If their intent really is to appoint Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense and to see him confirmed, the administration is doing a great job of rounding up support from a bipartisan swath of the Establishment. I don’t like the idea, personally, although there are certainly many worse alternatives to Hagel in both parties. Mostly, I just find the whole discussion depressing.
I don’t care that Hagel has been a fairly conservative Republican for his whole political career…Team of Rivals, and all that. I’m willing to forgive him for being a homophobic jerk 15 years ago. I actually like that his record on Israel makes the neo-conservatives squeal.
I just think he’s half a moron and that he has very little to offer. The whole debate around his nomination just shines a light on how stupid our foreign policy elites have become.
I thought Kerry had been announced, but Hagel is better. That way we don’t lose a Senate seat.
actually, hagel is being considered for DoD; kerry at state.
The original post said Secretary of state, obviously a mistake that’s been edited.
I don’t know that Hagel is a moron or that he has very little to offer but that’s generally what I think of most of our politicians. Mediocre. Panetta was far from impressive.
I think this trial balloon thing with Obama shows weakness. If you believe in someone to do the job then nominate them and give him or her your full support. Don’t let them twist in the wind taking knives in the back from your political enemies.
Investment banker Hagel was Chairman of AIS (American Information Services) later EE&S (Electronic Systems and Software) [read: electronic voting machines and computer programs] . In 1996 he won his first political office- the Senate race in the Nebraska. Against a very popular former Governor and actually receiving large majorities even in the democratic black urban areas of Lincoln and Omaha. Not so coincidently, AIS was the electronic voting system for 85% of the state.
No I don’t trust him. I don’t care how few “moderate” politicians there are to satisfy bi-partisan governance.
I think the Hagel thing is a head fake by the White House. Hagel will continue to get lots of bipartisan/”centrist” praise for a few more news cycles. Then Senate Republicans will shut down his nom because they’re dicks and want their pound of flesh of whatever. This will further serve to alienate the GOP from the Very Serious Foreign Policy Establishment. Then the White House will nominate whoever they actually want and that person will get confirmed.
The Susan Rice thing was a journeyman White House mistake; Hagel is the administration learning from its mistakes and using predictable Republican intransigence to its advantage.
But we’ll see.
Has Hagel even made a statement? Has anyone pointed out that a GOPer President would never appoint a Democrat to such a prestigious position(Transportation doesn’t count as prestige)? I love, in a black humor way, all the supposed nominally Democratic organizations going to bat for Hagel. Shows what they are really about.
I’ll support Hagel because he’s actually supported war spending cuts in the past. That’s a pretty rare thing in a proposed Dod nominee, and I doubt we’d get that from a Dem nominee (who will have to “show credibility” by previous warmongering.)
This is exactly why Hagel is in the running for Sec Def. A Republican provides cover for big defense cuts–especially since they will be cutting some big weapons systems in which we have been pouring lots of good money after bad.
Gates managed to preside over some big cuts and of all the things Republicans screamed about, this was largely overlooked.
And it robs the chance for actual democrats or–possibly maybe–liberals to show their competence and gird their resumes for future success.
Top Cabinet positions are normally the end of the line for public service. Although there are exceptions, that particular resume boost is pretty much only used for lobbying.
“…end of the line for public service.”
I just want to know why these folk (rich folk) just retire like normal people. They made their money and have better retirement than the rest of us. Go home and enjoy the scenery and grandchildren. Be part of a real world. Why do guys like Simpsons just keep meddling? Can’t let go of the office, the power?
What makes these people think they are indispensable to government?
If – and I think it’s a big if – If the White House is floating people so they can take arrows, and then later nominating the person they actually want, then it is almost certain that the Susan Rice balloon wasn’t serious, and they sent her out to run interference for Kerry.
I’m not endorsing your theory, but if we assume they did that, then they must have been doing it with S.o.S. Kerry was described as the frontrunner for a long time, and Rice’s name came out of nowhere, and then we she withdrew they were right back to Kerry. It fits the pattern perfectly.
Does anyone ever remember if you could make Intrade bets on it back in November ’08? If so, I bet the odds favored Kerry. People were kinda surprised when Hillary Clinton was offered the job. Heck, Biden’s name was talked about as SoS in a new Democratic presidency before he was named Veep.
I don’t recall there being a clear frontrunner in 2008, but I remember Kerry’s name being in the mix.
I should have added to my comment, Susan Rice was already taking arrows from the Republicans at the time the White House floated her name. They had already settled on her as the scalp they wanted for “Benghazi-gate.” If Obama was playing that kind of game, she would have made perfect arrow fodder.
Not for a minute do I believe that Susan Rice was a scalp for “Benghazi-gate”, deliberately offered up by the President or the administration.
I can’t recall which speech or press conference it was, but President Obama was pretty hot under the collar when he talked about the treatment Susan Rice was getting.
I believe he had asked her to go on the sunday shows to talk about Benghazi, and it seemed to me he felt terrible that she was in the middle of this firestorm because of something he had asked her to do, something that had nothing to do with her being our UN ambassador.
I think Rice was the President’s first choice but there was a lot of maneuvering. Republicans want a shot at a Senate Seat and Kerry has wanted SoS for a long time. I would not assume that Kerry was simply an observer of the process.
I am depressed after this historic win based on votes from women, minorities and youth, the Obama admin seems to be filling important posts with old, white men.
If Chuck Hagel were a woman, would that make you happier?
I’d be unhappy for another reason.
Right now I am unhappy that the Democratic party wants the votes of women and minorities, but doesn’t want us to have any power or to complain when they keep appointing white men to top positions.
In the aftermath of the Hillary Clinton tenure, this complaint is about as compelling as those Republican Wall Street types complaining that their taxes are too high.
Boo hoo, mean Barack Obama never appoints women to anything.
Yes, we women should all shut up because Obama once appointed a woman.
“Once appointed a woman” – do you have any idea how dumb that statement makes you look? “Once?”
No, you – and you only speak for yourself, thanks – should shut up because Barack Obama has appointed many women, such as both of his Supreme Court nominees, his Secretary of State, his Solicitor General, his UN Ambassador, his HHS Secretary, his DHS Secretary, and his Labor Secretary to important positions.
no, better to note “her” concern and move on
Yawn. Who do you want? Michele Flournoy? A DoD insider who probably wants less cuts than Leon Panetta?
Yawn? Because increasing diversity in top government position is boring right?
Michele Bachmann is “a” woman. Sarah Palin is “a” woman. Allen West is “a” minority. Clarence Thomas is “a” minority. Paul Ryan is “a” young person. Harold Ford and Marco Rubio are both youthful and minorities. There is nothing about their membership in any of these categories that makes me think any better of them than if they were not.
There are a LOT of people I’d rather see as secretary of state than Chuck Hagel, but whether they are women or men, or what color they are, is, in advance, of no concern to me. As for age, I think I would rather see a very experienced person in that demanding and highly responsible position.
FYI, this particular sock puppet troll has written exactly 7 comments, appearing only to complain about Barack Obama not appointing enough women, after Kerry nomination.
Which totally isn’t obvious or anything.
MSNBC is pushing Michele Flournoy pretty hard and she makes a helluva lot more sense than Hagel.
Then MSNBC should STFU about it!
Sheesh. Talk about a journeyman mistake.
Wow! is that a pitiful article. and photograph! we want an in house Sec Def who stays in the house is what is amounts to. pitiful
Doesn’t he owe Hagel something? Or did Colin Powell say no (now that he’s finally eligible to serve as SecDef.) Could be worse — Lieberman and McCain are still out there.
Obama seems to really like those that got on board with Bush’s Iraq folly — either because they were too stupid to see through the lies or they really like bombing and invading countries with oil.
