HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Chuck Hagel apologizes fo...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:32 PM

Chuck Hagel apologizes for gay slur

Source: Politico

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel, seeking to preserve his viability for nomination as secretary of Defense, on Friday issued a strong apology for a gay slur in 1998 that turned some top Democratic activists against his potential selection.

...

With gay groups marshaling opposition, Hagel said in a statement provided by an aide: “My comments 14 years ago in 1998 were insensitive. They do not reflect my views or the totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights. I am fully supportive of ‘open service’ and committed to LGBT military families.”





Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/exclusive-chuck-hagel-apologizes-for-gay-slur-85413.html



Good sign: He feels compelled to address these concerns, but not those of the Neocon/Likudnik/warmonger crowd.

89 replies, 8259 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 89 replies Author Time Post
Reply Chuck Hagel apologizes for gay slur (Original post)
geek tragedy Dec 2012 OP
oberle Dec 2012 #1
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #2
merrily Dec 2012 #3
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #11
merrily Dec 2012 #35
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #39
merrily Dec 2012 #37
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #38
elfin Dec 2012 #4
merrily Dec 2012 #6
elfin Dec 2012 #9
icymist Dec 2012 #14
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #15
merrily Dec 2012 #22
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #27
merrily Dec 2012 #32
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #34
merrily Dec 2012 #36
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #40
merrily Dec 2012 #58
merrily Dec 2012 #42
merrily Dec 2012 #19
elfin Dec 2012 #28
dlwickham Dec 2012 #18
merrily Dec 2012 #20
Joey Liberal Dec 2012 #5
merrily Dec 2012 #7
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #30
merrily Dec 2012 #43
leftynyc Dec 2012 #45
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #47
leftynyc Dec 2012 #52
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #55
leftynyc Dec 2012 #59
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #61
leftynyc Dec 2012 #64
leftynyc Dec 2012 #66
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #67
leftynyc Dec 2012 #68
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #73
merrily Dec 2012 #56
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #57
merrily Dec 2012 #60
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #62
JoeyT Dec 2012 #8
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #12
merrily Dec 2012 #23
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #29
merrily Dec 2012 #48
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #50
mrdmk Dec 2012 #10
phleshdef Dec 2012 #13
immoderate Dec 2012 #31
phleshdef Dec 2012 #41
immoderate Dec 2012 #51
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #77
Maven Dec 2012 #16
leftynyc Dec 2012 #46
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #17
merrily Dec 2012 #24
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #26
merrily Dec 2012 #54
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #63
The Wizard Dec 2012 #21
merrily Dec 2012 #25
TheOther95Percent Dec 2012 #33
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2012 #44
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #49
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2012 #70
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #72
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2012 #75
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #78
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #80
Fearless Dec 2012 #53
Sunlei Dec 2012 #65
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #71
Douglas Carpenter Dec 2012 #69
Safetykitten Dec 2012 #74
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #76
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #81
Eric the Reddish Dec 2012 #79
Cha Dec 2012 #83
oberliner Dec 2012 #82
Cha Dec 2012 #84
merrily Dec 2012 #85
stevenleser Dec 2012 #86
dlwickham Dec 2012 #88
stevenleser Dec 2012 #89
Ash_F Dec 2012 #87

Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:33 PM

1. Too little

too late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:35 PM

2. reaction from OutServe-SLDN director


"We are pleased that Senator Hagel recognized the importance of retracting his previous statement about Ambassador Hormel and affirming his commitment to Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal and LGBT military families. We look forward to learning more about his commitment to full LGBT military equality as this nomination and confirmation process unfolds."


http://www.towleroad.com/2012/12/chuck-hagel-apologizes-for-insensitive-anti-gay-remarks-says-he-is-committed-to-open-service-lgbt-mi.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:44 PM

3. Good sign? Would you say that if Bush were the one about to nominate him to serve as Secretary of

Defense over a relatively newly integrated military?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:02 PM

11. It shows that the GLBT concerns were taken more seriously than the Netanyahu crowd's were. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:47 PM

35. Hagel has not even been nominated yet. We don't know what Hagel will ultimately say about Israel.

right now, his immediate concern is Obama because the first step is for Obama to nominate him.

Obama floated Hagel's name knowing full well his position on Israel. Obama did not float his name knowing his campaign donors and bundlers were going to band together to oppose Hagel.


we have no clue yet what Hagel will do if Obama looks as though he may balk on the nomination because of the Israel position or what Hagel will say during confirmation hearings, if any, if it looks as though Hagel's Israel postion may cost him confirmation.

All we know is that Hagel address the first thing that looked as though it might be an obstacle to his first hurdle.

On the one hand, you admit that you cannot read minds. At the same time, though, you purport to know what Hagel takes more seriously than something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:53 PM

39. Lots of campaign bundlers and donors not very happy with Hagel due to Israel concerns.

Including Obama's head of Jewish outreach, Ira Forman.

I am merely observing that there were objections raised from the right wing and from the left against Hagel. The WH/Hagel supporters felt compelled address only those from the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:51 PM

37. BTW, you never answered my question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #37)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:51 PM

38. Which one? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:45 PM

4. I think he is a good choice, even tho a Repug

He demonstrates growth on social issues, and seems prepared with deep knowledge of the position as well as past, thoughtful resistance to a knee jerk acceptance of neocons here and in Israel.

So he is another "white male" ---- so what? If the best person for the job is a white male, so be it says this multicultural feminist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elfin (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:46 PM

6. Funny how his growth on social issues did not manifest until he had his eyes on the Cabinet and

GLBT advocates were massing to oppose him.

ETA: And what makes him the best person for this job? We have 350 million people in the U.S. Saying one of 350 million people is the best person for any job is not realistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:58 PM

9. Yahbut, 14 years ago.

At least he did it. Shows a recognition of present reality, if not "growth".

Willing to cut slack here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elfin (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:21 PM

14. Cut slack here!?! Where are you going to cut slack?!?

'Present reality', don't make me laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to icymist (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:26 PM

15. He shouldn't get cut any slack--he should face tough questions

at confirmation hearings if selected.

This doesn't make the concerns go away--it shouldn't--but it is a necessary first step.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:10 PM

22. What tough questions?

"Do you really, really recant?"

"Yes."

"Cross your heart and hope to die?"

"Yes."

"Pinkie swear?"

"Yes."

"Well, then, it's settled. Congratulations, Mr. Secretary."

Unless and until we can read minds, all we can do is look at the surrounding circumstances and see if they seem credible. Hagel looked at someone nominated for an ambassadorship and Hagel said the nominee was too aggressively gay (whatever the hell that means) to be an ambassador. Then, he did not recant for 14 years. And when did he recant? When Obama floated his name for Secretary of Defense and LGBT advocates--who include many of Obama's campaign bundlers, btw--started gathering forces to oppose him. That is a might convenient recant and therefore a mighty unconvincing one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:27 PM

27. He recanted now because this is the first attention it's gotten in a long

time.

More important questions are where his current thinking is and how he'll protect the rights and dignity of GLBT servicepeople, what kind of culture will he set, will he tolerate bigotry within the ranks, etc.

What's in a politician's heart? Who knows. What they do is what matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #27)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:39 PM

32. Yes, and what he did was object to having a gay man serve his country as ambassador.

We have no idea what he will do in the future, but the best predictor of future conduct is past conduct.


Who knows what is in a politician's heart? I already addressed that. We can't know what is anyone's heart, but we can look at the surrounding circumstances, just as we do when we serve on a jury; and, in this case, they don't look good for Hagel.


He recanted now because this is the first attention it's gotten in a long time
. However, how on earth do you know that he is recanting for that reason. As you yourself said two sentences later, you can't possibly know that.

It seems a lot more likely that he finally recanted because he thought that recanting would help him realize his personal ambition and not because he had an honest change of heart. That is the version circumstances support. If he had an honest change of heart and a conscience , he would have publicly recanted a heinous remark as soon as his thinking changed.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #32)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:46 PM

34. He was reflecting the values of the people to whom he was accountable.

If that's his standard, he'll be okay as Sec of Def.

He was accountable to Nebraska (including Republican primary) voters in 1998 (an extremely homophobic lot, especially back then) and he would be accountable to Obama today.

And, people do grow and learn. Robert Byrd is such an example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:50 PM

36. No one says people don't grow. No one says people don't change parties, either.

CHowever, when Geithner changed his party registration from Republican to Independent shortly before Obama nominated Geithner to his abinet, anyone who took that "coincidential" timing at face value was pretty gullible, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #36)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:59 PM

40. Geithner changed his affiliation when he was in Clinton's Treasury department. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #40)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:36 PM

58. Same difference. Just swap President's names.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:02 PM

42. I disagree. He reflected the values of some people. Every state has homophobes, even New York,

California and Massachusetts. And every state has racists. That does not mean every Senator has to reflect the basest of the base among his constituency,

And he did so in an especially ugly way. "aggressively gay?" What the hell does that even mean?

And, people do grow and learn
.

Please put away the straw men. I never said or implied anything remotely like human growth is impossible so you have no need at all to tell me that human growth is possible.

I've said over and over that the circumstances of this particular case suggest opportunism, not sincerity.

. Robert Byrd is such an example.
Nope. Byrd is an example of a man who did change his thinking--AND apologized publicly and repeatedly--and not because he had his eye on a cabinet post, either. And, he spent years redeeming himself. No comparison to this case whatsoever.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elfin (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:02 PM

19. 14 years ago was not 1950. And, again, he did not recant until he had a selfish motive.

Sorry, but his "recognition" seems to based on nothing but self-interest.

If Bush were President now and doing the nominating, would you be saying the same things about Hagel?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:30 PM

28. Yep. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:55 PM

18. and we have a winner!

it took him how many years to retract this statement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:03 PM

20. If he did not want this nomination, I doubt he would be retracting it, even today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:45 PM

5. I don't trust Hagel

Just sayin'.........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joey Liberal (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:50 PM

7. You are not alone. I am here with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:34 PM

30. Do you trust him to do what Obama tells him to do?

That's the real question.

If he goes out of his way to make sure anti-GLBT prejudice is not tolerated within the military, and that military families of all kinds are treated equally, not sure if there's much more for him to do.

That said, he hasn't shown a commitment to doing that, so he should get his ass grilled at confirmation hearings on the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:10 PM

43. No and No.

No, I don't think that is the real question and no I don't trust him to do what tells him to do.

What is Obama going to tell him to do? Cleanse his heart and mind of bigotry so that he does not even subconsciously discriminate or demean? Do you really think that works? Geez, let's put that in a bottle and sell it then.

Besides, should a President, any President, nominate to his or Cabinet anyone for whom that instruction even MAY be necessary??

That said, he hasn't shown a commitment to doing that, so he should get his ass grilled at confirmation hearings on the subject.


I've already addressed that in a prior post. You cannot find out someone's inner thoughts, ever. It's impossible.

We've covered the same ground more than once on a couple of issues, so we are just going in circles now. Did you ever answer my other two questions, namely:

1. Would you be defending Hagel so much (albeit not very convincingly) if Bush were President today and doing the nominating?

and

2. What is it about Hagel that makes him so much more desirable as Secretary of Defense than 350 million other Americans, many of whom are (a) more qualified and (b) Democrats.

If you have, then my apologies for asking again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:14 PM

45. No - he's a republican

I don't trust any of them and see no reason a qualified Democrat is not being nominated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:16 PM

47. He's better on some core issues than Panetta is.

Being a Republican gives him (and Obama) to shift left on some issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #47)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:22 PM

52. Really? What issues would those be?

He belongs to a party of thugs and his conveniently timed apology means nothing to me other than he's willing to blow sunshine up your ass if you'll give him a job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #52)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:31 PM

55. Pentagon spending, for one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html

Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him.

The current secretary, Leon Panetta, has said the defense “sequester” cuts that Congress mandated to take effect Jan. 1 would have dire consequences for U.S. security. Mr. Hagel took a very different position when asked about Mr. Panetta’s comment during a September 2011 interview with the Financial Times. “The Defense Department, I think in many ways, has been bloated,” he responded. “So I think the Pentagon needs to be pared down.”

While both Republicans and Democrats accept that further cuts in defense may be inevitable, few have suggested that a reduction on the scale of the sequester is responsible. In congressional testimony delivered around the same time as Mr. Hagel’s interview, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the sequester would lead to “a severe and irreversible impact on the Navy’s future,” “a Marine Corps that’s below the end strength to support even one major contingency” and “an unacceptable level of strategic and operational risk” for the Army.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #55)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:37 PM

59. The President is playing right into

the right wing meme that Democrats are so soft on defense even a Democratic President doesn't trust us. Why on earth would I trust someone who has an 84% rating from the American Conservative Union? The President should nominate a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #59)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:40 PM

61. What Democrat out there would be willing to say that we need to cut

defense spending even further, and stand up to the AIPAC/PNAC crowd?

I'd love to hear names of people who would want the job and could get confirmed.

Note that Barack Obama doesn't qualify on either count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #61)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:46 PM

64. Hagel didn't say it needed to

be cut further so that's a strawman. And the sec of defense has nothing to do with our policy on Israel so that's also not worth discussing. His 84% rating by the American Conservative Union is definitely worth discussing and you seem to be perfectly fine with that. I am not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #61)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:54 PM

66. And to specifically answer your question on the

who could be nominated: Wes Clark, Bob Kerrey, Al Gore, Joe Sestak and Jim Webb have all served and I wouldn't have to worry about any of them stabbing the President in the back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #66)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:55 PM

67. Would they want the job? Would they be willing to say "the Pentagon spends too much?"

Jim Webb I would not trust. Talk about former Republicans . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #67)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:57 PM

68. Hagel isn't a former republican

If he was willing to leave the party publicly, then we could talk. You don't think Wesley Clark would want the job? Or Bob Kerrey? Shouldn't they have turned it down before we turn to the party of thugs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #68)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:36 PM

73. Bob Kerrey is a war criminal. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #47)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:32 PM

56. How does Hagel's being a Republican give Hagel and Obama shift to the left on any issue?

Panetta was a Republican, too, so it does not surprise me that Hagel might be to Panetta's left on some issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #56)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:35 PM

57. Because Democrats are scared shitless to move left on defense/national security

issues.

Panetta has been a Democrat for the past 41 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #57)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:39 PM

60. I know. I said Panetta was a Nixon Republican. And you are saying that Democrats can't be

good Secretaries of Defense or good Commanders in Chief? Why are you a Democrat then?

ETA: never mind. Just take that Republican meme and stick it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #60)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:42 PM

62. Democrats who are unafraid to take Democratic stands on the issues would be great.

But, the Democrats who do gravitate towards these issues tend to suck--e.g. DiFi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:51 PM

8. Chuck Hagel

is dreadfully sorry that his comments that probably accurately reflect what he believes may cost him a shot at a position he wants.

The slur was claiming than an "openly, aggressively gay" man shouldn't represent the United States. I'm not sure how he can claim that statement doesn't accurately reflect his values, unless he just admits he was pandering to bigots. Which makes him a bigot and a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:07 PM

12. Anti-GLBT bigotry was sadly common back then. Paul Wellstone voted for DOMA only 2 years

before Hagel made those ugly comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:15 PM

23. Back then? Are you kidding me? The 1990s were not the 1950s, for crying out loud.

Were you a homophobe 14 years ago? Neither was I.

And a Democrat opposing recognition of same gender marriage--which the then head of the Party wanted at that time, btw--is not the same as saying a gay person is not fit to serve as ambassador.

Alll that aside, what in God's name makes Hagel such a blinkin' great choice for Defense? Is no Democrat available for the job?



*Edited to add this footnote. For one thing, recognizing same gender marriage--and DOMA is still the law of the land-- would require millions, maybe billions of dollars in Social Security benefits paid out by the U.S. and simultaneous loss of millions, maybe billions, in tax dollars. That is not true of appointing a gay ambassador.

For another thing, recognizing same gender marriage involves religious issues, adoption issues and a whole host of things that do not apply to having a gay man serve as ambassador.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:31 PM

29. Was I a homophobe 14 years ago? Probably to some degree, but certainly not to that

level. I was raised in that general part of the country, and the homophobia is in the drinking water.

What makes him useful as a Sec of Def?

1) He's a non-interventionist;
2) He believes the Pentagon budget is still bloated (better than Panetta on that score)
3) The Neocons hate him;
4) He's one of few figures in Washington who believes US foreign policy should serve the interests of the United States moreso than any foreign power's interests.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #29)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:17 PM

48. First, my questions were not what makes him useful as Secretary of Defense.

My questions were:

All that aside, what in God's name makes Hagel such a blinkin' great choice for Defense? Is no Democrat available for the job?


The four things you cited are by no means unique to Hagel and certainly far from rare among Democrats.

Besides, the defense budget will either get cut in this financial folderol or not at all. The Secretary of Defense sure ain't going to cut it after Congress and the President leave it bloated.

And I have never believed that being hated by Republicans automatically qualifies someone for a Cabinet position. Or the opposite. For example, they like Kerry for State and I think Kerry will make a fine Secretary of State--provided he is not too deferential.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #48)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:21 PM

50. Okay, how many Democrats with the right credentials are willing to go on the record:

1) Stating we should negotiate directly with Hamas;
2) Stating that we need to cut defense spending, that the DoD budget is still bloated;
3) Affirmatively state that the goal of US foreign policy is something other than helping Israel?

Because no one matching that description is currently serving in the Obama administration, including Obama.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:02 PM

10. Well, that did not take long!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:20 PM

13. 14 yrs ago, I was a religious, conservative bigot, thought gay people were sick, hellbound sinners.

That was mostly because that was the way I was raised and thats the way the society around me taught me to believe, at that time.

Today, I'm a liberal agnostic that believes in equal rights for people of all sexual orientations. I'm pro-gay marriage, pro-open service, pro-antidiscrimination, pro-gay adoption rights, etc. I have many gay friends and relatives that I would take a bullet for if it came down to it. I don't believe in such a thing as hell. And I certainly don't believe there is anything immoral about being gay.

People can change. I certainly did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:37 PM

31. I give him space for his social evolution.

But he's still a republican.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:01 PM

41. That doesn't bother me. He isn't hawkish. He believes the Pentagon needs cut down.

He is right on a lot of issues directly relating to the job he would be doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:21 PM

51. Well that explains where the real resistance comes from.

I believe that military spending is like flushing money down the toilet at it's most benign. He may rile up conservatives, without inspiring lefties either.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 06:16 PM

77. Things you say freely, which Hagel does not say at all, even under current pressures:

"I'm a liberal agnostic that believes in equal rights for people of all sexual orientations. I'm pro-gay marriage, pro-open service, pro-antidiscrimination, pro-gay adoption rights, etc. I have many gay friends and relatives that I would take a bullet for if it came down to it. I don't believe in such a thing as hell. And I certainly don't believe there is anything immoral about being gay."

Because when it comes up, this is what you offer, you seem changed from that which you say you were. Compare your words to Hagel's 'apology':

"My comments 14 years ago in 1998 were insensitive. They do not reflect my views or the totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights. I am fully supportive of ‘open service’ and committed to LGBT military families."

Nothing like what you wrote. And that sort of proves the point about Chuck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:31 PM

16. Oh? I wonder if he'll "support" the rights of GLBT soldiers to serve openly

while turning a blind eye to discrimination against them?

Would they have it coming for being so "openly, aggressively" gay?

Fuck this opportunist cretin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maven (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:16 PM

46. And will he fight for

women who get raped by their fellow military members? Will he make sure they get justice? I don't trust any republicans on ANY social issues and don't even want him nominated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:54 PM

17. I figured he would. He seemed to really lose interest in the

social/religious-conservatism side of the GOP once GWB took office. His big interests (from my perspective as a Nebraskan at the time) were fiscal conservatism and foreign/defense policies. He later voted against a ban on gay marriage. I think it's sincere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:22 PM

24. Are you saying that he voted against DOMA? If not, which ban on gay marriage did he vote against?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:25 PM

26. I read about it yesterday--some vote on federal gay marriage ban

in 2006. Voted against it, said it should be left up to states--I think it was reported in Buzzfeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:28 PM

54. Not as good as it sounds on the surface. I googled. I did not spend a lot of time because

I don't usually spend a lot of time trying to support or disprove other posters' claims.

This is part of what I found in the very first link that I followed, though. It's not great.

While Senator John Kerry was seen as a likely successor to Panetta, the withdrawal of United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice from consideration to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made the Massachusetts Democrat the likely pick for State –– the job he really wants –– increasing the prospects for a Hagel nomination to Defense.

Hagel, now 66, was in the Senate from 1997-2009, and so missed the 2010 vote on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal.

Asked in 2003 about an amendment to the US Constitution barring same-sex marriage, Hagel told the Omaha World Herald, “I don’t think the Constitution was ever written or set up for those kinds of amendments. I think those kinds of issues are better off left to the states.” But he voted for it anyway the following year. He switched his vote when the issue resurfaced in 2006, but maintained his opposition to same-sex marriage.

Hagel repeatedly voted against adding sexual orientation to the federal hate crimes law and opposed set-asides for minority and women-owned businesses.


Edited to add:

Forgot to provide the link. It is:

http://gaycitynews.com/task-force-concerned-about-hagel-at-defense-department-citing-lgbt-womens-people-of-color-record/





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #54)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:43 PM

63. He's a conservative from Nebraska. His votes and his

social views generally reflect that, especially the farther back you look. I'm not flabbergasted that he would oppose gay marriage in 2006, but it stands to reason that if he felt that strongly about it, he would have voted for the measure. I think Obama opposed gay marriage too, BTW--or was at least hesitant about openly supporting it. It was one of Obama's weak spots of his Presidency, and he is correcting it. The question is, does Obama trust that Hagel will support and implement his defense policies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:08 PM

21. This isn't about sainthood

It's about putting a competent person in place to do the job at hand. Glass houses anyone?
If anyone on this board hasn't said anything that would offend anytime in their lives please speak up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Wizard (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:24 PM

25. False equivalency much?

I have never made a homophobic comment. I have certainly never said a gay is not qualified to be ambassador.

Then again, I am only a humble message poster and not up for a Cabinet position overseeing a military that began allowing gays to tell and serve five minutes ago.

ETA: BTW, I disagree that it is about putting a competent person in. With 350 million Americans to choose from, the honor of being one of a few handfuls of people in the Cabinet should be subject to a much higher standard than mere competence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:39 PM

33. Day late, dollar short.

I remember the way this asshole treated Ambassador Hormel. Character is defined as what you do when nobody is looking. Now that Hagel is under the microscope, he's going to apologize for the aggressively gay comments. I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:12 PM

44. Why didn't you include what he said in your OP?

 

Hoping most Wouldn't bother to click the link? Here, I'll help:

The Omaha World-Herald reported in 1998: “Ambassadorial posts are sensitive, Hagel explained. ‘They are representing America,’ he said (in an interview). ‘They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel — to do an effective job.’”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #44)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:18 PM

49. Latest Breaking News forum rules limit the amount of a story you can quote

What he said has been the subject of much discussion recently--has anyone not seen it already?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #49)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:15 PM

70. I hadn't seen it.

 

As you know, you can excerpt 4 paragraphs. You only used two. Since your OP was championing him I find your reasons for excluding that paragraph disingenuous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #70)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:17 PM

72. Gee, some anonymous person on the Internet is calling me a liar.

I think I'll go cry into a pillow somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #72)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:58 PM

75. I thought you were going to say

 

smile when you say that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #72)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 06:19 PM

78. I assumed it was an honest ommission, but I also posted the quote in the thread.

Just because the words are so much worse than your OP indicates they were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #78)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:20 PM

80. Fair enough. No problem with additional context. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:26 PM

53. World's tiniest violin playing the world's saddest song.




In case I'm not being clear... Fuck off Hagel!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:53 PM

65. a 'statement' is a start but not enough! A real press conference with in depth discussion is needed

not a fox republican tv 'conference'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #65)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:16 PM

71. Too bad Tammy Baldwin didn't get a Defense Committee slot.

That would have been worth watching.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:07 PM

69. Washington Post is outraged with Hagel claiming he will push Obama far to the left on foreign policy

WaPo Editorial: Chuck Hagel is not the right choice for defense secretary
By Editorial Board, Published: December 18

FORMER SENATOR Chuck Hagel, whom President Obama is reportedly considering for defense secretary, is a Republican who would offer a veneer of bipartisanship to the national security team. He would not, however, move it toward the center, which is the usual role of such opposite-party nominees. On the contrary: Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him.

The current secretary, Leon Panetta, has said the defense “sequester” cuts that Congress mandated to take effect Jan. 1 would have dire consequences for U.S. security. Mr. Hagel took a very different position when asked about Mr. Panetta’s comment during a September 2011 interview with the Financial Times. “The Defense Department, I think in many ways, has been bloated,” he responded. “So I think the Pentagon needs to be pared down.”

While both Republicans and Democrats accept that further cuts in defense may be inevitable, few have suggested that a reduction on the scale of the sequester is responsible. In congressional testimony delivered around the same time as Mr. Hagel’s interview, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the sequester would lead to “a severe and irreversible impact on the Navy’s future,” “a Marine Corps that’s below the end strength to support even one major contingency” and “an unacceptable level of strategic and operational risk” for the Army.

Mr. Hagel was similarly isolated in his views about Iran during his time in the Senate. He repeatedly voted against sanctions, opposing even those aimed at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which at the time was orchestrating devastating bomb attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq. Mr. Hagel argued that direct negotiations, rather than sanctions, were the best means to alter Iran’s behavior. The Obama administration offered diplomacy but has turned to tough sanctions as the only way to compel Iran to negotiate seriously.

-snip-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines


Thanks to DonViejo for posting this in the Politics 2012 forum

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:51 PM

74. Hi! I'm a gay bashing bigot that wants to be Defense Secretary! Let me take care of a few odds and

 

ends...

That hideous statement that I made? Sorry.

Can I haz office now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 06:09 PM

76. What Hagel said was not just a 'gay slur' it was a personalized attack on an individual using his

sexuality as a weapon with extreme characterizations of the most bigoted kind and a suggestion that being gay is unamerican:
“They are representing America, they are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly, aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel — to do an effective job.”

This is not acceptable and it was not acceptable 14 years ago. He says being gay is an inhibiting factor to doing an effective job as a diplomat.
Extremely bigoted people such as Hagel should not be in government in any capacity. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #76)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:21 PM

81. Not gonna disagree with any of that.

He certainly needs more than a statement via pr agent if he's the nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 06:47 PM

79. He still hasn't apologized to the People Who Matter

 

But I'm telling you, if Obama backs down on Hagel the way he backed down on Rice, we're in for a long four years!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric the Reddish (Reply #79)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:37 PM

83. Oh yeah, you got proof that President Obama didn't want Senator

Kerry for the job in the first place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:22 PM

82. How about nominating an openly gay Secretary of Defense?

That would be something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:41 PM

84. That is an awful thing to say.. shows pure

brainwashed ignorance. I hope over the years he's learned that too.. and, if so.. he has some serious mending to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:40 PM

85. So far, the ambassador and Rachel Maddow agree with those who think Hagel's apology is insincere

and opportunitistic.

I'll take it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:55 PM

86. I'll only support Hagel if he convinces my friends in the LGBT group here

and in rw that he has changed and apologized adequately. It's clear to me that is not the case. Virtually everyone I know in the LGBTIQ community thinks his apology and explanation were full of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #86)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:26 AM

88. good luck with that

he's full of it and I can't imagine anything that would change my mind

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #88)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:10 PM

89. I feel no burning need to support him

I expect I will End up opposing him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:03 PM

87. Still think there are plenty of better candidates out there. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread