Do You Think President Obama Should Expend Political Capital To Advance Chuck Hagel's Nomination

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	0 (0%)
	No
	5 (100%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[TwilightGardener]

1. I guess if he wanted to ruin Hagel, nominating him was a good idea.

Let the guy's reputation get shredded, and then dump him--takes him out of politics forever. I'd hate to think Obama's that cold, but maybe he is?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Couuldn't President Obama Find A Republican Who Wasn't Homophobic?/nt

[TwilightGardener]

4. I doubt there's any conservative Repub who wouldn't

have been homophobic 15 years ago. I don't know if he still is today. The times have changed significantly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I Wasn't Making Homophobic Comments Fifteen Years Ago.

Hell, I wasn't making homophobic comments forty years ago.

[TwilightGardener]

8. I haven't always been as open-minded about DADT and

gay marriage as I am now. I freely admit that. I used to be more religious when I was younger. So I don't have the standing to judge others' progress in LGBT issues.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. My "World View" Was Probably Cemented In Junior High School

I always have been philosophically liberal, operationally pragmatic, and my demeanor is somewhere in the middle.


Hagel obviously said it to placate his constituents and colleagues at the time. He owns it. But I believe in second chances. However, just saying you disown something you said or did because it's of benefit to you now to disown isn't enough.

[TwilightGardener]

10. I went to Catholic school, from a devout Catholic family.

We were Democrats (Republicans were the party of the country-club rich--definitely not us), but socially conservative. It took a while into adulthood to realize that orientation didn't really matter in any aspect of society--the world wasn't going to crumble, and more than that, it was just blatantly unfair to discriminate. Some people obviously take longer to reach that conclusion, some probably never will. I'm still shocked by the thinly-veiled racism shown by people like Newt Gingrich and others in the Tea-publican party today.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Most Of The Catholics I Have Known Have Been Pretty Socially Liberal And Liberal In General

It's usually the Fundamentalists who leaned right.

[TwilightGardener]

14. In matters of abortion, women's rights, gay rights, the Church

itself is obviously not liberal in its doctrine, although many Catholics end up eventually being more liberal on their own--I did. I'm sure the Pope wishes American Catholics were as obedient as evangelical Protestants.

[dsc]

15. Hagel was well beyond that

Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:16 PM - Edit history (1)

he personally discriminated against a gay person and proudly stated the fact he did so.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Yes, that was very wrong. Having lived in Nebraska for

a number of years, I'm sure his constituents applauded that at the time. He should feel pretty bad about it now, because public officials shouldn't reflect (or feed) the worst prejudices and impulses of the people they represent.

[Honeycombe8]

3. Yes. Otherwise, he's let the Repubs tell him TWICE who he can nominate. Makes him look weak.

If he thinks Hagel would be a good SOD, nominate him. Period.

If Hagel doesn't want to walk through the fire (he knew before about his prior statements and that they would be controversial, I presume), he can take his name out, like Susan Rice did. If he does, let him walk through the fire.

I think he'd make a great SOD, despite those couple of comments made years ago. I do not believe for a second that he's an anti-Semite or he hates gays. That's ridiculous.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Yeah. Ridiculous, because no one hates gays and Jews after all, especially not Republicans!

It is not ridiculous to hold him accountable for his own damn record. If it was so many long years ago, does that also not mean that he let those awful words hang in the public record for many long years without so much as thinking to call the individual he smeared as incapable of serving his country because he is gay and apologize?

[Honeycombe8]

17. Not Hagel. No way. He made a statement 14 years ago....

that was a common belief. No big deal. Much like saying, "women shouldn't be allowed in active duty." A lot of things have changed in 14 years, including women being involved in war, and gays being involved in politics and the military.

He slipped and called the lobby the "jewish lobby" instead of the proper "Israeli lobby." It was just a slipup of how most people think of the lobby, in the first place, although inappropriate to call it that in public. It doesn't mean he's anti-semitic. That's just silly.

[unblock]

6. i thought the idea behind nominating someone from the other party was to GAIN political capital.

[TwilightGardener]

7. I don't think the fact that Hagel is an R has any bearing

on Obama's consideration for him--this isn't a "bipartisan gesture". Obama knows the Repub party was pretty much done with Hagel by 2008.

[Honeycombe8]

18. He will, if he nominates the people he wants. If he lets the Republicans tell him who to nominate,

he loses political capital. Again.

[Little Star]

13. If he wants Hagel, just like he wanted Kerry, he should have him.

[quinnox]

19. Stick by Hagel

this is a good guy and one of the few republicans left that garners respect. I like the pick, and Obama as the president should get the cabinet picks he wants as a matter of presidential preference.