Powell I would love. I like the way he avoided losses in the Gulf War by declaring the main objective met. At the time I thought we should have gone all the way, but now I see he was right and I was wrong.
Also he has publicly supported Obama’s candidacy for President. Has Hagel? Or did support McCain and/or Romney?
You would love the guy that single-handedly could have stopped the mad rush to invade Iraq and chose instead to peddle the WMD lies to the world? Sorry, his endorsement of Obama over McCain and Romney isn’t enough atonement for his participation in the unnecessary deaths and destruction in Iraq. (Then there is also his cover-up of My Lai.)
Hagel was highly critical of Bush in 2007-2008 and publicly warned that Palin was unqualified in 2008. That last one helped Obama, but McCain unlikely to have forgive him for it.
Hagel was highly critical of Bush in 2007-2008
And the Iraq War hawks were quite critical of Hagel. Rush Limbaugh and National Review took to calling him “Senator Betray Us” because of his early about-face on the Iraq War.
http://www.democrats.com/rush-said-betrayus
He said Cheney assured him that the WMD had been found. I blame that on Cheney. Powell didn’t lie. He said what the Vice-President (President in all but name) told him. He was used and abused by a person he should have been able to trust. If H. Clinton told a big lie and caused a war because Biden assured her that he knew something was a fact and it was a lie that Obama didn’t contradict, would you blame her?
First, initiating a unilateral war of aggression is far too serious to rely on self-serving assertions (ref. PNAC) by one individual. Second, the evidence that individual gave Powell was crap (ref Armitage). Third, there were others in positions to know that there were no usable WMD in Iraq.
On that last point, I would expect anyone in a position like Powell’s to be capable of sorting through the information at least as well as I was able to do. In real time there were many that had figured out that there were no WMD in Iraq. That could see that the “case for war” was a thin tissue of propaganda. Not even as good as daddy Bush’s “Iraq army massed on the border of Saudi Arabia” and “Kuwait babies being tossed out of incubators.”
We saw Susan Rice on the Sunday shows pitching the demonstration gone amok in Benghazi and not Clinton. Not that Clinton doesn’t have her own issues with the truth.
Ah! So you do not join the crowd in defending Susan Rice?
How are they remotely comparable? The situations and intelligence crap is completely different; but not knowing the facts on the ground as they happen is not even in the same sport — let alone the same ballpark — as leading us into an illegal war.
What seabe said. It made little to no difference if the US Benghazi mission was a targeted terrorist attack or a protest gone wild, and therefore, the McCain/Graham freakout over Rice’s statements was a tempest in a teapot. However, I did criticize her lack of caution in her statements — for an experienced foreign policy person, her failure to use “preliminary information,” “on-going investigation,” and assorted other cya hedges suggests at least a stylistic shortcoming. Not a reason to reject her for Sec of State. But her record provided plenty of substantive reasons why this country would not be well served with her in that position. I’m not wild about Kerry, but better him than Rice.
If support for the Iraq folly were disqualifying, Clinton and Biden would have been out–as well as Kerry. Almost all the Dems would be out except for Obama. The only other prominent Iraq opponents from the Senate are dead (Kennedy and Byrd).
Interestingly, in 2007-08 Clinton was doubling down on the Iraq folly by voting for authorization for attacks in Iran (Lieberman’s attempted folly) while Hagel was against it.
For the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, Clinton and Biden were out. It’s what differentiated the relatively inexperienced Obama from the pack of DEM POTUS wannabes in 2008.
“I was for it before I was against it” was the pretzel Kerry turned himself into to rationalize his vote on the IWR. Pretzels lose general elections.
The GOP will hammer Clinton on the security lapses at the State Dept and her statement that the Mubarek regime is stable days before it fell if Democrats are naive/stupid enough to nominate her in 2016.
I am of the opinion that nominating Clinton in 2016 would be a big mistake.
Completely agree. Though I don’t see her running again, anyway.
