HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Appartently Hagel is the ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:00 PM

Appartently Hagel is the one

I will say if this were four years ago I would be beyond consolation. But Obama has earned my trust on gay issues. That isn't to say this isn't a problem. Chuck Hagel was every bit as anti gay as Jesse Helms as late as 2006. In 1998, he directly said that he would oppose a man to be ambassador to Luxembourg because he was 'aggressively gay'. In 2001, he told the NYT, that ending DADT would be a social experiment. We are now told he has changed. He issued an apology for what he said about Hormel but not for what he said about DADT. This apology was issued after the possibility of becoming Defense Secretary happened. He was silent during the 2009-2010 run up to removing DADT. If this isn't a case of saying whatever he thinks we want to hear I would like to know what specific event caused his change of heart. The fact is his appointment will set a horrible precedent. You can be a huge anti gay bigot, issue a curiously timed apology, and serve in a Democratic administration. It will be quite hard for us to oppose such appointments in Republican administrations once we give Hagel a pass.

There is also the problem that gays serving isn't the done deal we think it is. There are several issues that still are being worked out. There are also significant numbers of service members who are adamantly opposed to gays serving at all, let alone openly. They will be emboldened by Hagel's appointment. I wouldn't want to be an openly gay soldier reporting to a bigot in Hagel's defense department. Hagel will have a big say in the final arrangements of getting rid of DADT. He will be issuing rules about this. I hope someone on the Armed Services committee will pin Hagel down on this. Even better would be having someone other than Hagel be responsible for writing any regulations having to do with ending DADT with Obama himself being the person who signs off on them. Unfortunately Tammy Baldwin isn't on the Armed Services committee but Gillibrand is. I hope she has eaten her wheaties.

45 replies, 2088 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply Appartently Hagel is the one (Original post)
dsc Jan 2013 OP
dsc Jan 2013 #1
Purveyor Jan 2013 #2
dsc Jan 2013 #4
Purveyor Jan 2013 #7
dsc Jan 2013 #11
Purveyor Jan 2013 #13
sabrina 1 Jan 2013 #15
Purveyor Jan 2013 #16
sabrina 1 Jan 2013 #18
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #19
sabrina 1 Jan 2013 #24
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #26
merrily Jan 2013 #3
dsc Jan 2013 #5
merrily Jan 2013 #21
LittleBlue Jan 2013 #6
dsc Jan 2013 #12
sabrina 1 Jan 2013 #17
LittleBlue Jan 2013 #37
merrily Jan 2013 #22
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #8
dsc Jan 2013 #10
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #14
merrily Jan 2013 #23
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #25
merrily Jan 2013 #27
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #31
Behind the Aegis Jan 2013 #32
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #34
Behind the Aegis Jan 2013 #36
merrily Jan 2013 #39
merrily Jan 2013 #38
JI7 Jan 2013 #9
sammy27932003 Jan 2013 #20
merrily Jan 2013 #28
Zorra Jan 2013 #29
Behind the Aegis Jan 2013 #30
merrily Jan 2013 #40
Poll_Blind Jan 2013 #33
stultusporcos Jan 2013 #42
cliffordu Jan 2013 #35
dsc Jan 2013 #43
Blue_In_AK Jan 2013 #41
dsc Jan 2013 #44
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #45

Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:18 PM

1. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:33 PM

2. I trust the President's decision and he knows what the hell he is doing and it is his call to make.

He earned that call and it should be respected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:36 PM

4. The Senate has been given a role

and I think they should use it. At the very least Hagel should be removed from regulating the end of DADT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:19 PM

7. Yeah. That is the only issue that is important in this day when it comes to this country's defense

and the bastard wars we decide to engage in.

Indeed! Spit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:38 PM

11. well if we can't find

in the entire universe that is our government, one person who holds both Hagel's views on war and isn't a homophobe then I think we are in pretty big trouble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:42 PM

13. As I said previously, I trust the President's judgement on this. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:47 PM

15. I don't trust any politician's judgement and I did not support Democrats in order to put

Republicans in positions of power. Are there no Democrats to do the jobs Obama seems to feel only a Republican can do? What's the point of electing Democrats when we get Republicans in these important positions. Is the Dem Party devoid of qualified people to fill these positions?

The bi-partisanship from the top of the party, stinks frankly. What's amazing is that when someone on DU says one nice thing about a Republican they are villified by the very same people who excuse the placing of Republicans in power by the leadership of this party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:48 PM

16. Well then don't vote for President Obama again... lol. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:00 AM

18. If the Dem Party is going to turn into the Republican Party on issues such as gay rights

then you can bet that things will change drastically by the next election as far keeping their base. People voted very reluctantly for this president this time, and only because the other choice was so bad.

But you can count on this. We will be ignoring the presidential races if this continues and working on Congress so that it won't matter who is in the WH. Once we fill Congress with Progressive Democrats, let's see a president try to get a homophobic bigoted nominee get approved for anything.

This last election was unlike the one before it in that dozens of Progressive organizations who represent millions of democratic voters, united even before the election to let it be known that they would vote for the Dem nominee reluctantly but without much faith in not being betrayed and have let it be known that from now on they will be donating and working for candidates THEY choose, no longer backing the choices of the Dem Leadership.

Congress is going to be the focus from now on. Starting in 2014 and it's about that this happened. Let the Big Corps fund the presidential nominees but the people will fund Congressional candidates, putting their money where it works for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:04 AM

19. You've got it backwards--a conservative Republican is coming around to the Democratic

and progressive viewpoint on gay rights. Obama and the Democratic Party haven't budged an inch in nominating Hagel. It's the REPUBLICAN party that is moving left and apologizing. I see that as positive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:01 AM

24. Politicians have a habit of apologizing when they want something and that is

the only way to get it.

I'm for putting Progressive Democrats in positions of power when we actually win elections. But if you like Republicans better, that's your choice. I otoh, am certain that out of 300 million Americans we could find a Democrat to appoint to such an important position. Did Bush appoint any Democrats to such important positions? I guess they feel that when they win they are not going to hand power to those they defeated. Can't say I disagree with them on that.

Which is why Congress is what we will be focusing on from now on. To make sure that when we win, we actually act like we did so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:16 AM

26. No, actually, I've never heard an apology like this one from a Republican.

In general, I prefer Democrats for positions, but I make exceptions. This is one of those times. I don't think Obama is putting any sort of value on Hagel's GOP affiliation, I think he simply trusts him to do the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:35 PM

3. It is a problem for all the reasons you stated and also for the reason that Hagel himself

stated about Hormel, namely these kinds of appointment reflect our values as a nation.

I don't buy his uber conveniently timed apology anymore than Hormel does.

As for Obama on gay issues, that has been a mixed bag, starting with statements Obama made in Rick Warren's church during the 3008 campaign, the converted gay singer, etc. It took long enough to repeal DADT; Obama came out in favor of gay marriage only after (1) a lot of pressure from his campaign donation bundlers and (2) (supposedly) Biden's slip; and DOMA is still the law of the land, even if D of J is no longer challenging it in certain circuits with horrific comparisons to incest and bestiality.

I never believed that Obama was a homophobe. I always believed it was about political caution. Each person needs to decide for himself or herself whether that, if true, would make Obama's actions and statements more acceptable or only more cynical.


Let's assume, though, just for the sake of discussion, that Obama has a perfect record on gay rights and always did. That still would not make me comfortable as to Hagel.

In general, I have not been unhappy with many of Obama's appointments, starting with Rahm, Geithner, Gates, Goolsbee, Summers, etc. , though I did approve of some of his choices to one degree or another.

As to whether Hagel is now truly penitent and would champion equal rights in the military and in the embassy, I very much doubt it. I can't recall ever seeing anything but self-serving, convenient penitence from Republican politicians on matters of this nature. And Obama has no super power that enables him to assess Hagel's heart better than anyone else can.

As to trusting Obama, Obama is President, so that is not the issue. Obama won't be sitting on the shoulder of the Defense Secretary 24/7, like the angel/conscience in one of those "angel on one shoulder, devil on the other shoulder" cartoons. So, for me, trusting Obama is far from enough for me to be comfortable with Hagel.

In all, I would much rather have someone who was not so "agressively" verbal about his belief that gays do not belong in the service of this nation or reflect his values.


Last but not least, what in hell is wrong with appointing Democrats?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:01 PM

5. I agree with much of what you say

but at this point, unless Dems want to vote an appointment of his down, then it is time to make a deal to limit Hagel's influence on gay issues at the pentagon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:32 AM

21. I did not perceive the OP to which I replied as making that point.

In response to your points:

1. No matter what Obama or the Senate does, for all the reasons you and I have stated, I think this another poor choice of nominee by this administration, one of many. Nothing can change that.

