering. If we all came together and did a kumbaya, it would put many of them out of work.

[LukeFL]

63. You're naive

[And so is My beloved President.

[Cha]

70. You're calling the President "naive"? Yeah, I

don't think so.

[sendero]

114. Call it naive...

. or whatever you want, there is something not right with someone who, after holding out olive branch after olive branch, each met with scorn, derision and lies, keeps doing it.

It takes 2 to tango. The Republicans are never going to tango with Obama, it is as simple as that and anyone who doesn't see that is naive at the very least.

[Cha]

252. The President has his way of doing things.. and it's not

your way but it certainly isn't naive.

[sendero]

261. What it generally has been.

... is not doing much of anything. Blame it on the "obstructionist" Republicans, but Obama is an enabler.

[Cha]

265. No, he's not. The gops made a pact to obstruct the night Obama was

Inaugurated. The President gets things done in spite of them and in spite of everyone who whines he should be more like them.

[ancianita]

291. Prove it. You're the one making the empty assertion. The naive charge here is well founded.

[savannah43]

272. Or, it could be that Obama is continuously showing how the GOP is only

concerned with getting back into power, no matter how many Americans they have to hurt to do so. Obama cannot be blamed for not trying to advance the people's work just because he can outsmart the big crybabies. Is this what could be called three dimensional chess?

[sendero]

282. That would be a good theory....

... if the average American paid that much attention to what actually happens in Washington, and if the MSM accurately covered it.

[graham4anything]

85. oh the deep deep irony!!! your post is fabulously dripping deliciously ironic! BOFFO!!!

[bluestate10]

167. It would be nice for you to explain what the hell you are talking about. nt

[graham4anything]

198. Wesley Clark great as he is thought to be VOTED FOR REAGAN AND NIXON

yet you are using him in an anti-Obama picking Hagel for something because he is not a democrat post.

oops.

your argument is undone by your own post.

It shows the Bing Crosby statement to be true. "Everybody has an angle".

[MrModerate]

40. Shorn of all the sturm und drang . . .

The issue is that Hagel is neither qualified nor suited for the post (IMO), and if Obama's offering it as bipartisan candy, he should think twice or maybe three times.

One of the reasons that Clinton has been a good SoS is that she exists in the same political universe as Obama, which can't be said of Hagel.

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. Please understand this: I am not advocating for Chuck Hagel. I just don't agree...

that a Republican can't serve as honorably as a Democrat in the position. It doesn't have to be Hagel. Not all Republicans are batshit crazy, you just don't get to hear from them anymore.

[Bluenorthwest]

110. So you say Republicans are as honorable as Democrats? Did you miss the election?

Where were these honorable Republicans when their Party was engaging in racist vote suppression tactics across the land? Where were they when Trump kept saying Obama was Kenyan, and that he had proof, again and again? Why did these people you call honorable not take a stand against such racist tactics? Where were the 'not batshit' Republicans when they were all ready to vote for Paul Ryan and Mitt the Tax Cheat? When the people were standing on line for hours?

[Generic Other]

141. They were doing everything in their power

to make sure all the cabinet positions would be Republican, that no Democrats would have any voice in government. Just as happened during the Bush years. Seems to me that we have a few too many Republican leaning folks on this board who get all upset with the rest of us anytime we object to having our party hijacked.

I am trying as hard as you Blue to remember one single act of courage on the part of any Republican in the last election. All I remember is intense unfounded criticism, nastiness and hideous lies.

If Hagel wants a place in a Democratic administration, let him become a Democrat. Until all likely Democratic candidates have been placed in positions of trust, there is no excuse for even one Republican taking the job. Until all the positions left unfilled are filled by Democrats chosen by our twice-elected president, there should be no positions opened for Republicans. They rule the house, all the chairmanships of committees.

Screw the bastards. I did not vote for a single Republican for a reason. They cannot be trusted to govern.

[Euphoria]

160. totally agree

[sabrina 1]

212. This is something that has become more than obvious

Seems to me that we have a few too many Republican leaning folks on this board who get all upset with the rest of us anytime we object to having our party hijacked.

I can't think of one honorable Republican in the current crop who are in power right now. I'd love to see some names though.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

233. Ray LaHood has been an outstanding Secretary of Transportation who has called Republicans out on

their hypocrisy regarding the stimulus. He has gone above and beyond defending this president.

I agree with you. There are some honorable Republicans.

As for Chuck Hagel, he was a vocal opponent of the Iraq invasion. He also supports the START Treaty and further reduction of nuclear arms. I may not agree with him on social issues, but he's not like the Republicans who are serving today.

[MrModerate]

263. Agreed that not all Republicans are insane — statistically alone, that's unlikely . . .

But I'm hard pressed to come up with names of any who aren't.

Maybe that's because the ones who haven't been driven out of the party for ideological impiety aren't nearly as ostentatious as the nutbags who remain.

[LukeFL]

55. Really? Like Romney would have

Appointed a Democrat to any of his cabinet position?

Why, we Are the ones alwaYs giving in? Why chuck hagel? He is not even a freaking pragmatic.

I hope this is NOT TRUE

[ReRe]

73. I think Hagel is a balloon....

just saying...

[duhneece]

116. I hope we don't make decisions based on what 'they' would or wouldn't do

I'd like the Democratic Party to always take the higher ground, to do what is best & right for our country.

[Jim Lane]

88. You could and should have made a valid point in a more civil manner.

I was on the jury for this post and was in the majority, as we voted 2-4 to leave it alone. I considered it a close case, though. Your post would have lost nothing if you had edited out the unnecessary abrasiveness. For example, change "Not that anyone gives a shit" to "I disagree with you" and drop the "Get over yourself" entirely.

By the way, for all this agita about the possibility of a Republican joining the Obama Cabinet, it's worth noting that there already is one there. Ray LaHood served seven terms as a Republican member of the House of Representatives and endorsed McCain in 2008. Nevertheless, Obama appointed him as Secretary of Transportation. He has served in that post since January 2009.

[Egalitarian Thug]

90. Well bubba, we are all going to die in any case. You have yet to give any cogent reason whatsoever

as to why it should be us that stops "this partisan bullshit" and you completely neglect to note that damn near everything this President has done over the last four years has been to appease the republicans.

So maybe you can explain why you believe that this should be added to an already lengthy list of republican ideas.

When you're done with that, could you please tell all of us just how much this President has gained from his previous appeasements to the dumber half of the nation?

[bowens43]

96. we dont need to stop this 'partisan bullshit' as you call it

we need to continue it. We need to win. we need to make the other side completely irrelevant. we ned to not givr inch and not even consider what they want or think. making them part of the administration would be a dumb-ass move and not he first dumb ass move obama has made.

'or we're going to die'??? LOL , seriously???

[Flatulo]

297. Yah, lets make the House completely irrelevant. nt

[NWHarkness]

109. Straw Man Argument

Every Democratic president in recent memory has appointed Republicans to high level cabinet posts.

[Logical]

122. LOL, gullible much?

[Doctor_J]

135. Let the Repukes stop the "partisan bullshit"

I cannot believe that ANYONE on the DU suggesting more appeasement from Obama. That is purely disgusting

[morningfog]

146. You are naive and delusional to think the partisanship is anywhere near

resolution. And, it needs to be the repub fucknuts to see the light, not us to concede.

[robinlynne]

172. You are very wrong. Partisan bullshit will continue on the part of the GOp nomatter what we do. It i

is time for our party to BE PARTISAN and do what our party stands for. nothing good will come of being bi-partisan. It is a slogan. nothing more.
Either we continue to build a country for the 1% or we go back to being the united States which created unions and a middle class. Going in 2 opposite directions simply makes you unable to walk.

[Zorra]

211. Putting a weasel in the henhouse is definitely not going to help stop the killing.

Your conservative concerns are disturbing.

We've already suffered way too much from the insanity of conservatives.

No need to validate their craziness.

[femrap]

225. You're

kinda funny. 'We're all gonna die.'

[stupidicus]

229. Gee, by that standard, why not Mutt Romney?

then he'd get more chances to kick the Mutt.

[grahamhgreen]

285. Get over yourself, no-ones gonna die if Kucinich is on the cabinet instead. Unreal.

[dionysus]

301. !!! thems fightin woids! PUT EM UP!11!!

[cthulu2016]

2. This belongs in META

[coalition_unwilling]

77. Hunh? A strongly worded disagreement with centrist tacking by the administration belongs

in META?????