She knows first-hand just how tough presidential campaigns are. She is now 4 years older than she was then; by 2016 she will be 8 years older.
She leaves now, on top, as SOS, in spite of the black eye that State gets over embassy security. Maybe she gets nominated to the supreme court. That secures her place in history, with little risk for her. A draining campaign that could end in failure is not a risk she wants to take.
In 2008 it was clear to me that Obama got energy from campaigning, but campaigning drained energy from Clinton. I just don’t see her running again.
Hope you’re correct about Clinton not running but am already seeing signs that she and Bill are beginning to gear up for a run.
As for a seat on the Supreme Court, she’s really not qualified. Her legal resume is thin and she’s been inactive in the legal field for twenty years.
As to who is doing a better job reading tea leaves, we’ll know soon enough, I guess.
I don’t believe you even need to have a law degree to be an excellent supreme court justice, so 25 years away from practicing law doesn’t bother me a bit.
No academic nor professional legal experience required for a seat on the Supreme Court. It’s been a long time since a nominee didn’t possess both (and often judicial experience as well) and with the exception of Thomas were highly regarded in the legal community. Nixon’s nominees Carswell and Haynsworth didn’t make it because they were viewed as legal hacks.
A legal scholar without a law degree could perhaps be “an excellent supreme court justice.” However, if you needed open heart surgery would you hire a GP that hadn’t practiced medicine in twenty years or a board certified heart surgeon?
Then there is the issue of age. One reason why the rightwingers dominate the SCOTUS is that Republicans have been nominating much younger candidates for the past couple of decades.
It’s only very recently that a legal or judicial background was considered a prerequisite for being appointed to the Court. Sandra Day O’Connor was a state legislator in Arizona. Hugo Black and James Byrnes were U.S. Senators when FDR nominated them.
Can we really say that the quality of Supreme Court decisions has improved since that late 1980s?
For the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, Clinton and Biden were out.
Then “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” amounts to about 10% of the Democratic primary electorate, and you should probably work on another name.
The GOP will hammer Clinton on the security lapses at the State Dept and her statement that the Mubarek regime is stable days before it fell if Democrats are naive/stupid enough to nominate her in 2016.
Please proceed, Governor.
Powell has no excuse. He’s a war criminal
I’m not. Old dogs, new tricks…
When questioned about smearing a nominee for the oh-so-important job of Ambassador to Luxembourg (BFD!) for being “openly, aggressively gay” and saying that this is not the type of person who should represent the United States abroad, he claims to have apologized to the man for it. Thing is, he didn’t. He publicly apologized to Politico when called out on it and inferred that an apology had been privately given and accepted. Nope.
With the continued oversight needed for the policies surrounding DADT and the upcoming overturn of DOMA, (this will have HUGE implications of how LGBT families are treated in the military,) having Hagel running the DOD would be a terrible mistake.
I already hated the idea of putting a Republican in charge of Defense anyway. To me, the move echoes the conventional beltway “wisdom” that Democrats are squishy liberals who can’t handle the tough manly responsibilities of belligerent war-making all over the world.
Find a qualified Democrat for the job. Hell, it’s the second Obama term. Be bold. Nominate a tough lesbian to the job to make a clear statement to the old boys club that is the military establishment.
Politico is concern trolling, considering he’s said he accepted it on his own FB page.
Imagine that! Politico? (the Us Weekly of politics) Concern-trolling? You don’t say! 🙂
The Hagel thing would depress me, too, if I thought much about it this holiday week.
But then all of O’s centrist, bipartisan bullshit has depressed me from the beginning.
Kerry should stay in the senate to be sure the Dems don’t lose even one term there to the GOP, as they did when Kennedy went.
That majority is paper thin.
And can’t O find even one Democrat who is neither a neocon nor any sort of military interventionist?
Somebody who doesn’t want us to be “the indispensable nation”?
Oh, wait.
I forgot.