2. I think the Senate is likelier to vote him down than to claim the power to limit the power of the President's Cabinet Secretary who reports to the Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the United States. The Senate has both the Constitutional power and duty to advise and consent on the appointment. Constitutional authority of the entire Congress to change the power of a member of the Executive Branch is a lot less clear, let alone only the Senate.


3. However, I doubt the Democrats in the Senate will overrule Obama on this. They might well overrule a Republican President who nominated a Republican S of D with this much baggage--and so soon after repeal of DADT in the bargain.

Maybe they would even overrule nomination by a Republican President of a Democrat with this baggage. But I doubt they would do the same with Obama. (And this is an example of why the lesser of two evils rationale does not always work as glibly as it sounds.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:16 PM

6. I like the nomination

Even if he is homophobic, the most important qualification for me is war skepticism.

If the Sec of Defense is wrong on gays, some might get discriminated against. If he's wrong on a war, hundreds of thousands could die in a war that will further and massively increase the debt. Some gay troops might feel bad about the appointment but at least they'll be alive, and we know Hagel will not rubber stamp a pointless war that will kill them.

This isn't to minimize discrimination against gays, but we have to keep things in perspective. We've had too many men making military decisions at the top level with reckless disregard for who will be killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:38 PM

12. I would hope we could find a non homophobic war skeptic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:51 PM

17. You're okay with a homophobic Republican in a position of power like this?

Unbelievable. If I held that view I would be a Republican or at the very least a Libertarian. I am a Democrat for many reasons, one of them is because I despise bigots of any kind.

What has happened to the Dem Party? Are we going through one of those historical shifts where the parties begin to change and where the Dem Party is now leaning so far to the right on these issues where they were the only hope of ending bigotry, to where bigotry is okay so long as someone holds SOME decent views?

I cannot believe what I read here sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 03:40 AM

37. Here are the two alternatives most mentioned

1) Ashton Carter- says we need to use coercion against Iran, perhaps militarily, to force a "single outcome". Worked for Condee Rice. Yeah no, I don't give a shit if his entire family is gay, fuck no.

2) Michèle Flournoy- supported by Wolfowitz, Dan Senor, and Bill Kristol.

Michele Flournoy is a former undersecretary of defense for policy in the Barack Obama administration who serves on the board of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a “liberal-hawk” think tank she cofounded with Kurt Campbell in 2007 that has helped shape the Obama administration’s defense policies, particularly with respect to counterinsurgency warfare. Flournoy’s experience includes working as a senior adviser for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, holding a professorship at the National Defense University, serving on the Defense Policy Board, and supporting a 2005 advocacy campaign spearheaded by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century that aimed to boost the size of the U.S. military. After leaving the Pentagon in mid-2012, Flournoy joined the Boston Consulting Group as a senior adviser and the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs as a Senior Fellow.


Yeah no.

I'll take the homophobe over these two

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:38 AM

22. Congress and the President make war decisions.



How do you know discrimination against gay troops will not result in any fatalities?

Oh, and yes, your post certainly does minimize discrimination against gays.

But, here is what you don't approach at all.

This is a country with 350 million people, many of whom are Democrats who would love to have the prestigious position of Cabinet Secretary.

It is perfectly possible to find many candidates who suitable in every way and are also;

1. More hesitant to to go to war than Hagel (although this is really the call of Congress and the President);

2. Democratic

3. Without homophobic or other baggage.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:22 PM

8. In 2006, here's how anti-gay Hagel was:

Here are the Senate sponsors of the measure for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage--notice whose name is not on the list of cosponsors:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SJ00001:

Sen Alexander, Lamar - 1/24/2005
Sen Allen, George - 2/16/2005
Sen Brownback, Sam - 10/27/2005
Sen Burns, Conrad R. - 5/25/2006
Sen Burr, Richard - 1/24/2005
Sen Chambliss, Saxby - 5/25/2006
Sen Coburn, Tom - 1/24/2005
Sen Cochran, Thad - 1/26/2005
Sen Cornyn, John - 1/24/2005
Sen Craig, Larry E. - 6/6/2006
Sen Crapo, Mike - 1/24/2005
Sen DeMint, Jim - 1/24/2005
Sen DeWine, Mike - 3/29/2006
Sen Dole, Elizabeth - 1/24/2005
Sen Enzi, Michael B. - 1/24/2005
Sen Frist, William H. - 1/24/2005
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. - 1/24/2005
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey - 1/24/2005
Sen Inhofe, James M. - 1/24/2005
Sen Isakson, Johnny - 1/24/2005
Sen Kyl, Jon - 1/24/2005
Sen Lott, Trent - 1/24/2005
Sen Martinez, Mel - 1/24/2005
Sen McConnell, Mitch - 1/24/2005
Sen Roberts, Pat - 1/24/2005
Sen Santorum, Rick - 1/24/2005
Sen Sessions, Jeff - 1/24/2005
Sen Shelby, Richard C. - 1/26/2005
Sen Stevens, Ted - 1/24/2005
Sen Talent, Jim - 1/24/2005
Sen Thune, John - 1/24/2005
Sen Vitter, David - 1/24/2005

Here is how he voted for cloture:

Hagel (R-NE), Not Voting

He's so anti-gay, he won't sponsor a measure against their marriage that MOST of his colleagues cosigned, and he won't bother to vote for it either?

He was far from a supporter of the LGBT community's rights in the past, but he is hardly an anti-gay crusader, either, beyond his objection to Hormel in '98 and his opposition to repealing DADT in '01. He was wrong on both counts--but let's not make him Jesse Helms or Sam Brownback or Rick Santorum either. That's just inaccurate. He will have to answer for himself at the hearings--let Tammy Baldwin or Barney Frank (should he be in the Senate) or any good progressive Democrat question his committment to upholding the rights of the LGBT community in the DoD, and his willingness to create an atmosphere of fairness and inclusion. It should be enlightening, if the Senate does its job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:36 PM

10. actually Brownback voted to confirm the ambassador in committee

and didn't give interviews saying Hagel was unqualified for being aggressively gay. Oh and Baldwin won't be questioning him as she isn't on the committee. Frank would likely get Kerry's assignments meaning he won't be their either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:46 PM

14. Actually, Hagel must have voted for him in committee, too, according to the Wiki page

for Hormel:

"The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved his nomination with only Republican and conservative Senators Jesse Helms and John Ashcroft opposed. Three other Republicans, James Inhofe, Tim Hutchinson, and Robert C. Smith, with the urging of religious and social conservatives campaigned vigorously against Hormel's nomination. Trent Lott, the Republican Majority Leader, worked to block the vote and publicly called homosexuality a sin and compared it to alcoholism and kleptomania."

Why he ultimately objected to Hormel's appointment, it doesn't say.

I am certain that there will be SOME Democrat who can adequately grill him in the Armed Services committee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:41 AM

23. Hagel to this day is at best a mixed bag on these issues.

Which is why many Democratic gay organizations have opposed him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:07 AM

25. You likely won't find someone who ISN'T a "mixed bag" on some issues.

Everyone has flaws. The difference with Hagel is that you know what his flaws are, and he apologized for them, and he knows he will be expected to prove himself in regard to non-discrimination of LGBT's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:27 AM

27. Sorry, "everyone has flaws" is false equivalency, at best.

This is about equal human rights, including to serve your country, not some side issue, nor an issue that has nothing to do with his likely duties and powers as Secretary of Defense..

I posted upthread on his apology, which I do not find the least bit credible. Nor did Ambassador Hormel, who, with all due respect to you and me both, just might have more insight into the man than you or I, given he actually had dealings with him.

" and he knows he will be expected to prove himself in regard to non-discrimination of LGBT's. "

So?

He always knew he was not supposed to be a bigot and was expected to prove himself as an honored and fair member of Congress. Yet, he behaved unfairly and shamefully--and in a very public way, too.

ETA: Secretaries of Defense do not seem to have too much trouble with a discriminatory military either. Women get discriminated against. So do gays. So do "squealers." Seems to work fine most of the time.

Again, if this were George Bush appointing Hagel after what Hagel did to Clinton's gay nominee, would posters on this board be taking such pains to defend it? Or would there be an outcry?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #27)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:14 AM

31. Hormel accepted the apology. Obama wouldn't tarnish one of his proudest Presidential

achievements with a scandalous backslide of anti-LGBT discrimination within the DoD, so obviously he trusts Hagel to carry out his policies. And if George Bush appointed Hagel to DoD or any position, no one would have dug up and examined Hagel's comments, because they weren't considered controversial for the time and context in which he made them. They were dug up in 2012 by the neocon/AIPAC crowd to create opposition by Democrats to Hagel's appointment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:18 AM

32. To the contrary:

"And if George Bush appointed Hagel to DoD or any position, no one would have dug up and examined Hagel's comments, because they weren't considered controversial for the time and context in which he made them. "

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!!!

In fact, MANY people who are "defending" Obama's pick, would be bashing Bush, especially for the GLBT issues, which the right would consider "fringe," and the ONLY difference...Hagel would have NEVER apologized for his comments!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:45 AM

34. Nobody is defending Hagel in terms of his past relationship

with the LGBT community. Clearly he was very wrong in regard to Hormel. But the comments were from 12-15 years ago, made by a conservative Republican from a red state, in a context of strong Republican Senate opposition to the first openly gay ambassador. It helps to look at the context and the time period. Those comments were not some sort of secret recording, or found in some hidden papers. They were in a fairly major newspaper--and afterward Hagel was being considered as a VP candidate for GWB. Years later, Hagel left the Senate, the times had changed, society had become more tolerant, DADT was repealed...and some opposition of Hagel's pulled up the interview from 15 years ago for an "OMG" reaction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #34)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 03:13 AM

36. I didn't say they were defending Hagel, I said they were defending the recommendation.

In 12-15 years, some people do change, some do not. All we have is what he has said and done, we have nothing present to gage him by, so the risk is all ours; something many people seem to be OK with, which pisses us off! DADT is not the done deal as some like to think it is, so we are taking a huge risk and chance, and quite frankly, many of us don't want it, don't need it, and are afraid of what can happen. The fact the HRC has said he is OK has even pissed off more because this is the same organization who gave him a ZERO rating for years! Now, one "apology" and all is right with the world? If this was a republican president nominating him, we wouldn't see the support we are seeing for him here!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #34)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:00 AM

39. What in heaven's name does Bush floating a name mean? Nothing. He did not choose him.

And even if he did choose him, when did Bush become the standard of what's appropriate.

Yes, the remarks were in the newspapers. That tells us they were newsworthy. Why? Because they were controversial.

You overblow the time period by quite a lot It was 1998, not 1898. I remember it well. It was not common or okay for a Senator to talk like Archide Bunker. Did some of them? Yes. Did some of them still say Nigra? Yes. That does not mean either was okay by civilized standards in 1998. It really wasn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 03:51 AM

38. To the contrary, Hormel said Hagel never even apologized to him directly.

As to what Obama would or would not "tarnish," I respectfully question your ability to speak to what President Obama would or would not do.



I strongly disagree that no one would have dug up the statements if President Bush had nominated Hagel.

Gay advocates from both Parties "dug them up" now and would have done so five or six years ago.

And even if gay advocates hadn't dug them up--which they would have--straight Democrats would have dug them up, just as they dug up things on Bork and Thomas and every nominee of a Republican President they ever wanted to oppose. Politicians dig up everything they can about a nominee and throw it at the wall to hope something sticks. That's what they do on both sides.



I strongly disagree that Hagel's vicious, bigoted remarks were not controversial when made. Not only that, but I cannot even begin to imagine where you got that a Senator's vicious, bigoted remarks, preventing a gay man from representing his country as an ambassador, would not have been the least bit controversial in America in 1998.


The Stonewall riots were in 1969. The Loud family documentary, which centered sympathetically on their gay son and their love and unconditional acceptance of him, aired on PBS in the early 1970s--both Nixon era events.

AIDS advocacy and gay rights demonstrations were very much in full force by the Reagan administration and Poppy Bush's administration.

Gay rights and gay advocacy was all over films, newspapers, television, in fiction, in documentaries and in news reporting.

Why would Clinton nominate Hormel if Clinton expected United States Senators to humiliate Hormel? Hormel. Why would Clinton have done that to a billionaire donor he was trying to honor with an ambassadorship?

Indeed, the remarks would have been controversial if made earlier than the Clinton administration because Reagan's executive order banning gays from the military was certainly controversial--and that is the U.S. military, not one picturesque embassy overseas.

Were gays as accepted in 1998 as they are now? No. But that is a way different from saying what Hagel said and did to Hormel would have not have been controversial in 1998.

As far as Hormel accepting the apology, this is what I saw first.


But in an interview this afternoon, the target of the 1998 slur, leading gay philanthropist James Hormel, told me he never received an apology from Hagel himself, questioned the sincerity of the apology, and said the incident should still raise questions about whether Hagel is the right man to oversee the repeal of don’t ask don’t tell.

“I have not received an apology,” Hormel, who is a major figure in Democratic politics, told me. “I thought this so-called apology, which I haven’t received, but which was made public, had the air of being a defensive move on his part.” Hormel added that the apology appeared to have been given “only in service of his attempt to get the nomination.>

<snip>

But Hormel told me that Hagel’s comments — and the nature of his apology — raise questions as to whether he’s the right guy to ensure that “the repeal of don’t ask don’t tell is fully implemented as quickly as possible in ways that will have the least deleterious effect.”

Of Hagel’s comment, Hormel added: “If it were made today, it would be clearly disqualifying.”




And then, with no explanation, Hormel put out a carefully worded statement. IMO, Hormel was asked to do so, but that is only my opinion.

That carefully worded statement is;


Senator Hagel’s apology is significant–I can’t remember a time when a potential presidential nominee apologized for anything. While the timing appears self-serving, the words themselves are unequivocal–they are a clear apology. Since 1998, fourteen years have passed, and public attitudes have shifted–perhaps Senator Hagel has progressed with the times, too. His action affords new stature to the LGBT constituency, whose members still are treated as second class citizens in innumerable ways. Senator Hagel stated in his remarks that he was willing to support open military service and LGBT military families. If that is a commitment to treat LGBT service members and their families like everybody else, I would support his nomination.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2012/12/21/james-hormel-i-question-the-sincerity-of-chuck-hagels-apology/

no acceptance of an apology that, apparently Hormel still has not received directly; and no unconditional statement of support.


If you've seen something that came out after this, kindly post a link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:28 PM

9. if Barney Frank is appointed to Kerry's seat

i would love for him to get on the committee thatw ill hold hearings on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:14 AM

20. May be that he evolved when Obama did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sammy27932003 (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:31 AM

28. I don't believe either of them evolved. I believe that obama was always fine

with equal rights for gays, just not fine with the political risks of admitting that. When the pollitical risk of staying the course became greater than the political risk of coming out in favor of gay marriage, Obama announced his evolution.

And I believe hagel is still 'aggressively" homophobic and he was fine with the political risks of being very open about that--until it looked as though it might cost him personally.

Granted, this is all my opinion, but it is my opinion and that is really all any of us have to go on when people say one thing and later say something very different.

Well, opinion and some facts, like surrounding circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:33 AM

29. We did not elect Obama to appoint ignorant conservatives to any post whatsoever.

If Obama appoints Hagel, he is selling all of us out.

End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:34 AM

30. +1 I feel the "it's just one prayer" all over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:06 AM

40. Thank you. Why does this even need saying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:20 AM

33. President Obama lurves appointin' him some Republicans! nt

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #33)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:16 AM

42. Would be nice if he had the same love for Liberals and Progressives

 


but he must feel more comfortable with people closer to his own true political leanings then those that actually voted for him and elected him into office, twice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:57 AM

35. Well, then, Hagel is going to have to suck it up and serve

THE FUCKING COMMANDER IN CHIEF

and allow openly gay soldiers serve all over the motherfucking place.

This reminds me of all them assholes who claimed black troops were (insert whatever insult ya got here).


Hagel's previous bloviating means about as much as sperm on the average Saturday night.

And your OP is truly a wearisome POS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cliffordu (Reply #35)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:14 AM

43. replace gay with muslim

would we still say he was OK? Would my OP be wearisome?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:09 AM

41. Chuck Hagel can't be all bad,

otherwise the Republicans wouldn't be going all apoplectic about the nomination. At least Hagel has had experience with real war, which is probably a good thing for a defense secretary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #41)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:27 PM

44. I doubt they would want Ron Paul either

but that wouldn't make him good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:42 PM

45. The same DUers who excuse Hagel in many cases were also wailing against John McCain for

McCain's attack on Susan Rice. McCain a Republican attacking Rice, a possible Democratic nominee for a diplomatic post was condemned as the ignorant, bitter racist he is. Hagel attacking Hormel, a Democratic nominee for a diplomatic post is defended for being an ignorant, bitter homophobe.
It amazes me. If Hagel had said what he said about Hormel about any other minority of any kind, he'd not be up for the job of janitor. If he'd said that about Muslims, Jews, women, African Americans there would be outrage. The only conclusion to reach is that many on DU like Republican homophobes quite a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread