HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Why Chuck Hagel terrifies...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:52 PM

Why Chuck Hagel terrifies hawks, GOP

Here’s a rule of thumb for understanding Washington politics: On the rare occasion when everything including the kitchen sink gets thrown at a cabinet nominee to block an appointment, there’s a solid chance that the opposition is not merely about the collage of negative headlines. Instead, it’s more likely that the opposition is motivated by a deeper belief that the nominee fundamentally threatens the Beltway’s Permanent Bipartisan Power Structure™. That is particularly the case when a nominee is seen as a threat to the lucrative business of permanent war — a business whose profit margins, employment footprint across America, campaign contributions and think-tank underwriting make it, by far, the most powerful pillar of that power structure. This, no doubt, is a good way to understand what is almost certainly fueling much of the opposition to the nomination of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel as the next secretary of defense.

.......

Specifically, at the very moment that the defense industry’s army of lobbyists is already in a full-on panic about mild sequestration cuts to the Pentagon, Hagel is viewed by the defense-coddling D.C. establishment as a threat to defense spending — thanks to two previously little-noticed comments he made in 2011. In an interview that year with the Financial Times about a defense budget that is bigger than most of the rest of the world’s combined (and one which can’t account for $2 trillion), he dared to say that said budget “has been bloated” and “needs to be pared down.” In a separate speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, he said the “Defense Department budget (is) not a jobs program — it’s not an economic development program for my state or any district.”

As U.S. News and World Report points out, these statements track recent public opinion polling data showing far more Americans believe we spend too much on the military rather than too little. Yet, as mainstream as Hagel’s comments are in America at large, they are considered radical in a Washington where the same Republican senators who decry the deficit cite the prospect of any defense spending cuts (“sequestration”) as a major reason to avoid a long-term bipartisan budget deal.

This is why, if you listen closely, you can hear defense spending as a common theme bubbling beneath much of the diffuse noise against Hagel’s nomination. For example, after reeling off the now-standard talking points about Hagel being weak and “naive,” Texas Sen. John Cornyn (who has raked in a whopping $355,026 from the defense industry) let slip that one of his big concerns is that Hagel purportedly “believes the Defense Department can sustain the sort of draconian cuts contained in sequestration.” Likewise, in a Wall Street Journal column, Republican Rep. Tom Cotton concluded a tirade against Hagel by slamming him for “seem(ing) willing to accept devastating cuts to defense spending.” Meanwhile, the Washington Post editorial board, a longtime stalwart supporter of more defense spending, cited Hagel’s willingness to discuss the Pentagon’s bloated budget as (not coincidentally) the very first reason to oppose his nomination.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/why_chuck_hagel_terrifies_hawks_gop/

13 replies, 1649 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 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Chuck Hagel terrifies hawks, GOP (Original post)
Redfairen Jan 2013 OP
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #1
Cary Jan 2013 #2
NewJeffCT Jan 2013 #3
NightOwwl Jan 2013 #4
pansypoo53219 Jan 2013 #5
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #6
Inuca Jan 2013 #8
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #9
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #10
xxxsdesdexxx Jan 2013 #7
Juliana_James Jan 2013 #11
Agschmid Jan 2013 #12
bemildred Jan 2013 #13

Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:03 PM

1. The core opposition, as it usually is, is because of $$$.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:15 PM

2. It's really difficult to figure what "conservatives" are about these days.

They are in such a disarray.

I get what the author is saying here but it seems to me to just be one facet of a more complex and seriously dysfunctional structure that is "conservatism" today. The Republican Party is the tail of that dysfunctional structure.

They got some small positive reinforcement from forcing Rice to withdraw with their noise. Something they did actually worked. Perhaps the Chuck Hagel thing here is really nothing more than their attempt to duplicate that small success?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:30 PM

3. Defense should not be a jobs program

but, unfortunately, it is a huge jobs program, not only here in the US, but overseas as well. It was a huge issue just to cut a spare engine the Pentagon didn't want from the F-35 program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:51 PM

4. He told the truth about the defense budget.

Truth terrifies the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:07 PM

5. CHICKENHAWKS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:15 PM

6. And yet he always voted 'Yes' for Wars, Iraq included and always fully funded those wars.

There is no actual action on Hagel's part that is different from the rest of the Republicans. He said some stuff, but he did not oppose Bush's wars until 2005 even with words. The Republicans know they need to raise a fuss so one of their own can get in again. If they look pleased, then Democrats would stop defending Hagel's anti gay and anti choice record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:37 PM

8. Not true n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Inuca (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:21 PM

9. It most certainly is true. Hagel voted for the Iraq war just like the rest of them. He opined that

perhaps it was not a great idea, then voted for it just like the rest of the Republicans. Votes count, staking out both ends of opinion prior to always voting for war is just voting for war with icing on top.
Sorry the facts don't sit well with you. But he voted for the war just like the Republican he is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Inuca (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:28 PM

10. Here's the full roll call vote on the Iraq War Resolution. One Republican, Lincoln Chafee voted no.

Hagel voted Yes, Sir, Mr Bush Sir! I set his name apart from the other Republicans so's you won't has to strain the eyeballs to see the truth:

Democrats Yes

Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Breaux, La.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carnahan, Mo.; Carper, Del.; Cleland, Ga.; Clinton, N.Y.; Daschle, S.D.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Edwards, N.C.; Feinstein, Calif.; Harkin, Iowa; Hollings, S.C.; Johnson, S.D.; Kerry, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Miller, Ga.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Schumer, N.Y.; Torricelli, N.J.

Democrats No

Akaka, Hawaii; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif; Byrd, W.Va.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Dayton, Minn.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis; Graham, Fla.; Inouye, Hawaii; Kennedy, Mass.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Reed, R.I.; Sarbanes, Md.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wellstone, Minn.; Wyden, Ore.

Republicans Yes

Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Burns, Mont.; Campbell, Colo.; Cochran, Miss.; Collins, Maine; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; DeWine, Ohio; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Enzi, Wyo.; Fitzgerald, Ill.; Frist, Tenn.; Gramm, Texas; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.;
Hagel, Neb.;
Hatch, Utah; Helms, N.C.; Hutchinson, Ark.; Hutchison, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Nickles, Okla.; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, N.H.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Thomas, Wyo.; Thompson, Tenn.; Thurmond, S.C.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.

Republicans No

Chafee, R.I.;

Others No

Jeffords, Vt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:23 PM

7. I support Hagel's nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:31 PM

11. The POTUS' Cabinet...

Republican or Democrat, the president's cabinet should be his to choose, except in the rarest of instances, (can you say Bork?)

The Hagel appointment is a smart one. President Obama had a good list of all the pros in his announcement this afternoon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juliana_James (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:54 PM

12. Welcome to DU!

While I wish that he could have nominated someone more liberal, I understand a respect his choice and I will support it as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:55 PM

13. It's all about the money, the Pentagon money. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread