HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Chuck Hagel's Dismal, Sor...

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:11 PM

Chuck Hagel's Dismal, Sordid Voting Record

Yes, he is less neo cons than some and less cavalier when it comes to sending people to war, but this man will have an influence on the life of many women and gay people in the military.

Reducing the military will send people to the unemployment lines. Should we not have somebody with some sensibility for workers's rights.

I am amazed how some people are just ready to ignore everything else as if the Secretary of Defense was the man deciding to send the troops at war, but had no influence to the life of the military people.

I am not endorsing another person for SecDef, just getting revulsed by the idea Hagel could be the one without even asking him to make clear his views on these issues.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/05/1176553/-Chuck-Hegel-s-Dismal-Sordid-Voting-Record#

...

Voted for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts

...

Zero rating by NARAL.

oted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)

snip

Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)

snip

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
...

31 replies, 2893 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 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Chuck Hagel's Dismal, Sordid Voting Record (Original post)
Mass Jan 2013 OP
samsingh Jan 2013 #1
gateley Jan 2013 #2
karynnj Jan 2013 #5
gateley Jan 2013 #18
karynnj Jan 2013 #19
gateley Jan 2013 #20
GeorgeGist Jan 2013 #16
Mass Jan 2013 #21
gateley Jan 2013 #23
southernyankeebelle Jan 2013 #29
Nick_Hentoff Jan 2013 #31
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #3
Mass Jan 2013 #4
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #6
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2013 #8
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #11
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #12
datasuspect Jan 2013 #13
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #17
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #30
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #7
datasuspect Jan 2013 #14
FSogol Jan 2013 #27
forestpath Jan 2013 #9
LittleBlue Jan 2013 #10
datasuspect Jan 2013 #15
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #22
dsc Jan 2013 #25
LittleBlue Jan 2013 #24
dsc Jan 2013 #26
datasuspect Jan 2013 #28

Response to Mass (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:13 PM

1. i don't think Hagel is one of the good guys

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:14 PM

2. He wouldn't have a say on any of those issues as SOD. Even if we loathe

his attitudes/voting history regarding womens' rights, he might be really good at SOD.

ETA: And ultimately, no matter who gets the position, s/he won't be the one making final decisions -- Obama is the CIC.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gateley (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:33 PM

5. I have really mixed feelings on this. To some extent, this reminds me of Webb

In 2006, Webb was the VA primary choice thought to have the best chance to beat Allen. But, his record on women from when he was in the military was atrocious. Even worse, from my perspective at that time was that he, for all intents and purposes, swiftboated Kerry, in 2004, when he was already the defacto nominee. (He wrote a dishonest oped that attacked Kerry for the work he did reconciling with Vietnam and his protesting. I was further angered when I read the reason in Rolling Stone - Webb, who used incidents of atrocities in his fiction was NOT angry because he misunderstood Kerry's testimony. He was angry because he thought that in 1971 the war was still popular and could be won! (Apparently, he blamed Kerry's testimony with making it unpopular!) Even when Kerry endorsed Webb, graciously forgiving this, I still hoped he would have lost the nomination. He didn't and went on to win the election very narrowly even with a major Allen screw up. His winning may have been the ONLY way to get that seat that year -- and it gave the Democrats the majority.

Here, I wonder if Obama has some reason that is leading him to ignore the criticism and to maybe nominate Hagel. I was wrong in 2006 - there were bigger things than Webb being very sexist, stupid on Vietnam, and an ass with regards to Kerry. Obama. Biden and Kerry all know Hagel well. Biden and Kerry have outstanding records on women's rights and gay rights, if they are advising Obama that Hagel is good for the team (and we don't know if they are), I would assume it is because of something he could bring that others can't. At minimum, I would wait to see IF Obama nominates him, and if he does, what he states as his reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 03:06 PM

18. Wow -- I didn't know about Webb and the Swiftboating!

And to think that Viet Nam could be WON? At least Hagel saw Iraq for the sham it was a little way into it -- that's a plus in my book in that regard.