[cthulu2016]

184. Hunh? If the OP cannot make a point without whining about DU then it is META

The OP could have said something about Hagel without it being a mewling puke-fest about all the people at DU he/she thinks suck.

[coalition_unwilling]

190. Oh, I got you. Sorry I over-reacted. I guess I didn't tune in initially to the criticism of DUers

and was paying attention more to the trial balloon of a Hagel cabinet nomination.

My bad. I'll leave my original post here so your response will stand and others can educate themselves about DU policies.

Apologies if I came across as harsh

[WCGreen]

3. Well, for one, Chuck Hagel would not be able to vote on anything as the SOS

so really, it doesn't really matter what he voted on before.

Also, he serves at the beck and call of the President and not the republican party.

Having someone from the other party in a 2nd term administration is a pretty regular occurrence.

Think about it, it would save a whole bunch of rancor directed at the President about foreign affairs and let the President spend more time with foreign affairs.

[MotherPetrie]

5. No - Hagel and his right-wing record would just represent the U.S. world-wide. He would be face of

the entire Administration.

[WCGreen]

20. Do you really think that the across the globe uber popular president Obama

would ever be overshadowed by Hagel...

[MotherPetrie]

26. His past voting record is completely at odds with Obama's. It sure could be used as ammunition.

[WCGreen]

41. It is a totally different job.

I would never expect a Republican to be asked to be a Secretary of Labor or head the EPA or Treasury.

Foreign affairs are the least partisan part of the Administration.

And remember this, the SOS serves at the presidents whim. He can be fired at anytime.

[Tx4obama]

44. Hagel most likely is being vetted for Director of CIA, not Sec of State.

See comment #30

[alcibiades_mystery]

91. Duh

It's funny when the hyperventilating gets in the way of basic common sense.

The people who told us for years that Obama would be a "one-term" President because he has "slapped his base in the face" atre having a hard time understanding how terribly wrong they were. They are like the right wing loonies, except coming out of their own Common Dreams bubble of nonsense.

[Bluenorthwest]

111. Well that last Republican CIA director was certainly a tower of propriety and ethics!

An adulterous liar allowing security leaks, such a great recommendation for putting another of his GOP comrades in that seat....

[sabrina 1]

22. Do you really view these things only in terms of making things easy for one person?

Millions of Americans voted Republicans OUT. The people have spoken. Are you saying that he should appoint a Republican simply to make things easy for himself without a thought for the millions of people who will be affected by returning Republicans to positions of power like this? Is everything just a political game? No wonder we cannot get this country back on track and out of the clutches of the Far Right.

Presidents nominate people all the time and yes, they know they will face opposition from the opposing party. That's just part of being President. And anyone who cannot handle that should not be president.

[WCGreen]

292. It's a way to show the people who are not hyper-partisan that Obama is willing

to reach out and so attract more support from average Americans who don't focus so intently on partisan politics.

[sabrina 1]

295. Why are Democrats always 'reaching out'? Towards the Right? We are always leaning over to

the Right?

Have you ever heard of a Republican reaching out, towards the Left?

Do you realize that we WON! Many of us supported this President very reluctantly, and slowly over the past decade, many Democrats have grown increasingly disillusioned with this Party who supported all of Bush's policies even after he left office. So they are hanging on by a thread to whatever support they have.

So who is this President trying to impress again? This country is shifting fast towards the Left. If the Dems keep leaning right, we are very likely to have an historical realignment of the Political landscape. It wouldn't be the first time.

Obama should not take his victory as HIS victory. He won because the other choice was so bad not because he was so great. His career is at an end. Now it's his legacy that matters. Either he acts like a Democrat and shows respect for the people who elected him who made it clear they do not want Republicans in any position of power, or his legacy will be that he betrayed those who gave him their votes and he will prove that they were correct to have done so reluctantly.

I just wish people would stop enabling the deception. He doesn't need to show the people something they do not want to see. They want Democrats not Republicans in power. If they did not they would have elected Republicans.

[WCGreen]

296. I got nothing more...

Except this, just because the other side is full of selfish and petulant child like people doesn't mean we should be that petty.

I thought that we were suppose to be the adults in the room.

[savannah43]

273. "Also, he serves at the beck and call of the President and not the republican party."

Really? When will the brainwashing be held?

[WCGreen]

293. Any member of the cabinet serves at the whim of the president....

It's not an elected post so president Obama could dismiss him at any time...

[DearHeart]

4. No more of these Repukes!

They were the ones who allowed Bush & Co. to get away with all the shit that they did! Iraq war, Guantanamo, Patriot Act, etc., and now we're supposed forget all of that and allow them to be appointed to Obama's cabinet??

NO WAY should Chuck Hagel EVER be in the Cabinet, let alone Secretary of State!

[link:http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm|

[MotherPetrie]

6. Thank you.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. Didn't Hillary vote for all the stuff you laid out there?

"Iraq war, Guantanamo, Patriot Act, etc."? What's the disqualifier?

[MotherPetrie]

23. She's a -- you know -- DEMOCRAT! She may not have a perfect voting record -

But she is not a conservative rightwing asshole like Chuck Hagel.

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. Doesn't answer my question. The poster itemized some issues he had a problem with....

and it just so happens that HRC voted in the affirmative on the issues laid out by said poster. Don't tell me you're a big ol' hypocrite. By the way, Hillary is one helluva SOS, but I just want to make sure that the ideologically pure among us aren't dismissing Hagel simply because of the (R). How much further are we gonna be dragged down that bad road? Washington is going to have to find a way to find consensus and work together, and block out the static noise coming from the partisan hacks on both sides.

Saying that President Obama should only appoint Democrats to his cabinet is like saying that Walmart, or any other corporation, should only employ Republicans. Don't you see anything wrong with that?

[MotherPetrie]

193. Being a REPUBLICAN is a disqualifier. If that isn't obvious to you, I wonder why you're on DU.

[sabrina 1]

213. Yes she did which is why I never supported her and would never support her for

President. However, appointing her as SOS was appointing someone who is a Democrat and who was not likely to pull what Republican Petreaus pulled against a Democratic President.

[DearHeart]

80. Yes she did and I don't like her being the SOS.

IMHO, I would think that any one of them would be a disqualifier.

[bowens43]

97. absolutely. elections SHOULD have consequences.

fuck the republicans . we don't need them, theyre all the same.

[Angry Dragon]

8. I vote for Bill Clinton

and I say all republicans can go rot and burn in the Bowels of Hell

[freetrucker53]

304. Bill Clinton?

Bill Clinton gave us nafta, ending welfare as we know it, and many other dirty deals that the republicans couldn't probably have accomplished if they had been in the white house.
So I vote to send Clinton to hell.

[Tutonic]

11. Won't sex ya, but I totally agree.

I appreciate that our President wants to be inclusive but he needs to stop letting the enemy sleep in the downstairs bedroom.

[begin_within]

14. I've been amazed over the last 4 years at how much Obama gets a pass from DUers.

[SammyWinstonJack]

118. Me too?

[sabrina 1]

16. You're absolutely right. We elect Democrats in order to get rid of Republicans.

So I'll ask the supporters of Republicans in Democratic cabinets here, if Republicans are acceptable in such powerful positions, then why do we vote for Democrats?

This is what people were afraid of, that we throw them out, and the Party Leadership invites them back in. They have learned nothing. We objected to Petraeus and were told to 'stfu'. Now there is every possibility that he was conspiring to embarrass the President before the election. Once a Republican always a Republican and that is where their loyalties are.

If the people wanted to vote for Republicans they would have done so. It is a betrayal of the support given to Democrats to take the victory the people gave them only to return power to the people they threw out.

[Poll_Blind]

18. K&R! Holeee shit, I just visitied the link someone posted upthead!

Chuck Hagel

Damn!

PB

[Art_from_Ark]

29. Who's next?

Jim Inhofe for Energy Secretary?

[MannyGoldstein]

37. We must learn to be tolerant of other people's beliefs

We Democrats have a big tent. Huge. Really ginormous. Bigger than the Sun.

We should pull together and fight Liberals instead of demonizing patriotic Americans like Hagel.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

[Iggy]

102. Particularly PRO Corporate Beliefs...

[Dragonfli]

120. Tolerance is a good start, but to really understand our potential allies on the far right

I find it is more pragmatic to adopt their beliefs entirely, a sensible approach would be to assimilate nearly all of the serious policy beliefs held by the right and adopt them as our own. That would be a positive effort at bipartisanship that could fully annex even tea party members into the large tent of the modern Democratic party finding a "third way" if you will around the poisonous gridlock that the liberals appear intent on promoting.

It has worked well with welfare reform and free trade in the past, and remember the landmark Democratic health reform we adopted from the Heritage foundation, that right wing sensible proposal is now a Democratic approach to health care.

I propose that we look further into the Heritage Foundation for all of our new policy positions. After all, yesterday's Reagan can be the new Democratic success story.

I like your third way approach Manny, but you are living a few years in the past, it is obvious to all sensible, serious Democrats that this is a good start (http://www.thirdway.org/) but still a bit too far left to take us into 2016.

True courage would take us to battle against all entitlement spending as it is little more than a vicious attack on the money our job creators will need if our trickle down theories are ever to work, trickle down only works if the top gets all the money, not just most of it, keeping our money out of their hands is class warfare on a massive scale.

Time to be courageous enough to become the enemy and defeat them by agreeing with them


DLC Dragonfli

[Doctor_J]

137. That was tried by the appeasers in term 1

Remember, "If Obama moves all the way to the right, the Repukes will have to agree with him or die!" Well, they still got to disagree with him AND get a bunch of right wing policies implemented. It worked just like it was supposed to. Success!

Doctor DLC

[Dragonfli]

203. Most serious pragmatic adults realize that the mistake was we did not go far enough right!

Sure, we went at least as far as the Republicans were in the nineties, but, we should have reached out to the tea party, they beat us to the common ground new center while we were still extreme left supply side Chicago school of economics relics.

We have to beat them to the new center while it is still considered right.
We are too slow in keeping up with them to meet them in the center (remember, the center keeps moving right, we have to do a better job of keeping up with the Ryan Intellectual crowd of serious policy makers.)

THEN THEY WILL HAVE TO AGREE WITH US!

[OnyxCollie]

220. Where's Dr Fate?

I miss his "I heart DLC" schtick.

[Dragonfli]

234. Likely erecting a shrine to honor his prophet WILL MARSHALL

http://www.progressivepolicy.org/people/staff/will-marshall/

DLC Dragonfli is loving Will's recent work - http://www.progressivepolicy.org/2012/11/democrats-must-step-up-on-entitlement-reform-for-fiscal-cliff-deal/

[KoKo]

151. Thanks for the humor, irony, sarcasm...Dragonfli and Manny Goldstein...

With all the "revelations" coming out...it's hard for some of us not to fold in despair...but, you two have lifted my spirits.

[KoKo]

152. lols...thanks for this.

[Tx4obama]

38. Chuck Hagel is already part of the Obama Administration.

Chuck Hagel is currently the Chairman of President Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board
Assumed office: October 28, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel

I've never heard anyone holler about that before

[progressoid]

156. yeah, some of us did

Along with Leach, Huntsman, and a slew of other Reps. And lets not forget the centrist corporate friendly Dems.

Maybe we didn't holler loud enough?

[bluethruandthru]

231. Wow...and he's supposed to be a moderate republican???? n/t

[dsc]

21. I could live with him at defense, I think he actually could be good at CIA

but due to the fact that the SOS has been so out front on both women's and gay rights he would be very unacceptable for SOS.

[Tx4obama]

30. Chuck Hagel is ALREADY PART OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTATION.

Chuck Hagel is currently the Chairman of President Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board
Assumed office: October 28, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel

And no one knows what he is currently being vetted for. Most likely is it for heading up the CIA.

I think your outrage is a bit over-the-top.

There were rumors of Obama picking Hagel as his VP in 2008 - that didn't happen - and nothing might come of this current vetting either.

p.s. If you wish to gripe about DUers then I suggest you take to the META forum where it belongs.

[MotherPetrie]

31. No, I'll leave my post right here, thank you very much. Oh -

Back atcha.

[MannyGoldstein]

33. We need healing now, not hate.

A few more years of austerity, protection for bankers, and meeting Republicans 90% of the way, and things will be right again.

Take your HATE elsewhere, mister!

[Union Scribe]

66. .

You forgot to sign it Third Way Manny

[robinlynne]

176. You had me scared for a minute there.

[KT2000]

35. Enough with appointing Republicans

Huntsman quit to run against him, Patreus was a bad call, Geithner has worked well for Wall Street.
Let's find some who are loyal to a Democratic president - Democrats!

[SamKnause]

36. Mother

I agree with you 110% MotherPetrie !!!!

We may have to work with and tolerate Republicans, but we do not have to nominate or hire them !!!!

[abelenkpe]

39. Spent the whole day arguing with third way "democrat" relatives

Who were also pushing this nonsense that we need to be more bi partisan, need to put ss and Medicare on the table, that it wont effect me (at 40) but only my children, that we need to reach across the aisle. Forget that shit. Every time a democrat has said that this country moves further to the right. Would Romney if had won appoint a democrat to secretary of state?

My only regret is that more democrats did not get elected to the house. We need democrats to start pushing this country back to the left. Or stop pretending to be democrats! Anything else is just more of the same thirty five year losing strategy.

[Tx4obama]

45. Obama has not said the vetting is for SoS. Most likely it is for Director of CIA.

See Comment #30

[Bozita]

48. Why is it that, after an election victory, some "Dems" want to move to the right?

Some folks have lost their compass.

[Tx4obama]

53. Chuck Hagel has been part of the Obama Administration since 2009

Chuck Hagel is currently the Chairman of President Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board
Assumed office: October 28, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel

[laundry_queen]

143. That's supposed to make everything better? Lol. nt

[woo me with science]

139. Look who these people are.

Always the same Third Way group. They are deliberate scenery, and their purpose is to try to get you to believe that your values and principles are a relic, and in the minority now.

They have to do that, because the numbers by which we outnumber them are vast. Remember Chomsky telling us that they can't overpower us with force, so they will try to do it by shaping our perceptions and expectations.

The point we all need to grasp here is that we really have one party now, not two. Our electoral system has been purchased, and we are now being managed. Everybody has got to stop pretending to be shocked and surprised when one of the two corporate-selected candidates for President gets into office and immediately continues the process of selling us out...our lives and our children's lives...for corporate interests. We have been purchased. We have a problem.

We waste energy responding to Third Way propaganda that feeds us a constantly changing, ludicrous kaleidescope of justifications for what is happening:

The President seeks the same goals you do, but the Republicans are just too powerful right now.

or

Your views are out of step with the party. The country is more conservative now. You are fringe.

or

What you see as a betrayal is just a compromise *this time.* Adults have to compromise. Stop being a purist.

or

It's all part of a chess game on your behalf that you couldn't possibly understand...

Meanwhile, the corporate government picks up where it left off and continues its work of refashioning this nation and all of us into profit spigots for the ones who own us now, and we are moved steadily into serfdom and corporate fascism and endless war.

It is time to wake up and stop pretending, and instead figure out what we are going to do about it.

One acknowledgement we need to make is depressing as hell: The truth is that we cannot depend on the government we have to save us, or protect us, or represent us anymore. They are working for the other side. We have to save ourselves, because voting alone is not enough anymore.

The other acknowledgement we need to make is positive beyond measure. The propaganda we are fed about being in the minority is absolute bullshit. We saw it during the election, in the way the corporate candidates pivoted leftward in their rhetoric to gain our votes, and we see it every day in polls and in conversations with neighbors and friends. Americans don't hunger for a corporate state; we still hunger for the same values and principles and just society that we always have.

We are vastly greater in numbers than the corporate interests who have hijacked our country. They have power now only because we have allowed them to have it. We can take it back.

[KoKo]

158. Nailed it...!

Very good post pointing out what we are facing with the push back to marginalize those of us who are informed enough to know what's been going on, btw.

[Melinda]

159. Tell it like it is, woo. This should be its own OP. Seriously.

Of course, I expect to see the usual suspects attempting to highjack your thread, if you do take the path I suggest. Might makes right and all that. Anyway, your post is spot on, people are easily manipulated which is sad enough, but here on DU... well, its just much sadder, isn't it.

Thanks for this post. K&R if I could.

[Poll_Blind]

169. Damn! +1000

PB

[whatchamacallit]

177. You

RULE! (Not meant in a monarchical way)

[Dragonfli]

197. I concur, the same group, the same con for years. I also believe it is time to wake up

We have to somehow use the numbers we have to take it back, we can not win a bidding war to purchase our now for sale government, so we must somehow take back the deed as it was never meant to be the politicians property to sell out from under us.

I keep falling short on the "how".
How do we stop the easy purchase of policy (as well as the sale of much of the commons) by the few against the wishes of the many?

[sabrina 1]

214. Excellent post as always. And this needs to be said over and over again to counteract

the lies which they have to pay for:

The propaganda we are fed about being in the minority is absolute bullshit. We saw it during the election, in the way the corporate candidates pivoted leftward in their rhetoric to gain our votes, and we see it every day in polls and in conversations with neighbors and friends.

And this:

Always the same Third Way group. They are deliberate scenery, and their purpose is to try to get you to believe that your values and principles are a relic, and in the minority now.

Yes, they are everywhere, on the media, on political forums, but they have failed so you wonder why they keep trying. The people are more awake today than ever before and are not buying their corporate garbage, or their carefully selected words and phrases directed at the 'left'.

Don't forget 'Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good' and 'Concern Troll' and 'Purity Troll' or 'we are in the reality based community' etc etc.

One thing people should now be fully aware of, when people repeat these phrases, they are spreading propaganda. Normal people do not talk in talking points and we should always be wary of anyone who uses these phrases.

[ann---]

207. Because they are lying politicians

Obama veered left to get re-elected and now, with nothing to lose, he'll start kissing more GOP butt. Sickening.

[CheapShotArtist]

228. It's not "kissing butt" to try to work with the other side.

That's how our government is supposed to work. We didn't elect a king or a dictator.

[frylock]

280. the last four years PROVED we don't need to work with the other side..

what the fuck has the other side done to work with us? nothing!

[ann---]

294. Exactly!

[sabrina 1]

299. So when is the Other Side going to work with Democrats?

Republicans need to start reaching out to Democrats. Where did they get the idea that the people speaking as loudly as they have, gives them any right to refuse to work with Democrats?

And why do I always see this 'Democrats have to work with Republicans' mantra here?

You have it backwards. We WON. Republicans have to work with Democrats. That is what the people want. They said so.

Please try to get it right. I'll say it again: Republicans need to start working with Democrats. That is how our government works. Especially when they lose.

[MindMover]

49. Good to keep your friends close but your enemies even closer ...

[MotherPetrie]

196. Only when defending Obama is more important to you than resisting Republican assholes.

[Bonobo]

50. And the voices that claimed Obama would go more to the Left this 4 years....

fade away and die in shame and embarrassment.

[sabrina 1]

58. Lol, is anyone surprised?

For some, anything goes so long as it is approved by Dems. What's astonishing is that if someone here, a member of DU, were to just suggest that they liked a Republican better than Democrat, they would be alerted on, juried, TOS'd and PPR'd and whatever other alphabet tools were available would be put to use on them for even thinking such a thing.

But if the WH does it, no problem. It's a fascinating phenomenon.

[Bonobo]

61. Wow, so true. Imagine if I had started an OP pushing for Chuck Hagel for SOS

I would be PPR'ed faster than you can say Joseph Lieberman.

[sabrina 1]

67. Someone should try it one day, before it is generally known to be not the idea of the

OP, but a fact from our Dem Leadership. It would be fun to watch the fireworks, the alerts, the calls for a pizza for promoting Repubs here, lots of reminders that this is a Dem site etc etc.

And then to see what happens when the truth is told. The twisting and turning would be of mammoth proportions.

[Dragonfli]

98. That would be an interesting experiment

If nothing else it would introduce the conditions necessary to observe the effects of cognitive dissonance on the neo-liberal Conservatives that would be forced to change position 180 degrees in order to defend the third way tactics of the Dem leadership.

cognitive dissonance:
The mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The unease or tension that the conflict arouses in a person is relieved by one of several defensive maneuvers: the person rejects, explains away, or avoids the new information, persuades himself that no conflict really exists, reconciles the differences, or resorts to any other defensive means of preserving stability or order in his conception of the world and of himself.

it would give me a chance to catalog which of the conservative Democrats tend to reject the information that clarifies the rightward Dem leadership position, explain it away, or simply ignore. it (my favorite are the ones that ignore the current POTUS's attempts in the past to negotiate cuts on the safety net, even when faced with the evidence they pretend he never put them on the table, FASCINATING display)

The contortionist like nature of the arguments required to pretend that no conflict really exists are always fun to observe.
To have all the contortions in one single OP by putting the right wing idea out there as one's own, only to reveal after the cries of "troll" are put forth that it is a Dem leadership position after all and not one's own - they would have to defend it downpost of where they condemn it.

It would be a fascinating OP to use to point out and study text book examples of said dissonance.

[Tx4obama]

71. No one has posted any threads pushing for Hagel to be SoS. The articles ...

... the articles that came out today said only that he is being vetted - that is what was posted on DU.

Folks have been playing a guessing about what position it's for on other threads.

SoS is highly unlikely, DoD maybe, BUT it's probably to replace Petraeus at the CIA.

But there has been no word yet from the White House.


Hagel is already part of the Obama Administration.

Chuck Hagel is currently the Chairman of President Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board
Assumed office: October 28, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel

[joshcryer]

89. Has anyone done that?

No? Then... huh.

[Bonobo]

92. Holy Miss-the-Point, Batman! nt

[joshcryer]

99. Get back to me when Hagel is appointed.

I'll either be outraged or I'll laugh at you for hyperbole.

[Bonobo]

101. It is enough that he is being vetted. nt

[joshcryer]

104. Not really.

[Bonobo]

107. You no longer surprise me. At all. nt

[joshcryer]

108. Hagel was critical of Bush's "surge."

He could potentially make a good candidate for DoD or CIA (left of Petraus) given his foreign policy libertarian stance.

No. Not fucking really.

Would I want someone else? Yes, fucking assuredly.

Is he beyond vetting? With a bipartisan President? No.

[whatchamacallit]

185. So if it were to happen

you would loudly condemn it?

[joshcryer]

239. Depends. I will make a post about it.

But I will not sit around hemorrhaging like a fool about it.

If SoS I would though.

[whatchamacallit]

182. Nailed

the schizo-hypocrisy! <3

[Doctor_J]

134. Unfortunately they don't

they'll still be here blaring about how we should shut up and accept the appeasement/right-wing lurch

[msongs]

52. some leading democrats prefer republicans to highly qualified liberal democrats nt

[Ken Burch]

54. You may well have a point, but I won't fuck you.

Thanks for the offer, though.

[Tx4obama]

59. Patraeus is a registered Republican - if he's replaced by Hagel then what's the big F'ing deal?

Everyone probably needs to take a deep breath and chill

[sabrina 1]

64. We objected strenuously to Petraeus because he was a Republican and we were

told to stfu. Now it looks like once again, the Liberal wing of the party was right. From all accounts it appears that Petraeus really was what Progressives called him, 'General Betayus'. And they are letting him go under the pretext it is because of an affair.

All you have to do is study the timeline of those events and a picture emerges that proves no Democratic president should ever appoint a Republican to such a position. Especially one like Petraeus who was so loyal to his old boss.

They let him go rather than expose something they no doubt think, wrongfully imo, would be bad for the country. The truth is never bad for a country, but this administration prefers always to 'look forward' rather than prosecute criminals.

There could not have been a worse choice for the Iraq War and for the CIA, than that Bush supporting, failure. He has certainly left this administration with a huge problem and plenty of fodder for his friends in the Republican Party to make trouble with.

[coalition_unwilling]

82. +1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - Well put and definitely

needed saying. Betray-us should be facing a Court Martial for insubordination and conduct unbecoming. At a minimum. I might even be thinking treason isn't completely out of the question (and the penalty for treason during a time of war is the firing squad).

[zentrum]

65. With Hagel..

...we'll have more war, more intrigue, more hostile relations with difficult countries.
Obama will get more militaristic and bellicose advice.

Hagel is in fact a dangerous choice who will not de-escalate crises but enflame them.

The poster is right.

[Tx4obama]

86. See comment #76 n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

115. So you keep touting Petraeus as if he had not brought dishonor to the office and to

the administration. Frankly, I look at what he did and my reaction is 'this is why we don't appoint Republicans to important jobs'. You seem to say 'Dave did great, let's get another one!'
The General left in shame. So sure, let's order another round of the same!

[Inuca]

183. Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about

Do you know ANTHING about Hagel's positions on foreign policy and national security issues? Do you think that Biden thinks very highly of him just because he is a nice guy? Or the extremely laudatory words kerry had for rhim during his last participation in the foreign relations committee he was a member of while in the Senate? He is anything but a neo-con, more dovish than many dems actually.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

235. You're wrong. See my post, #233

[blkmusclmachine]

68. The Third Way/"New Democrats" ALWAYS lean right, hoping nobody will notice.

And Obama is not up for reelection. Grab the lube, it's gonna be a rough 4 years to be a REAL Democrat (not the phony bipartisan kind).

[Tx4obama]

69. Hagel questioned Petraeus in 2007 - VIDEO

Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- 9/11/2007

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) peels the bark off of General David Petraeus, Commander of the Multinational Forces in Iraq and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the Iraq Surge Report.

[Tx4obama]

75. Sen. Chuck Hagel: "What do you believe?" (Jan. 24, 2007)

Remarks by Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 24, 2007. He asked his colleagues in the Senate to state what they believe and what they were willing to support, told them that if they were too fearful of doing so then they should "go sell shoes," and compared the Iraq conflict to a "grinder."

[elleng]

76. 'Hagel was a harsh critic of George W. Bush's foreign policy,

especially his decision to invade and occupy Iraq, which he once called "an absolute replay of Vietnam."

In the years since, he's remained a strong critic of Republicans in Congress.

"Now the Republican Party is in the hands of the right, I would say the extreme right, more than ever before. You've got a Republican Party that is having difficulty facing up to the fact that if you look at what happened during the first 8 years of the century, it was under Republican direction," Hagel told The Cable in a May interview. "The Republican Party is dealing with this schizophrenia. It was the Republican leadership that got us into this mess. If Nixon or Eisenhower were alive today, they would be run out of the party."

"Reagan would be stunned by the party today," Hagel said.'

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/28/chuck_hagel_being_vetted_for_national_security_post

[pipoman]

105. He is a RINO, everyone knows it..I almost dislike RINOs as much as I dislike DINOs

[Inuca]

186. It's not about party loyalty

it's about what you believe in and, at times, even about principles.

[pipoman]

232. That may be an excuse for an occasional

departure from the party position, not a departure from virtually every party position. No, RINOs and DINOs are traitors....once a traitor, always a traitor.

[coalition_unwilling]

78. Emphatic K&R. If Hagel wants to be a part of this adminsitration, he needs to

change his party registration and publicly announce his switch. Otherwise, he belongs to a party of war criminals and mercenaries and has no place representing the U.S. to the rest of the world.

[Tx4obama]

79. Chuck Hagel has been part of the Obama Administration since 2009

Chuck Hagel is currently the Chairman of President Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board
Assumed office: October 28, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel

[coalition_unwilling]

83. I should have been more specific, as the president is entitled to seek advice

from anyone he or she sees fit, regardless of party affilaition.

Cabinet membership is another matter entirely. Hagel needs to renounce publicly the Rape-publi-scum Party or continue as an advisor.

[graham4anything]

84. Why let the truth like that spoil the above people's factless lies???

If one asks me, but they don't

getting the homeless middle ground repubs on our side anyhow makes very acute political sense, especially as Hllary in 2016 and 2020 would get some of those votes, over the simply extremist far right loons that are now the ENTIRE republican party.

Sheesh, the way some talk above, they must think Abraham Lincoln was the world's worst person who ever existed, being that he was a (shhhhhhhhh, better not give away that secret).

Sheesh, the other party is down to angry old white men, and fading rapidly.
They alieniated just about every group out there
Now, if the middle group of the other party of white males slides over to our side to

wouldn't simple math show we would get 75% of the vote soon?

again (shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh wouldn't want to spoil the rant of some of the others above)

let's keep it a secret. They appear to be like an angry mob.

btw, some of the others have an angle they are spewing too. Everybody does.

btw2-a few posters above mention someone else. You gotta laugh at the irony about that person's past too. I have a feeling they forgot a little tidbit about back then.

[FSogol]

126. Don't let some facts get in the way bashing the adminstration and Duers.

[ReRe]

81. Dear MotherPetrie...

... I think the Hagel deal is just a balloon, meant to get quick feedback, instant reactions. I may be totally naive. Hell, who knows what's going on up there. But I defend your reaction. I'm not real happy about R's in the administration, either. To me, putting rivals in there is like throwing a roadblock in front of yourself. Thing is, PO has to nominate people who the R's in the Senate won't block. "When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on." --- >FDR.

[graham4anything]

87. I love you quote Lincoln in your signature. Makes your words so Ironic

in that without those on the other side, Lincoln never would have attained his signature greatest piece of legislation that he did.

Lincoln & Obama are both such similiar presidents.
It is why LIincoln is #1 on the all time list and already I rank Obama at #4 after
FDR(whom you quote) and LBJ (who also ironic enough needed the opposition to get his signature legislations rammed through.

Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.
And the heartbreaking elections of 1968, 1980 and 2000 showed it

When the democrats came together to LOSS 3 races that should have been theirs by a mile, because of some damn stupid wedge issues in each one, and the holier than thou attitudes of the Democrats in those years.

LBJ would have handily defeated Nixon as LBJ knew how to win.
(and Bobby would still be alive to run in 1972.)
The division in 1980 that fracture caused Carter to lose
And the idiocy of Ralph Nader and the holier than thou (including Gore) to jettison Bill Clinton allowed W to steal in there.(But without the prior holier than thous, the race would not have been close. Disavowing a president so popular he would have won a 3rd term had he been allowed to, for the sake of purity well, it reeks.

And agian, this holier than thou attitude is rearing its ugly heads.

Please go see the movie "Lincoln".
I think the single biggest thing uber liberal Spielberg was trying to show was how politics is yes ugly, but great things happen by shifting a word here or there, by allowing the opposition a little dignity, a little grace, and then without them even realizing it, ramming home the goal itself- the prize one was looking for in the first place.
It matters little how one gets that prize- the object is the end goal

(Same as how after the first debate, I was mortified with the reaction here against Obama, and mortified at how quick Ed and Rachel threw Obama overboard like those that threw LBJ CARTER and Gore overboard in the past.

Only Rev. Al Sharpton on air said the truth that needed to be said.

but again, won't want to spoil people's rants just will rant myself against the rant.

[ReRe]

103. Whew! You're about the best rantor I ever heard...

... I had no idea that something so innocent would incite this passion in one such as yourself.

It just seemed to me that the op author needed some aid and comfort. I did say that I don't know what all goes on up there, insinuating I don't know why our leaders do the things they do with very little explanation of their actions to the people who voted them into office.

Lincoln had a team of rivals and was assassinated. JFK did the same thing and was assassinated. I guess that's the reason I don't like the rivals method of running an administration. Maybe there are some good republicans out there somewhere, but after the last 30 yrs or so, I wouldn't know where to find one. PO already tapped the few good ones still left.

You didn't hear me on here griping about POs performance in that 1st debate. It was surreal to hear what was coming out of Romney's mouth that night. Who can prep for a debate in which the opposition shows up with a complete personality split? I, too, thought the pundits went too far that night.

I haven't seen the Lincoln movie yet. Sons and I can't get our schedules matched up. I hope we can see it this weekend.

BTW, will you kindly define what you describe as an "uber liberal" and why they are so disgusting to you? Do you mean a "purist"?

[graham4anything]

131. Most of my thread was referring to others, not yours.

IMHO we are never going to get a President as good as Obama.
We cannot get 100% which some demand, and that we can never get all.

and you are correct in that not many are good republicans (and Ihave not seen one tea party or libertarian I would consider good either). But there are a few like Charlie Crist and Angus King(independent), and a bunch others who's support makes it bipartisian, and people in America do want to see that.(Like during Hurricane Sandy, President Obama coming to NJ and meeting Chris Christie, you saw Christie immediately drop his normal hate fed money to beg for more money, and his ratings climbed because of it).

Take health care, people mumble this or that, we don't have enough, and for 50 years, after LBJ got the major changes in so many things, nothing was furthered on health care, someone on each side decided not to do it, or stop what was going to happen (as in 1993 after Bill took office.)

Sen. Ted Kennedy, whom I loved put health care reform as his #1 issue, starting with trying to get health care for all. He personally knew he could not start out wanting a single payer system, or a system like in France, where you work, pay your taxes, but when you get sick,
you go to doctor/hospital and get better, when you leave hospital ZERO bills it is all paid from when you are working and well(or also paid if you don't work), you don't lose your insurance from not paying as there is no insurance at all in reality.
And it is humane and it works(don't believe the lies they tell about France, the health care works.)

What I refer to as "uber liberals" are the ones that whine Obama did not get us single payer now when they snapped their fingers. It was impossible to get better now.

But Obama got us 10% forward, instead of "100% of nothing".
And it is not even fully in place and won't be til 2014.
Personally, my self-employed family group premium did NOT go up this year, first time in about 20 years since not having a work company paid health insurance that it did not go up 15%

So that is what I refer to as "uber liberals".
(I have nothing against socialists, communists, anybody and don't mean uber liberal to refer to socialist or communists.)

As for most holier than thous I was referring-they are not purists. They themselves have an agenda too.(theirs).

What has happened in the past is that those were direct causes to loses by democrats in 1968, 1980, 2000 etc. and division could lead to a republican(most likely Jeb Bush) to get into the white house like W did in 2000 due to Nader and theft.

and i want the strongest candidate to win (and not just talk about this good issue but be strong and win) in 2016 and do so quickly and without a divisive fight. Let the republicans fight it out. We sure won't move forward with the republican candidate.


And there is already an undertone here on DU for 2016 presidential, between Obama's Secretary of State Hillary running again, and Eliz. Warren. Me personally wants Hillary because she will win and is multi-issues, whereas Warren is one issue at have never been vetted nationally.(whereas Hillary's dirt is well known and discarded now).

Hillary IMHO would have won in 2008, except for one thing-she did not have mine, or any of Obama's voters,which were needed to win. In 2016 Hillary has my vote and I am sure most others, especially when he backs her in 2016 itself.

And all of a sudden, there are new code words I don't like.
They say they want a "fresh" face when not wanting Hillary. They say Hillary is too old, and other things nobody says about a male candidate. (Not to mention they want Warren, but don't realize she is just about the same age as Hillary)

So they have their angle as I have been referring to it lately, since watching the Bing Crosby movie "White Christmas" last week, where his character says everybody has an angle, and certainly in politics, they do.


As for Lincoln, see it with your sons, I saw it with my family, it is something to see.
I do feel that Lincoln is President Obama with a direct line between
Lincoln-FDR-Dr.King-LBJ-Jimmy Carter-Obama.

As for what you refereed to (I don't much like to talk about that but I feel that no longer will happen because of what happened when LBJ took office. I feel (if the official story is not true and it was political) that whoever did it, did not imagine that all the good things LBJ did would happen because of the political capital afforded to him by what happened to JFK.
I am not convinced it would have been politically possible for JFK himself to do what LBJ did
even if they wanted to.

And I love as said Teddy, but wish 1980 primary was not so devisive that the democrats never truly united and recovered. Wish Teddy had run in 1976, 1984, 1988,etc.

And I myself voted twice for Rev. Jackson for President and wish in 1988 he had been picked as VP with Dukakis, or even 1992 with Clinton. (I like Al Gore the liberal, but back in the 1980s, Al was much more rightwing and he was not my choice in 1988. Jesse Jackson was.

And I like to debate/discuss issues, and never move to censor anyone's opinion, long as they don't attempt to silence mine.

[ReRe]

140. I agree with everything you said...

...and I do hope you are right about PO being as good as we can get. I feel like I'm related to the man and his family. Have been fond of him since that 2004 Convention speech. And I miss Teddy so much. His "...WHEN WILL THE GREED STOP????!!!" still echoes in my mind.

I was about to jump off my own personal cliff while ago (fretting over the "Grand Bargain" business,) but got up and ran an errand and that calmed me down. Then I came back to the addiction box (computer) and found your reply... Was half afraid to open it.

[NC_Nurse]

93. Actually, I like the idea of nominating Jon Huntsman...guess I'm a turncoat.

He does speak fluent Mandarin, which could come in handy. He seems so sane, for a Republican. It would just be fun to watch McCain's head explode too. And Mitt Romney's too!

[JNelson6563]

94. Rumor mongers.

Don't worry. DU gets hysterical over every bit of speculation that gets floated. Many here pull various notions from thin air and go on and on like it's an established fact.

Julie

[bluerum]

95. Agreed. Not trustworthy.

[pipoman]

106. I feel RINOs like Hagel and DINOs like Lieberman

are far less trustworthy than either repubs or Dems, in general...turncoats

[Coyotl]

112. Welcome to the Big Tent. First day here? Get a GRIP on reality please.

Chuck Hagel being vetted for national security post

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/28/chuck_hagel_being_vetted_for_national_security_post

Hagel was a harsh critic of George W. Bush's foreign policy, especially his decision to invade and occupy Iraq, which he once called "an absolute replay of Vietnam."

In the years since, he's remained a strong critic of Republicans in Congress.

"Now the Republican Party is in the hands of the right, I would say the extreme right, more than ever before. You've got a Republican Party that is having difficulty facing up to the fact that if you look at what happened during the first 8 years of the century, it was under Republican direction," Hagel told The Cable in a May interview. "The Republican Party is dealing with this schizophrenia. It was the Republican leadership that got us into this mess. If Nixon or Eisenhower were alive today, they would be run out of the party."

"Reagan would be stunned by the party today," Hagel said.

[SidDithers]

113. Speculative outrage is the best outrage...nt

Sid

[FSogol]

125. CALL CONGRESS RIGHT NOW $#%@

Geez, a post ripping both Obama and Duers. Color me surprised.

[Smarmie Doofus]

117. Realize that a lot of people come here because of the graphics and crackerjack web design.

As for Hagel: if Obama wants to nominate a philistine, put him in charge of Education.

He'd be an improvement.

[madokie]

119. One thing about it

you sure know how to get ones attention in a subject line.

[forestpath]

121. K&R. It is SICKENING to see right wingers being defended here. I do not understand it!

[babylonsister]

123. I like Hagel. So sue me.

If he has our country's best interests at heart, as most rethugs don't, I have no problem with him.


Chuck Hagel being vetted for national security post
Posted By Josh Rogin
Wednesday, November 28, 2012

snip//

Hagel, a moderate realist on foreign policy, would be a comfortable ideological fit for the president. He has publicly supported many of the administration's foreign-policy moves from his perch at Georgetown University, while often excoriating the GOP for what he sees as a takeover by "the extreme right."

Hagel was a harsh critic of George W. Bush's foreign policy, especially his decision to invade and occupy Iraq, which he once called "an absolute replay of Vietnam."

In the years since, he's remained a strong critic of Republicans in Congress.

snip//

But former Senate staffer Steve Clemons, now editor-at-large at the Atlantic, said that Obama would be smart to pick Hagel.

"Hagel hides his keen understanding of complex strategic realities beneath an every-guy, aw-shucks veneer. He is one of the shrewdest, most well-informed, experienced national security hands who has served as a major force in GOP land in the legislative branch," Clemons said. "Hagel has been feeding tough-love messages to Obama for some time on the Middle East, on Russia, on China, on the design and missions of the armed forces and the intelligence ecosystem surrounding them."

Hagel and Obama have been close since Obama was a candidate for president. His wife Lilibet endorsed Obama in 2008 and Hagel traveled with candidate Obama to Iraq that summer, along with Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI). If selected, Hagel would bring his independent streak into an administration that looks increasingly packed with Obama loyalists, as compared to the "team of rivals" Obama surrounded himself with in 2009, which included outsiders like Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, his primary campaign adversary.

"He is not a yes man," Clemons said. "{Obama and Hagel} have maintained a disciplined, honest relationship about real issues. Picking Hagel means Obama is not going to sit on his laurels for round two of his presidency."

more...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/28/chuck_hagel_being_vetted_for_national_security_post

[freetrucker53]

124. better to march in lockstep

Your not going to get real debate here.

[ProSense]

136. "Your not going to get real debate here. "

There are at least 60 people who agree with the OP.

I'm sure DU can produce a few more people to make it a "real debate."

[ProSense]

128. This is that upsetting?

The recent thread denying global warming (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021876292) was more bizarre.

I mean, Bob Gates was Defense Secretary for a few years.

[spanone]

129. 100% bullshit

[lonestarnot]

130. Calling Skittles. Skittles.....

[Doctor_J]

133. It's for Dems and those who support everything the president does

Two very different profiles.

[billh58]

138. Well, well -- another

Gungeoneer who has ventured outside the Gungeon to take a swipe at President Obama.

[Pisces]

142. We elected the President, now he gets to decide who he puts in his cabinet. It is not up to you. I

voted for the person I thought would best run the country and now I am trusting him to do it. He is not going to make
his decision by consensus on this forum.

Stir up shit somewhere else.

[whatchamacallit]

144. Someone should read the president DU's TOS

Face it, Obama could tag Josef Mengele for Surgeon General and many DUers would argue in support of it.

[ananda]

147. Not exactly.

There might be people masquerading as Dems who would argue in favor of Mengele.

We do have trolls and masqued Reep marauders who post here.

[whatchamacallit]

153. Mengele is hyperbole, but you get my point

This place is downright schizophrenic sometimes.

[woo me with science]

155. The reliable Third Way brigade. nt

[NYC Liberal]

145. It's really funny to watch people go absolutely apeshit over things that haven't even happened yet.

Like a few years ago, when people here were going NUTS over the DADT repeal and insisted: first, that it wouldn't pass (and Obama didn't want it to); then that Obama wouldn't sign it; then that Obama and the DoD would not certify it.

It's also funny that time and again, it's many of the same people doing this.

[SidDithers]

150. Absolutely...

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

154. Maybe it won't happen

but some DUers are wasting no time defending it, either way.

[NYC Liberal]

162. There's nothing saying Hagel is being vetted for SoS. That makes this OP even funnier.

[whatchamacallit]

165. Maybe you should inform

TX4obama.

[NYC Liberal]

187. ...who is saying exactly the same thing I just said.

[whatchamacallit]

194. But also defending the choice were it to be true n/t

[NYC Liberal]

200. I speak only for myself.

[Tx4obama]

274. I posted an article on DU that said 'someone' said he was being vetted for SoS or DoD.

Just because we post articles on DU does not mean that we agree with the articles.

NO ONE knows the truth yet. President Obama has not said anything about who is on his short list or who he is going to appoint to any of the positions.

I personally believe that Hagel is being vetted for Director of the CIA.

My preference is Susan Rice for SoS.

Bottom line it is up to President Obama

[woo me with science]

174. Nonsense. We have already been sold.

Last edited Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:57 PM - Edit history (7)

We get austerity no matter what. Medicare and Social Security were used as hostages, by corporate Democrats, to give us austerity.

We get drilling no matter what. We get right-wing appointees no matter what. We get Holder continuing on.

We get assaults on public education. We get media consolidation.

We are always being propagandized that we have somehow won or been represented, if we are merely spared one more particular blow in a barrage of corporate assaults.

Let me repeat: All the rhetoric is being set up to praise a Democratic President if he merely *refrains* from taking this or that additional bludgeon to the poor and middle classes.

Nothing has happened yet to harm us? What a joke, and what a weak, pathetic argument if it attempts to suggest that we are actually being represented. What have we won? What we are owed is a complete change in rhetoric and in direction. We are owed passionate, public acknowledgement of the truth about how we have been looted and robbed and impoverished for 30 years, with all of our wealth going to a few greedy pigs at the top. We are owed a sweeping, passionate, and sustained correction of the economic lies that we have been hearing for 30 years. And we are owed a sustained, serious campaign of action to REVERSE the structural changes of the past 30 years and the damage that has been perpetrated on millions of Americans.

Of course, that will not happen from the government we have now. We are mocked if we even suspect yet another assault, and, in the midst of a SEA of assaults, we are fed ridiculous propaganda that tells us the absence or withholding of any *particular* assault is proof enough, all by itself, that we are winning and have real allies in Washington.

None of that flies anymore. People will demand representation, until we receive representation.

[Jakes Progress]

242. Right. Let's all just stfu and wait till it's too late.

It's just so funny that people keep up with what is going on and voice opinions about it. It's much better to just let shit happen and then say it's too late to do anything about it. Just wait until too late and then prate about moving forward. That's how you get your conservative agenda past liberals.

[rhett o rick]

302. Yes and after it's too late, those that gave the speeches not to worry seem to be

amazingly quiet only to speak out about not worrying about the next issue.

[Jakes Progress]

303. Along with the admonition

to just move forward, not to examine the past. That is the definition of progress that they think of when they think progressive.

The tea party has taken over the republicans, and the reagan democrats have commandeered the Democratic leadership.

[WI_DEM]

149. Actually most presidents dem or rep have a member of the opposition party in the cabinet

and you won't hear too many laudatory things being said about Hagel on any GOP boards either.

[IDoMath]

161. I think you are mistaking democrats for progressives

This IS a democratic forum. Democrats are not necessarily progressives and vise-versa. If you look at the terms of service, being too far left can get you booted.

Democratic party. Progressive movement. Different entities. Occasionally moving in the same direction.

[TwilightGardener]

163. I like Hagel. He used to be Senator when I lived in NE.

He's a good guy. Sorry.

[WilliamPitt]

166. HERESY!!!!1!1!11!!

[TwilightGardener]

170. LOL.

[MotherPetrie]

192. So you're making fun of people who DON'T support a rightwing Republican being part of Obama's admin?

[WilliamPitt]

202. *sigh*

No.

I think there's got to be a Democrat or three who can also do the job. I would prefer they be nominated over a Republican.

I was, actually, JUST MAKING A JOKE.

And frankly, your post above is exactly, precisely what makes my joke funny.

So thanks.

[MotherPetrie]

191. I'm sorry too. His voting record is as right wing as theyc ome. Did you vote for him, too?

[TwilightGardener]

195. No.

[robinlynne]

171. I agree.

[Daniel537]

178. Pro-war?

Hagel stood up to the neo-cons in his own party, and yes, a few neo-cons in the Democratic Party as well, when he saw that the Iraq war was a fraud and even during the Israel-Lebanon war in 2006, when most members in both parties refused to support a ceasefire. He's even more progressive than Pres. Obama on some foreign policy issues, such as ending the embargo against Cuba. Educate yourself before you speak, son.

[postulater]

179. Photo please. Before I consider fucking you.

[great white snark]

181. I'm sure the President could not give two shits about what some of you think.

Not because he hates Liberals or he is really a Republican. Some of you of course will drape yourselves around that theory but the truth is some of you will never be happy whatever he does. He was villified for appointing "yes men" and now the same for even considering Hagle.

He's got better things to do than trying to satisfy the unsatisfiable.

[MotherPetrie]

199. You mean he has WORSE things to do. And I am easily satisfied.

If not nominating rightwing Republican assholes with hideous voting records like Hagel to important positions in his administration is too much to ask, then when does it stop being too much to ask? When Medicare and SS have been decimated, all middle class tax deductions are history, and all Bush tax deductions have been extended another year?

[bvar22]

210. No, not even then, because talking about THAT...

...will suppress turnout in the next election,
and there is ALWAYS an election coming up.

[Jakes Progress]

243. Golly. Since you seem to be someone the president does give two shits about

would you mind telling him to start acting, you know, progressive. That is, unless that isn't what you want him to do.

We already know he doesn't give two shits about progressives. The election is over now. He can hire rahm back so he can tell us how retarded our ideas are again.

[NCTraveler]

188. Supporting Hagel for anything on this board should earn one a pizza. nt.

[Inuca]

189. Pizza?

I like pizza. And I like Hagel.

[NCTraveler]

208. Sexy combination. Could be a turn on. Ohh.... ummm. What board am I on again. nt.

[whatchamacallit]

201. "Do as DU says, not as the president does!"

[Dragonfli]

204. In a nutshell, yes....

[WilliamPitt]

205. . . . . . . . .

<---------------------------

[sabrina 1]

219. I thought supporting Republicans was a violation of the rules here.

But apparently not ...

[ann---]

206. I'm against it, too

If Obama starts kissing GOP butt again in this administration, I will never trust another Dem in my life - never. First, he has Rmoney over for lunch (heaven forbid he offers HIM a job in the administration), and I'm just waiting to see if Obama caves to the GOP House in the fiscal cliff talks. I'm very nervous - I don't trust him.

[Zorra]

209. Thanks. Awesome post. I'm right there with you. nt

[blackspade]

216. +1000

We won the election didn't we?

[Vietnameravet]

218. Excuse me folks but

didn'tg we just elect this man? Have we so little faith in him that we cannot give him the benefit of picking who he wants for whatever positions he is trying to fill?

Is it so unthinkable that maybe, just maybe, he likes what Hagel has to offer in the area he would be used and thinks that he would make a good contribution to his administration as well as buffer him against charges of partisanship?

Some of you are as unbending and demanding as Republicans..it's either your way or you fly into a fit..

[CheapShotArtist]

236. "Some of you are as unbending and demanding as Republicans".

Sometimes it's almost like the Tea Party-Left on here. Just because someone got an R next to their name, that doesn't make them unfit for the job. And now the rabble-rousers are all of a sudden calling the guy a "liar" and somebody who "campaigns to the left during the elections". I lurked on some of the older posts, and it was like this right after the '08 elections, too. We didn't elect a king to do our bidding, plus there are still 47% of people who voted for the other dude. Obama is not the Democratic president or the Republican president--he's the president of everybody.

[Zorra]

259. Heck no. He appointed Republican hero General Betrayus to the post of CIA Director.

How'd that work out for us?

Here's the thing:

No decent, honest, trustworthy person would ever be a member of the GOP. The organization itself is inherently evil in principle.

End of story.

And token gestures of non-partisanship have no place in effective progressive government. We have an enormous job to to. We will be cleaning up the mess left by Bush and the GOP for decades to come. Appointing crooked republicans to Cabinet posts or any other posts can only result in sabotage of our efforts.

We did not elect Democrats so that we might suffer under more corrupt, idiotic GOP governance.

[midnight]

222. I too wonder about this continuation of bipartisan compromise. I think Paul Wellstone said it best:

"in and out of office, Wellstone argued for the kind of synergy that too often eludes the Democrats and the American left: “Policy provides direction and an agenda for action; grassroots organizing builds a constituency to fight for change; and electoral politics is the main way, in the absence of sweeping social movements, that we contest for power and hold decision-makers accountable for progressive public policy.”

“He was a champion on the inside, and you need that too,” says Jeff Blodgett, Wellstone’s former campaign manager and state director and the current Minnesota state director for the Obama campaign. “And he saw himself playing that important role. But a lot of what he did was helping the groups figure out how they could organize outside the halls of Congress so he could move things on the inside. ”

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/24-3


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans."

-- Paul Wellstone

We can work with Republicans, but we can't let them lead or be in leadership positions... They have problems of sharing, caring, and thinking about anyone besides themselves..

[brush]

223. Just a rumor

Don't fall for purposely planted rumors. The President is not going to nominate Hagel.

[stupidicus]

226. indeed, it gets him nothing but a lot of dismay from his base

and no points from the goons on the right

[femrap]

230. I've been preparing myself

for Deja Vu Betrayal....just like the first time around. All of these losers will be appointed and we'll have to take it.

BOHICA.

[trailmonkee]

238. K&R for use of the word fuck!

[MirrorAshes]

240. I seriously have to wonder...

How many people with their hair on fire right now ever actually paid attention when Hagel was one of the only Rs brave enough to stand up to Bush & Cheney. Yes, his voting record is Republican all the way. But he was a voice of reason in a very dark period, and he deserves credit for that. It's important to get your history right.

That DOESN'T mean he's owed anything, certainly not a cabinet position, but before you demonize the man you might want to get your facts straight on who he is--not his voting record, HIM.

I agree that undoubtedly there is a Democratic alternative to whatever he's being vetted for. However, I do not believe it is being a bad Democrat to point out that Hagel is a sane man who spoke the truth in a time when very few Republicans had such courage.

We don't need him in the cabinet--but you're doing OUR party a disservice by dismissing someone outright simply because of their party affiliation. That is what THEY do. Let's beat them, but remember to give respect where it is due, else we become just like the righties who spend the majority of their days obsessing over their undying hatred for Democrats. I reserve my hatred for the ones responsible for truly damaging this country, and Hagel is not among them.

[Inuca]

251. Very well put n/t

[babylonsister]

264. Spot on! Thanks for this. nt

[peace13]

244. I'm so old that I know Chuck is a douche...I just can't remember the particulars.

Pretty sure he says one thing and does another, finishing it off with a twist of the knife in the back! Am I close?

[leftstreet]

250. Welcome to all the Newcomers defending the GOP

Reach across the aisle
Compromise
Bipartisan

You're a great addition to DU and bless your hearts!



and DURec for the OP

[blue cat]

253. I want Kerry!

#1 choice.

[applegrove]

257. I‘m guilty of reccomending him. I‘m

from Canada and thought he was a Democrat.

[Swede Atlanta]

258. I would be very surprised if Hagel is being seriously considered.......

I don't doubt that Obama will try to include one (or maybe two) Republicans in his second administration. While I think reality finally hit him in the face with GOP obstructionism, I think he is still an optimist that somehow the two parties can work together.

But SoS is too critical to his presidential legacy for him to take chances. I think he is going to nominate someone whose policy views are very close to his own.

[Tx4obama]

277. Article that came out today says Dept of Defense NOT Sec of State. I think it'll be CIA

Secretary of DEFENSE rumored short list: John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Ashton Carter
Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251256768

[Rosa Luxemburg]

267. Hagel the horrible!

[Douglas Carpenter]

270. as a Bona fide "radical leftist" I STRONGLY, STRONGLY support Chuck Hagel's nomination

for a senior cabinet level national security position. It is not that I agree with Chuck Hagel's politics or his foreign policy ideology. It's not like he is some kind of dove or a neo-isolationist. In many ways he is an old style movement conservative. But he is and would be a voice of restraint especially when it comes to the use of military force. He is an old style hard nosed foreign policy pragmatist. He believes in restraint, multi-national alliances, the limitations of military power, defusing tensions in the Middle East and around the world and building international consensus. This is in sharp contrast to the foreign policy neoconservatives. If we want to establish resistance against foreign policy neoconservatism and even the equally dangerous excesses of liberal internationalism (neoconservatism on valium) - we need conservatives with gravitas on board. The selection of Chuck Hagel to a senior cabinet level national security position in the Obama Administration will be a step away from war and a step toward peace. What could possibly be more important that that?

[gateley]

271. Don't most administrations appoint a few from the other party to posts of some sort?

[Jennicut]

278. Yes, they do.

I don't really have a problem with it, as it is SOS. Not making policy, more following Obama's directives. He worked a lot with Kerry and Biden in the past on the SFRC.

[gateley]

283. I agree about Hagel -- good experience, and I think he's a good guy.

[The Old Creak]

275. This thread...

certainly brought out the sickies!

[PatrynXX]

276. well I like Chuck.

he's alot like Ron Paul. a Moderate Republican. don't confuse this with Rand.



But hope it's more than a Rumor. Like Ben Nelson is not a Dem in any shape or form. Most republicans dislike him. So what does that make him??

[kurtzapril4]

286. In what world

is Ron Paul a "moderate republican?" He's a socially Darwinistic, racist piece of dung.

[Tx4obama]

279. Secretary of DEFENSE rumored short list: John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Ashton Carter

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251256768

So, everyone can calm down now. his vetting is NOT for Sec of State.

I still think that Director of CIA would be a better fit for him since he has been the Chairman of President Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board since 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel

[arely staircase]

281. he'd probably be a fine sec. of state

i wouldn't want him in charge of any part of the social ssafety net but ld I see little that would indicate he would be a poor choice for state.

[xxxsdesdexxx]

284. I don't blindly trust Obama's judgment, but I do trust his judgment

He has given me no reason not to trust his judgment. If he selects Chuck Hagel, for some position in his administration, I'd be fine with it. Now I understand a lot of you, not everybody, but a lot of you cannot stand anyone with an 'R' in front of their name -- even I cannot stand the great majority of them -- but I'm with the president on his choice since one of the many reasons I voted for him was because I believed in his judgment. Now if he wanted to appoint John McCain, Mitt Romney, Dan Senor, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, or anyone of the many hyper partisans out there then I would be against him doing it.

[grahamhgreen]

287. Right. Extrajudicial killing of Americans. Priceless.

[xxxsdesdexxx]

288. Again. I actually trust President Obama's judgment -- not the judgment of George W. Bush

If you're referring to the Americans in Yemen -- including the Cleric -- that were purportedly Al-Qaeda suspects then yes, I'm fine with those 'Extra-judicial Killings'. I understand that, under normal circumstances, one would like to round them up and extradite them back to the United States so that they can stand trial in front of a 'jury of their peers', but this is not something that's always possible.

[grahamhgreen]

298. That's dictatorship.

[creeksneakers2]

289. Nominate Bill Clinton

[Zorra]

300. This is a "Well, fuck me. I thought I was on a DEMOCRATIC forum." KICK nt