Please, no more Chuck Hagel talk
By John Amato Monday Jun 30, 2008 1:00pmI keep hearing the name Chuck Hagel being mentioned as a possible Obama appointee if he wins the White House. And it's coming from of all people---liberals. I see it in comment sections and in some articles. As if that's some sort of bipartisan statement for Obama that will have the beltway weenies singing kumbaya across DC. I hate to speculate on something like this because I don't want to assume Obama will win the general. We do have to deal with McCain's Media at all times, but really, what is the fascination with him? Do they really believe that if Obama picks Republicans to be in his cabinet that they'll suddenly be won over and give him a very easy time trying to pass his legislation? I mean get real.
And I've also heard that Robert "Iran Contra" Gates is a good idea too. I don't know, do you think they've watched too many episodes of the the great series......West Wing?
(graphic) If the pundits are so into Hagel---maybe if Obama wins---they can ask him to appoint John McCain to be his Secretary of State---you remember---just like Jimmy Smits did to Alan Alda:
"Santos names Vinick as Secretary of State."
How about if Obama just asks Alan Alda instead?
Login or Register to post comments.
Couldn't agree more, JA. Hagel only looks good because he's one of the few repugs that hasn't gone batshit insane.
You won't hear me suggesting Republican possibilites for a Obama administration. Huge mistake. I can't think of one Rightwinger who would be qualified, in any capacity. Why would anyone reward them for their utter failure to govern for the last 8 years by giving them ANOTHER chance to screw things up.. They've had their chance. Time for a 100-year Democratic rule.
obama has already positioned himself to the right, thus to be more centrist he would need to look to the left--NOT further to the right.
You 'Merkins need to find some way to stop the bickering between your two political parties. There's really not much to choose from between them - the USA will not suddenly stop all it international meddling and become a player on the world stage instead of a bully just because a Democrat is in the White House!
I think it would be good for your crippled country to have Hagel as a VP...
Wonder if Russ Feingold would be interested in being veep. Sure would sound good to me. Hagel is against the war, otherwise he is as conservative as all the rest.
JA is off his rocker on this one. Hagel is a reasonable, honorable politician with a distinguished military record and Obama would do well to have him in his administration. Hagel is more respectable than most of the worthless, enabling Democrats in Congress.
Some people are not knee-jerk partisans. Some people are sick of the current admin's focus on party loyalty before competence. Some people have looked at Hagel and said "me like." And some people have said this out loud.
But if you don't want these people to do this here, that's your call.
Isn't this Hagel thing the sort of nonsensical thinking that got Al Gore landed with Joe Liebermann? Remember the VP debate that time? Didn't work out so well did it?
Actually, to extend the thought re. Liebermann a bit, given that the VP choice appears to have such a marginal effect on the outcome isn't it better to use it to secure the base rather than scramble for crumbs in 'the center'?
Wouldn't the candidate him/herself snaffle more of the independent vote in a move-to-the-center (barf) strategy than the hanger on? And wouldn't the hanger-on be a better sop to the grumblers in the base who are really unlikely to go anywhere else but just might stay home out of spite?
Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and _ in a move sure to cause controversy _ support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/01/obama-plans-to-expand-bus_n_110...
Obama’s call to continue and expand on bush policies is “change” (see, make things worse) I can do without.
I know who obama’s running mate should be: mccain.
what's next for obama? is he going to announce his intention to attack iran?
this camel's back is beginning to creak.
Actually, to extend the thought at #8 re. Liebermann a bit, given that the VP choice appears to have such a marginal effect on the outcome isn't it better to use it to secure the base rather than scramble for crumbs in 'the center'?
Wouldn't the candidate him/herself snaffle more of the independent vote in a move-to-the-center (barf) strategy than the hanger on? And wouldn't the hanger-on be a better sop to the grumblers in the base who are really unlikely to go anywhere else but just might stay home out of spite?
JM @ 8:
No. That choice was 99% motivated by demographics. The people I've seen discussing Hagel are 99% motivated by competence.
Hagel is a good communicator and a person of integrity. Politically, his ties to Obama could offer a justification for disgruntled Republicans to defect to the side of good. I think all this "Chuck Hagel talk" could be a good thing.
The comparison to Liebermann is misplaced. Liebermann is not a man of integrity.
forgive me, but I think Hagel would be a good idea.
He's one of the good ones. It would be a good move.
JTM @ 7:
Let's look at Hagel's actual record:
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm
Not a pretty picture. If you think that's an asset to Obama, time to switch your affiliation.
we need the good ones.
Weather you agree with their policies, people of integrity like Hagel and Ron Paul create better Republicans. We should bring them into the Obama White House.
bobsf @ 13:
bobsf @ 13:
Obama's change message is correct. This is a time that the country wants to move left. Hagle has a horrible voting record outside of his very cool opposition to the war and Cheney. Check out his stance on "choice." So, it's a terrible choice to make. What about the strong Dems that are deserving of the spot? It certainly sounds good to the Villagers. But the Villagers aren't his base.
I think that the attacks on Wes Clark for his very truthful statement is an attempt to keep him from being selected as Veep... What a powerful asset to Obama would General Clark Be? And I like the fact that Clark has not backed down from his statements... Good on him.
But no Chuck Hagel.
And I'd take Alan Alda as Sec. of State only if Aaron Sorkin writes the dialogue...
Weather you agree with their policies, people of integrity like Hagel and Ron Paul create better Republicans. We should bring them into the Obama White House.
Integrity? With that record?
No, putting the Republican Party in the doghouse for a few decades will FORCE the Party to move more towards a real center where Democracy and the Constitution are valued and cherished more than personal aggrandizement. Look, the Democratic Party has got its own, serious problems but the Republican Party is so totally corroded and corrupt that with its current makeup it's beyond rehabilitation and, in fact, a very real danger to America (as we have already seen....).
If Obama's failure on FISA is any indication of his idea of bipartisanship or is going to be anything like what Pelosi, Hoyer and Reid have consistently demonstrated, I want nothing to do with it. That kind of "bipartisanship" has been nothing more than a serial gang rape of Ladies Liberty and Blind-Justice. I'll take bite-your-jugular-veins-out, fight-to-the-death partisanship any day over that. Since Obama has pretty much thoroughly besmirched himself and his Constitutional/non-corporate-whore credentials re FISA, he ought to pick Kucinich as his running mate. He might redeem himself somewhat.
It's interesting that you bring up 'The West Wing'. I just watched an episode from the first season, entitled "The Short List", in which the Bartlett administration is trying to decide on a Supreme Court nominee. The dressing down the president receives early in the episode from the retiring justice is great stuff, especially in light of this post and also Arianna Huffington's post "Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers".
"I wanted to retire five years ago, but I waited for a Democrat. I wanted a Democrat, but instead I got you."
When are they going to realize that no matter what Obama does to try to placate the Right Wing they are going to attack him for it? They do not believe in bipartisanship except as a tool for capitulation.
Look, I like a lot about Chuck Hagel. He was the one Republican voice I could stomach during the 2000 election debacle. But the fact is the Republicans have failed this country. And most of the country understands this. They had their chance at the wheel. At this point they shouldn't even get to ride up in the front with the adults anymore. Those among them that really want to help get us back on track can prove it by standing out in the back and pushing us out of the mud. Maybe then we'll let them in the passenger seats. Until that happens they can ride in the very back with the pets.
You're never going to get the whackos who still approve of Bush. It is fruitless to try to. And I just don't believe that pandering--the Gates trial balloon, this faith-based initiative crap--is going to sway those intelligent and furious conservatives who understand the country is headed in the wrong direction. Those people are more likely to be swayed by someone who has the courage of his convictions, even if those convictions differ from their own.
If Obama isn't going to show the courage of his convictions now, what is the point of having convictions at all?
"Thanks for the fish."
What about the strong Dems that are deserving of the spot?
Exactly. I can think of a dozen good Dems that deserve Obama administration consideration waaaay before someone like Hagel.
Hagel? C'mon.
xtien-
Very well said!
He beats me because he loves me. If only I had let him do those things to me at night that make him feel so good but hurt so much. Sometimes I feel he would stop if I just let him have at it and forgot who I am and why I exist. The neighbors would sleep a lot better too if I just shut up and stopped crying.
One oft-heralded strength of Lincoln's presidency was his inclusion of all the factions (albeit factions within the Republican Party) in his cabinet.
Or, to quote LBJ, "I'd rather have them on the inside pissing out than on the outside pissing in."
Having said that, Obama's got big enough a task at hand to unite the disparate factions within the Democratic Party, at the same time trying to expand the base by including factions whose own best interests would be served by the Democrats, but who have been flimflam-ed into voting Republican.
I think Obama should choose a Democrat for VP. I'd offer my own Senator Webb as ideal, but I have two reservations. For one, I like having Webb in the Senate. And two, he'd have to be guaranteed an active role as VP - not just twiddling his thumbs unless something happens to Obama - otherwise his expertise and energy and bipartisan connections would be wasted.
Hagel might make a great head of the VA or some such. No reason not to use him in an Obama administration.
Here's some choices:
1) Wes Clark
2) Jim Webb
3) John Edwards
Southern White Males with Military Experience seem to be a good start. Plus someone who isn't pining for the top spot and willing to play a supportive role to a strong leader like Obama. Chuck Hagel can try to recapture the soul of the republican party if he feels the need to serve his country in a more important role.
Why doesn't John Amato (who was an early Clinton supporter) tell us why Hagel would be so bad? I haven't heard anything either way about Hagel, and a reasoned, informed post would be better than this knee jerk drivel. Please don't post things that aren't informative, even if your site is really excellent overall. No free passes on stupidity...
Vinick for SoS, Murphy Brown for HUD. Dan Quayle strikes again.
theWalrus @ 15:
you afraid if he's Secretary of State he'll outlaw abortion?
Chuck Hagel? I wonder how many reasons Obama thinks he needs to give me before I decide, for the first time in my life, to simply not vote for a presidential candidate. At the rate he's going, by election day he will be the worst lesser evil I've ever had to consider.
I've completely lost interest in Obama as a force for "good" change. If he continues to follow his current trajectory, by November he'll be for privatizing Social Security, invading Iran, and round the clock surveillance of all American citizens.
Screw him.
I'll stop the Chuck Hagel talk if Obama stops the Sam Nunn talk.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
First, we're talking cabinet, not VP, so chill on anything regarding "the spot."
Second, like most politicians who have been consistent, Hagel is mix-and-match across issues, so the only sensible come-back is: "and what position would you be thinking of?" And the answer to that is something along the lines of Sec of State.
If Obama picks any Republican to be on his ticket, it's going to be extremely hard to vote for him. I'll vote against McCain, sure, but I don't know if it would be for Obama. And I've backed him for awhile. He's really leaning more and more to the center, though, and it worries me.
How about Dick Cheney? That seems to be the direction Obama's been heading in the last couple of weeks.
All the warm n' fuzzy bi-partisan talk should be answered in the following fashion:
Bi-partisanship? Sure, no problem. Talk to me in eight years. The adults have some cleaning up to do.
No Republicans.
"Bi-partisanship", "Reaching Across the Isle" and "Compromise" are DC buzzwords that the MSM has spoon-fed to the public to make us think they're wonderful things.
The fact is, the Republicans' ideas are terrible. Their platform? - Built on lies, false conclusions, hate and fear. Compromise with them hurts the American people and should be avoided unless ABSOLUTELY necessary. They're worse than a dead weight on progress - they're actively trying to drag the nation backwards.
Hagel's right about the War, but he's still a conservative - and thus, dead wrong on every other issue.
Having a VP disagree with the President about everything will just undercut Obama's Administration (internal dissent gets more credibility and play).
No Hagel, No Republicans - Not now, not ever again.
Robert GAtes is just as much a criminal as Bush. Don't be fooled.
I would guess the same "liberals" who would be comfortable with either Hagel or McCain on the ticket are the same people who initially supported the Big Lie war.
hmm,, he should pick alan alda!
LongTooth @ 39:
And do you think should be Obama's running mate?
Gore?
couldn't win a swing state at this point
Richardson?
Good guy but a Latino and a Catholic
Edwards?
My original pick for 08 but he voted us into the war and has now been sucessfuly branded as gay by the GOP
Clark?
Catholic, Jewish, not a politician, and bring out all the crazies.
Nader?
LOL
Ron Paul?
ROTFL
Some one tell me your pick and I'll tell you their "flaws".
Chuck Hagel would be a brilliant selection for Secretary of Defense. Assuming Obama will win in November, after the elections, the Republicans will all be seething, and anything and everything Obama does, especially as it concerns Iraq, will be under a constant barrage of rovian attacks. Having a Republican as SOD, where he has no impact on social policies, makes it that much harder for the Republicans to spin their lies. Hagel is a vet, a distinguished senator, a reasonable man, and he knows where the GOP buries their bodies.
It would also give Obama big time cred in terms of his bipartisan assurances.
It doesn't pay to be short sighted. This would be a good thing.
My goodness, what a load of pinheads.
Cabinet.
Not VP.
Cabinet.
Clinton tried to triangulate with the Rethuglicans and all it got him was impeached. If Obama even has one overdue library book the anti-democratic fascist thugs of the GOP will try to overthrow another democratic election and go after him. Don't give these bastards and inch or they'll take a mile and still kick you in the teeth.
whether we like it or not we are going to have our hands full with foreign policy issues......bush is making sure of that .......i believe wes clark would be a good addition to obama's cabinet or vice pres....his understanding of using diplomacy before aggression is spot on. i personally understood/agreed with his comments about mccain...nothing against his service all that stuff more that because of his service is not automatic invite to being president....and if that can be cracked that's really his strongest perceived virtue. wes clark is smart has had to make executive decisions...understands foreign policy, good communicator and not really a politician. he is one of those he has the right stuff dudes.
Alan Alda would be a GREAT choice... especially with all that experience in that MASH unit in the Civil War.
Cal @ 41:
I guess because you did not mention the 500 # Gorilla in the room... or her deficiencies... you must agree that HILLARY is the best choice for the job!?!
I agree.
There is only room for one false maverick in this race, and his name is John McCain. Back to Nebraska with ye Chuckles.
Bowerbird @ 28:
As you know I never supported any candidate in the primary so please don't lie about me. I chose that strategy so that in the general and hopefully afterwards I would be able to support liberal positions wihtout being tied to any one candidate.
Because change isn't the name: Hagel. Is that understandable?
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Have these people looked at Hagel's record? Please check it out - just Google Chuck Hagel voting record or go to votesmart.org. He's "perfect" on abortion rights - 0 ratings from pro-choice groups, 100 from the "Right To Life" bunch. A couple of years ago he got a 90% rating from the JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY. I didn't even know they were still in existence. He's anti-labor, pro-business, gets terrible ratings from the NAACP. Except for Iraq, he is against just about everything that Democrats stand for, and would appoint the same kind of judges a Bush or McCain would. If Obama picks him, he (Obama) might as well paint a target on his back. The right would probably _prefer_ Hagel to McCain.
CowBoy Bob in Austin @ 47:
Of all the female Governors and Senators she is with out a doubt the worst.
Not only would Obama have to deal with her baggage but that of Bill and he'd loose all the swing states.
If Obama has any passing thoughts about putting a bunch of republicans in his cabinet if he wins the election, he'd better study up on the Clinton presidency's first year and then think LONG AND HARD. Clinton put a bunch of republican hacks in HIS cabinet in the name of "bipartisanship" and they used their positions to undermine his presidency. Look where all those hypocrites are NOW. Bipartisan just means Democrats giving in to Republicans with the American people paying the price. Is he CRAZY?
We must never forget that when we say "the media", we're talking about Zionists. Otherwise, that's like watching "Gone With the Wind" and not noticing it's about the Civil War. The Zionists obviously are not going to identify themselves as The Zionist Media because they don't want anyone to know that or talk about it. So "the media" remains a mysterious "them" who can't be blamed for grinding any six-pointed axe.
When they're not selling dear, old, poor little put-upon Israel, they're dunning down the public with non-stop drivel: Cop shoes, Prison Shows, Cage Fighting, Monster Truck shows, Wresting, more prisoner shows, rape shows, more cop shows, Spanish shows, dog shows, chef shows, Gangsta Shows, Bad Girl Shows, No-Talent Shows, survival shows featuring the mentally challenged...you get the idea. There is no news. It's all propaganda or bad taste entertainment.
Who's running this show? Daffy Duck? Give yourself a cigar if you said "the Zionists."
Hagel for Veep!!
Why doesn’t John Amato (who was an early Clinton supporter) tell us why Hagel would be so bad? I haven’t heard anything either way about Hagel, and a reasoned, informed post would be better than this knee jerk drivel. Please don’t post things that aren’t informative, even if your site is really excellent overall. No free passes on stupidity…
thanks
I was thinking about tossing in the name of Ralph Nader for laughs - the ol' keep him from mucking it up routine. Then it occurred to me that in the role FDR gave to Truman, hunting down war profiteers, who could be better? Just a crazy thought.
Hagel shares our views on the war. He's knows it's a bloody waste of our time, soldiers, and money. On this issue, Dems and Hagel are in total agreement. However, on every other issue, he's a total Republican. Check his voting record. We have nothing else in common with this man.
VP? No way! Secretary of Defense? Sure, why not? At least he understands the damn job.
I agree that Hagel would not be change. I tagged you as a Clinton supporter because this blog never criticized the appaling tactics utilized by Clinton early on. Posts consistently glossed over glaring issues. I have noticed a slight tinge towards clinton in the past. Bias comes through in writing. Obama should be justifiably ripped for his keeling over on FISA,0 and Clinton should have been ripped for racist undertones and blatant pandering. At any rate, 97% of the things on here are excellent, and the blog is certainly appreciated - being my #1 go-to amongst liberal blogs. <3.
John Amato @ 49:
I have scanned the comments and can confirm that its a menagerie of parrots. Ok so you don't want Chuck then the obvious answer is who... and you put forward Amato and Alda, no B's? you have already disqualified the C's... so essentially you have wasted space.
You bad mouth Hillary, Bill, Chuck, pretty much everyone, but you are still democrats? Here is something you can hold onto.
1. the only person running who is correct is Nader.
2. the only progressive with a chance of winning is Obama.
3. as a south african who supported the ANC when they were banned, I understand the politics of consensus. I understand why Mandela took De Klerk by the hand and accepted the nobel peace prize. You know the story about winning the battle and losing the war? to change an evil empire you have to bring the people with you. if you want to be correct, go hang out on the fringes with ralf.
I am incredibly disappointed in the narrow vision you guys have of what is at stake. Africa, Asia, the Americas should I go on? You have a government who is the most criminal in history and are you willing to impeach? No? you go after charles taylor! tough guys. grow up and smell the napalm, this is politics, we need change, the world needs it. Your country has the world hostage and you cant even embrace chuck and hillary.
you dont deserve obama and you dont deserve ralf, you dont deserve hope.... so don't don't waste your time faking reality.
mike @ 16:
This kind of stupidity is why so many elections are so deeply flawed - people vote based on character, not policy. If you were a Republican, and supported their policies, then yes, you would want people like Hagel and Paul who are grounded in reality and as decent people as you're going to find among politicians, unlike nearly every other Republican out there right now. But why the hell would you want them in the government when 90% of your positions are opposed to theirs?
Reasonable people can disagree. That, IMO, has been the thing that's gotten lost in the mess that's been labelled as "increasingly bitter partisanship" over the last few years. I can understand how someone could hold a different position from mine, but frankly practically all I hear (from politicians and media people at least) is bullshit; I feel like I could argue the Republican side better than they can. But the point is, even if they're good people, there's no reason to include them in the government when they're going to be running counter to everyone else.
Midnight Rambler @ 60:
All you are doing is entrenching the adversarial system that got you into the mess. Case in point, does your legal system work, does it support justice, retribution or the guy with the expensive lawyer? What is justice, what point of view are you looking at the issue from?
check this link for the horror.
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/budgetpriorities.html
change the system....
Samson- @ 10:
1. ok so you have discovered that there are religious people in the U.S...
2. obama attack iran? lets see how you jump to this conclusion? obama stood alone when your whole country was baying for the war? do you remember that rush when you thought about kicking some saddam butt? you know that feeling when you see the jets launch from the aircraft carriers and the apache helicopters night vision scope? you sure you are not maybe discussing your own freudian loathing for your deep desires?
i think i would back the guy who grew up in indonesia, and the U.S. whose father is african and sister part asian, whose mother loved the developing world and who has himself been committed to social projects. i back the guy who goes to rev. wrights church, cause we all know he is correct, we are just too ashamed to admit it. i am an atheist, but i respect TUTU, and GHANDI and KING etc... not for agreeing with me but for making a connection between what they say and what they do.
One of the most painful pictures for me is seeing Mandela sworn in as president of the 1st elected democracy in south africa, in the audience is castro, arafat, bhutto... but standing next to him as his signed was the military general meiring and police commissioner van der merwe, two men who were responsible for some of the great crimes of apartheid.
So what do you do, go it alone and end up like mugabe and the u.s., or cross over and take the country forward. you guys need to look at the histories of successful transitions and not discuss like this is baseball, cause its not. have a look at the movie 'the trial of henry kissenger' or the movie 'why we fight'? economists struggle to look forward, you guys cant even see in hindsight to the great speech eisenhower made as he left office. spell MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, PROPHETIC! but you wont see an OILYgarchy if its crushing your throat.
Login or Register to post comments.