I'm assuming Hagel would have voted to extend the Violence Against Women Act -- it does appear that he's rabidly anti-abortion, though. But as I said, that wouldn't be in his purview.

I like someone in that position who has strong opinions and lets them be known. Never got that impression from Panetta (but that was just my sense of him, have no idea if I'm correct or not). I'm thinking if Hagel had been SOD when Biden was advising Obama NOT to escalate in Afghanistan, maybe he would have listened and not defaulted to the Generals' wishes.

As for his ant-gay comment and voting record, I'm hopeful that he's evolved. I think if you asked Joe Biden 20 years ago if gays should marry he probably would have said no. The concern here is the gays in the military -- but if he's appointed, I'd hope that he'll see that repealing DADT made no negative impact in the military whatsoever.

It's tough. I don't think Obama is thinking of him because he's a Republican, because the Republicans don't like him, but maybe because he actually feels he would be the best person for the job.

I also think Biden may be in Hagel's corner -- I know he and Hagel are friends -- and I have faith that Joe is a good judge of character.

As I also posted, ultimately whoever gets this position does not have unilateral powers, has to get the nod from the WH.

Another drama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gateley (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 03:23 PM

19. I think your comments on really on target

Remember that Kerry, Biden and Hagel were together on the helicopter that needed to land in the snow in Afghanistan. While there, the three apparently worked on what became Kerry/Lugar/Berman.

I agree with you that Hagel (as Kerry) would have been closer to Biden's position than to the surge that Gates and Clinton supported.

I suspect that in addition to having a foreign policy expert, he sees in Hagel someone who understands what war really is. He also is a fisical conservative and that might become critical in reaching out to the Congress to cut back unneeded military spending.

I agree that there has been a major shift in opinion on gay rights in the last 20 years. Positions that were courageous then,now look embarrassingly too little. Remember that this was in the same time frame as the DOMA bill when only one Senator up for reelection voted for it - and he was from Massachusetts! (Biden voted against it) I assume hearings, if he is nominated, would ask questions about his willingness to promote gays in the military and to answer questions about various related issues.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 03:26 PM

20. And you bring up good points about understanding what war really is AND being a fiscal

conservative.

I wonder what we would think of him as an apointee if we only knew the pertinent-to-the-job info. I think more would be supportive of him, even more Republicans!

It will be interesting, as always!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gateley (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:42 PM

16. Snort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gateley (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 03:30 PM

21. I have a hard time with this, in particular his vote concerning abortion on military basis and DADT.

considering diverse issues in the military (rape, abortion, ...). I would expect a SecDef to have an influence a way or the other on these topics.

It seems the latest military spending bill helps somewhat in this respect, and I also know Hagel has the respect of people like Biden and Kerry, but still, even if SecDef does not make laws, we know that his influence will make or break the use of some of these laws.

http://www.usafa.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123331490


The law also authorizes changes needed to deter sexual assault in the military.
...
The act raises the co-pay for medications under Tricare through 2022. The legislation also limits any annual increases in pharmacy co-payments to increases in retiree cost of living adjustments.

The authorization also provides DOD funds for servicewomen who need abortions in case of rape or incest.

Among other programs, the act authorizes the defense biofuel initiative as well as counternarcotic authorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:05 PM

23. I know -- it's his votes regarding this in the military that concern me. However,

as I keep yammering about, it's ultimately not his call. I don't see Obama giving the green light to any of these more oppressive policies -- do you?

The reason I'm in his corner despite this crap is because I think he'd be good at the job. Any former military man who was vocal in his opposition of the Iraq war and stood up to his Party goes a long way in my book.

I'm not overlooking his past behavior/attitudes, and I have no idea if he still holds the same opinions, but again I don't think he would be able to implement anything that would pull back the progress we've made.

I can't think of anybody else for the position who might not be a war monger. Wes Clark, and that former guy who worked with Colin Powell, but they're not in the running, and I can't wish them onto the list for consideration.

What do you think we should do?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gateley (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:58 PM

29. The most important thing for me is the issue of not jumping to war. He knows what

 

war is about and he has been in a combat zone. Just that notice alone he will use good judgement. All the other stuff he won't have the control over. I would vote for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gateley (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:24 AM

31. Not True: Access to Reproductive Health Care BIG Problem for Military Women

The Secretary of Defense is directly responsible for providing health care to over 200,000 female soldiers, military wives and their daughters. In any given year 10% of women on active duty in the military experience an unwanted pregnancy.

http://news.yahoo.com/unplanned-pregnancies-higheramong-military-women-221607698--abc-news-health.html

Federal law prohibits them from receiving self-paid abortion services on military bases.
(http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc83823/m1/1/high_res_d/95-387_2010Dec16.pdf). Hagel repeatedly blocked efforts to repeal this venal law and his last "0" rating from NARAL was in 2008.

Female soldiers have a very difficult time getting access to safe reproductive health care when deployed overseas. See the Women's Health Issues journal article "Abortion Restrictions in the U.S. Military: Voices from Women Deployed Overseas" (http://www.whijournal.com/article/S1049-3867(11)00099-5/abstract)

"Data were analyzed for 130 women, including 128 women in the U.S. military and 2 military dependents. Women reported facing numerous challenges accessing abortion overseas, including legal and logistical barriers to care in-country, and real or perceived difficulties accessing abortion elsewhere owing to confidentiality concerns, fear of military reprimand for the pregnancy, and the narrow timeframe for early abortion. With no perceived alternatives, some women considered unsafe methods to terminate the pregnancy themselves."


I cannot understand why Obama is allowing so many women to fall under the direct authority of someone with Chuck Hagel's voting record. See:

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/chuck_hagel.htm

It is even more puzzling why NARAL isn't opposing this nomination given the potential consequences for so many service women. See:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/chuck-hagel-abortion_n_2427148.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:18 PM

3. OMG IS HE A REPUBLICAN??? I DID NOT KNOW THAT OMG!!!!

Christ almighty. Pretty sure Obama and Biden know who and what Hagel is. They worked with him in the Senate. They still want him for DoD. Gates was a Republican or Indy, he just didn't have a voting record and legislative history that made Democrats go "OMG HE IS A REPUBLICAN OMG!!!" Of all the arguments against Hagel, this is weak sauce. And as the wife of a career military member, whose son goes to college on the GI Bill that HAGEL and Jim Webb got for us, anyone who suggests that Hagel will be "bad for troops" is misguided.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:26 PM

4. It is also misguided to think he is great and forget everything else.

Frankly, when I read Michael Moore clamoring for him, the hypocrisy is striking, considering how he is ready to bash Obama and Biden for a lot less. but all of a sudden, Hagel is fine.

Obviously, Obama can choose whom he wants and he should. But that does not mean people are forbidden to have an opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:35 PM

6. Obama is not a stupid man. He generally surrounds himself

with smart and capable people in their given roles. Ask yourself why he wants this particular person for THIS particular job (and not Labor or HHS). Is Kerry, who is arguably more liberal than Obama and has known Hagel a long time, objecting to him? I don't think so. Maybe Obama, Biden and Kerry personally know more about his fitness for SecDef than we do by looking at his voting record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:40 PM

8. Apparently, he's the best Republican that Obama could find for the job.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:58 PM

11. General Patraeus indicates that the discernment might be lacking, ethics and character wise...

So the 'he's too smart to mess up when appointing Republicans' argument is rather thin. I mean, this is Obama who claimed marriage was a Sacrament, that he and his wife were sanctified and all straight couples are bound by God himself. Yet he placed a mendacious adulterous Republican in a place of the most extreme trust. This does not impress me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:33 PM

12. Petraeus screwing around with Broadwell was the least

problematic thing he did--I don't care that much how he got his sex jollies, once out of the military, where that sort of thing is against the UCMJ. It's hard to say how that directly impacted his CIA work, although I agree he had to resign. But Petraeus allowed crazy neocon nutcase think-tankers to basically run the war in Afghanistan for him--as UNPAID advisors, so there was no detection or accountability--that is a much bigger deal, IMO. SecDef Gates let Obama down on that one, and I generally think Gates was a competent man. Maybe Obama feels he needs someone who will be a better watchdog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:34 PM

13. if what you say is true

 

explain Rahm aka "Tiny Dancer"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to datasuspect (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:43 PM

17. I have neither been a critic or champion of him. He was contentious and

controversial, that's for sure. But since he was a Chief of Staff, I have a hard time evaluating his performance--his value (or lack thereof) was primarily for Obama, and not a specific, concrete THING like the DoD or the State Dept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:35 PM

30. He surrounds himself with the fucking terrible.

Geitner? Salazar? Duncan? Holder? Petrayus? Gates? Fucking Chu wiping and dangling for BP? The EPA is so weak and toothless that Bush may as well still be running the show. Labor has had nothing but set backs.

He'll nominate who he wants to but they probably will be motherfuckers that either are TeaPubliKlan or that a TeaPubliKlan would "reach across the aisle" to install as a token that is actually on board with their agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:40 PM

7. Which is relevant to his becoming Secretary of Defense, how?

Congress has authority over this; the current law re military abortion ban is the creation of Congress. If he were being nominated for HHS, then it'd be an issue; he's not, so it isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:36 PM

14. well

 

it's not like an ethical, moral, humanistic type would clamor to head up our war machine (i do understand the president is CIC, but you get the point).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:51 PM

27. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:43 PM

9. K&R The overwhelming hateful ugliness of his whole voting record is undeniable.

 

And it says some really disturbing things about the Obama administration that he will probably be part of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:45 PM

10. Why do we care about his abortion record?

Obama's nominating him for Sec Def, not Health and Human Services.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:39 PM

15. because it shines a light on the type of person he is?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to datasuspect (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 03:37 PM

22. So does this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/max-cleland-memoir-former_n_287674.html

"In his detailed recounting of that hellish time, Cleland in particular expresses outrage at the negative ads that cost him his Senate seat. Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss ran TV commercials featuring Cleland alongside photos of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, falsely implying that the Senator had voted against the proposed Department of Homeland Security,

Soon after the ad started running, GOP Senators John McCain and Chuck Hagel expressed their outrage at the dirty tactics. Cleland says that Hagel approached him and went so far as to offer to do a TV spot rebutting the hateful Chambliss ad "even though it was being aired by his own party."

"'Saxby Chambliss got wind of what Hagel had proposed. He called Chuck seven times in one day begging him not to side with me. Hagel asked him to take the ad down. Instead, Chambliss modified the ad somewhat, but still ran it.'"


When it comes to defending fellow veterans and active duty troops, Hagel has no equal. That is more important to me than the fact that he was a Senate Republican and often voted like one. I have no idea how Bob Gates (for example) really feels about abortion, or whether he deep-down likes gay people, or his feelings about the minimum wage or unions--we didn't need to know. He was a competent guy and pushed DADT repeal through at Obama's direction, and generally improved the DoD after the disaster of Rumsfeld.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:43 PM

25. Actually Penetta was the guy who got to write some of the rules replacing DADT

and now the rest will be written by an out and out bigot. If you seriously think Obama is going to be the one to write these rules I have to say that you are quite likely wrong. I think at the very least, a deputy secretary should be given control of writing those rules with no input at all from Hagel. Trusting Hagel to write these rules would be like trusting Strom Thurmond to write the rules integrating blacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to datasuspect (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:26 PM

24. Sounds more like character assassination

Really, bringing up his beliefs about abortion for a SecDef position sounds desperate at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:48 PM

26. since when is telling the truth about a person's record character assassination

and since our female service personnel still can't get abortions without a major league hassle this issue might come up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:57 PM

28. well, if you're going to support anyone without question

 

the propaganda you're spewing makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread