HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Secret Donors Finance Fig...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:25 AM

Secret Donors Finance Fight Against Hagel

Source: NYT

By JIM RUTENBERG

A brand new conservative group calling itself Americans for a Strong Defense and financed by anonymous donors is running advertisements urging Democratic senators in five states to vote against Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee to be secretary of defense, saying he would make the United States “a weaker country.”

Another freshly minted and anonymously backed organization, Use Your Mandate, which presents itself as a liberal gay rights group but purchases its television time through a prominent Republican firm, is attacking Mr. Hagel as “anti-Gay,” “anti-woman” and “anti-Israel” in ads and mailers.

Those groups are joining at least five others that are organizing to stop Mr. Hagel’s confirmation, a goal even they acknowledge appears to be increasingly challenging. But the effort comes with a built-in consolation prize should it fail: depleting some of Mr. Obama’s political capital as he embarks on a new term with fresh momentum.

The media campaign to scuttle Mr. Hagel’s appointment, unmatched in the annals of modern presidential cabinet appointments, reflects the continuing effects of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which loosened campaign finance restrictions and was a major reason for the record spending by outside groups in the 2012 election. All told, these independent and largely secretly financed groups spent well over $500 million in an attempt to defeat Mr. Obama and the Democrats, a failure that seemed all the greater given the huge amounts spent.

While the campaign against Mr. Hagel, a Republican, is not expected to cost more than a few million dollars, it suggests that the operatives running the independent groups and the donors that finance them — many of whom are millionaires and billionaires with ideological drive and business agendas that did not go away after the election — are ready to fight again.

-snip-



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/us/politics/secret-donors-finance-fight-against-hagel.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

25 replies, 3427 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 25 replies Author Time Post
Reply Secret Donors Finance Fight Against Hagel (Original post)
DonViejo Jan 2013 OP
cantbeserious Jan 2013 #1
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #2
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #3
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #4
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #5
awoke_in_2003 Jan 2013 #23
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #24
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #7
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #8
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #9
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #12
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #13
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #15
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #16
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #6
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #10
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #11
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #14
tarheelsunc Jan 2013 #17
bemildred Jan 2013 #20
Joey Liberal Jan 2013 #18
geek tragedy Jan 2013 #19
Ian Iam Jan 2013 #21
okaawhatever Jan 2013 #22
davidpdx Jan 2013 #25

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:26 AM

1. Citizens United The Gift That Keeps On Giving

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:05 AM

2. Do they include the address where one can send donations?

There are some at DU who would eagerly contribute...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:34 AM

3. He slandered my community, he voted for every war he was asked to vote for, and he's Republican

I think if you support those things, fine, but I just don't support Republicans ever, nor those who voted for the Iraq War Resolution because they made the worst decision of my lifetime, nor those who spent years spouting right wing hate against any minority group. Those who are fine endorsing all of those things should do so. I am a Democrat, I opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq, I am pro choice and I'm gay. Hagel said being gay is an inhibiting factor to doing one's job. That sort of crap is ok with many of DU's 'moderate centrists' and others but it is not alright with me. Sorry if it bugs you that I don't support Republicans for high office. Do you guys have a list of others in the Party of Legitimate Rape that you might want to support in the future? Maybe we should just post that now so we don't criticize too harshly any Republicans that the centrists wish to elevate to high office in future....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:41 AM

4. I do not trust him, and I tend to believe that his previous radical stances have not changed.

I do, however, find it quite curious that some conservative groups hate him. They also seem better organized than we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:06 AM

5. I also don't trust the consevative groups. Many here seem to say 'if those groups are against him

then I am for him'. And that is one great reason for right wing groups to claim opposition to their own man. Do they hate him? Or are they sounding that way to increase Democratic support for a Republican who is anti choice and has been anti gay in every vote, every word he has spoken on the subject. The support he gets in spite of his attacks on Hormel looks strange considering the folks supporting him were at one time very opposed to anyone who voted for IWR and they went nuts about McCain attacking Susan Rice, a possible nominee, while they dismiss Hagel's far more extreme and bigoted attack on Hormel who was just another Democratic nominee. If what McCain did was wrong, and it was, then what Hagel did was wrong, and it was. But many on Du who rightly snarled at McCain's veiled racism toward Rice are perfectly find with Hagels clearly spoken bigotry toward Hormel. This defines the Hagel supporters. Big fun can be had searching those who rationalize Hagel's Iraq War vote to find what they said about Hillary's identical vote. Some called her a war monger, and they call him 'anti war'. So Hillary voting for the war, bad, Hagel voting for the war makes him Gandhi. McCain attacking nominees unfairly is bad, Hagel doing the same with the addition of wildly hateful language, and he's 'a peacemaker who supports equal rights!'.
He's a Republican, anti choice and with a long, ugly record of attacks on minority members. Those who are alright with those things should support him. But they should not try to pretend he is not a Republican, not anti choice and that he does not have a long history of bigoted hate speech. Because he is, he is and he does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:17 PM

23. They don't hate Hagel...

they will be against anyone Obama nominates. If he brought back Rumsfeldnthey would be against him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #23)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:34 PM

24. ...and spend a few million bucks campaigning against him?

yikes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:35 AM

7. Actually, Josh Marshall had the whole interview from 15 years ago and said Hagel did not think

being gay disqualified Hormel. He just really, really didn't like Hormel for various reasons. And Hagel has promised to Barbara Boxer to do his utmost to extend dependent benefits to the families of LGBT service members. Just to set the record straight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:48 AM

8. Hagel's words were "And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay

- openly, aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel - to do an effective job."
That sets the record straight.Very straight, very straight indeed, certainly not gay to say such a thing.
Hagel says it is an inhibiting factor to be openly gay, which is the reason he did not like Hormel, you say 'for various reasons' and yet Hagel lists the reasons, he's gay, he's open about it and Hagel thinks that being out of the closet is 'aggressive'.
Obviously he did not like Hormel, and he was very clear about why that is. Openly gay. Inhibiting factor. The man's words are the man's words, which he spoke with professional intention to the press.
As I said in my post, those who support Republicans who say hateful things about gay people when they are not opposing choice or voting for illegal wars should most certainly support their own guy, Hagel. I am a Democrat, gay, pro choice and opposed to invading nations for sport, so I oppose him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:54 AM

9. Right--that's the only quote of the interview they released. The rest of interview (and context)

were hidden. Marshall said that Hagel said that being gay in and of itself was not a disqualifier. The whole anti-gay thing was trumped up to get Dem Senators a cover reason to vote against him. Fortunately most of the Senate Dems aren't that stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:04 AM

12. Where is a link to this quote you are claiming exists?

"And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay - openly, aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel - to do an effective job."
Note in the actual words of Hagel, he clearly say to be openly gay like Hormel is an inhibiting factor to doing a good job. He does not say 'Hormel has issues' he says 'It is an inhibiting factor to be gay, openly gay like Hormel'. I'm openly gay like Hormel, and clearly he's saying what he is saying.
" And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay - openly, aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel - to do an effective job." Note this states clearly that Hagel says being gay is an inhibiting factor to doing an effective job. He cites 'gay' as reason to believe Hormel will not be good at the job.
Twist, turn, and spin for the Republican, he is what he is, his voting record is what it is, and he said what he said. "And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay - openly, aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel - to do an effective job."

I know it is hard to support such horrid folks, but that's your choice.
"And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay - openly, aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel - to do an effective job."
Does that mean Hormel is 'too uppity' and there are 'good ones' that he'd not hate on? He says being openly gay is an inhibiting factor to job performance. Those who don't mind that should support him as I said in my first post in this thread.
I see no possible context in which such a thing is acceptable political speech. 'Oh, he's openly gay, does not have the decency to remain closeted'.
It is an extremely bigoted statement, and the rationalizations are just as bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:15 AM

13. TPM had it a few weeks ago, someone posted it here in LBN. Look it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:22 AM

15. Ah, you made the claim, you look it up. I quoted Hagel, you quoted nothing.

You came to this thread to 'set things straight' (choice of words, amusing) using characterizations of things you claim to have read. You need to either back up your claims or just don't make them. It is not my job to make your arguments for you, if it were, you'd have better arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:39 AM

16. You participated in that thread. Here is the pertinent quote:

"TPM points out, though, that Hagel said being gay was not a disqualification on its own. Instead, Hagel took issue with the tape, with his record of donations, and Hagel claimed the controversy whipped up by the likes of Hutchinson had cast "a cloud of controversy" that would be "unfair to our country, it’s unfair to the host country and it’s unfair to the ambassador because the effectiveness of that individual is going to be seriously curtailed."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014362478

And here, for good measure:

"I fully support the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 and value the service of all those who fight for our country," the former Republican senator from Nebraska wrote in a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). "I know firsthand the profound sacrifice our service members and their families make, and if confirmed as Secretary of Defense, I will do everything possible to the extent permissible under current law to provide equal benefits to the families of all our service members."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/chuck-hagel-benefits_n_2479955.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:27 AM

6. Pro-Israel and defense industry groups got Koch/Adelson to put up the money.

Use Your Mandate is a front group. All of these are front groups for various interests who are afraid he will reduce the Pentagon's budget and persuade Obama not to attack Iran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:54 AM

10. But Hagel voted for all of Bush's wars, so this 'he's anti war' crap is just that, crap.

When he had a finger on the button, he voted to drop the bombs on Iraq. You see that as anti war, I see that as making war, making stupid, pointless and illegal war.
23 Senators voted against invading Iraq. Hagel said 'Let's drop lots of bombs, right now, even though we are not sure!'. And that is what you see as reason to put him in charge? Like promoting Michael Vick for dog catcher...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:57 AM

11. I can see that John Kerry as SoS is also unacceptable to you. Hagel has never been anti-war, he is

not a dove or a peacenik.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:19 AM

14. I'd not select anyone to head defense that thought Iraq was a good idea.

And no, I am not a fan of offering rewards to those who fuck things up so deeply. Kerry at Defense would be a bad choice, as Sec of State he'd not be my choice that's for dang sure.
Kerry is also not a Republican, he is an active legislative and actual supporter of equality, he has a record to prove that and he is not an anti choice right to life loon. So there are good things about Kerry that do not apply to Hagel.
I see no positives in the Hagel thing at all. Anti choice, anti gay, Republican supporter of the Iraq war.
" And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay - openly, aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel - to do an effective job." Chuck Hagel, Republican Pro Life Iraq War Yes Voter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:28 PM

17. Obama nominates a Republican, and suddenly Republicans care about gay rights?

They'll seriously do anything to screw over this President. He nominates Democrats, and he's "not being bipartisan." He nominates Republicans, and they say "well we don't like his positions." He can't win with these goons, so he should just nominate the most liberal candidates he can find.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tarheelsunc (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:10 PM

20. Awesome "logic", isn't it? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:38 PM

18. Hagel's own party has turned on him

He's a Vietnam vet, but we know after what they did to Kerry what they really think about Vietnam vets.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:48 PM

19. Use Your Mandate is classic pink washing by Team Neocon.

There are GLBTQ activists and citizens on the left who oppose Hagel, but Use Your Mandate ain't comprised of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:01 PM

21. AIPAC?

 

I wouldn't be surprised!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:29 PM

22. Many backed the Iraq war early on, before they knew how dishonest the assessments were. One

key thing with Hagel is that he was one of it's earliest and most vocal critics. He sided with the democrats and one or two other republicans against Pres. Bush. It was a time when those opposing it were being labeled as anti-American and not supporting our troops, the death knell of a political career:

A fellow Vietnam veteran, GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, disagreed with McCain's assessment. Hagel said the resolution would make clear the Senate's belief that Bush's policy is misguided We can't change the outcome of Iraq by putting American troops in the middle of a civil war," said Hagel, who is considering a run for the White House in 2008. When McCain offered a counter-proposal that was supposed to outline goals for the war but also guarantee funding, He called McCain's proposal meaningless because it offers benchmarks but does not spell out what the U.S. government will do if the Iraqi officials fail to meet them.
"What are the consequences? Are we then going to pull out?" Hagel asked. "Are we going to cut funding? Now, that falls more in the intellectually dishonest category."
Hagel had to go up against Bush, McCain, Lindsey Graham and Richard Lugar. All the GOP heavyweights.
Hagel also endorsed Obama, effectively alienating those in his party. He did what he thought was right. I don't think Obama is compromising so much with Hagel being a Republican since clearly they held similar views when it came to defense.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16988301/ns/politics/t/mccain-war-detractors-offer-no-ideas/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 06:48 AM

25. The seven-headed monster

there is a good chance all of these groups are conservative and being funded by people who support the military industrial complex. It wouldn't have mattered who Obama nominated, the Republicans are going to try to side-swipe some of his nominees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread