Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
12. I should have made my point more explicit
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:05 AM
Jan 2013

I was just trying to point out that we probably shouldn't judge anyone by their positions on a single issue, and also to suggest that people evolve on issues over time. And also that politicians (especially Republicans) often have to vote with their party. Once they're out of their party, we may be surprised to find they're not so doctrinaire as their voting records might seem.

Most important, however, is that I don't think much of this is all that relevant. Whether Chuck Hagel is personally opposed to abortion or not, he will not be making policy all by himself on this issue for the military. Believe me, the positions will be the president's positions, and Hagel will execute them. And open service for gays and lesbians is now the law of the land. Hagel has already said he now supports this, and even if he didn't, he would have to respect it.

There are specific things that Hagel is apparently good at. One of them will be cutting the military's budget; another will be advocating for a policy of war as a last resort. Those are important things. I think we've totally lost perspective on the idea, which used to be very prevalent, that a president should be allowed to have his choice of cabinet members unless the person is unqualified to do the job (ask Russ Feingold, who voted for John Ashcroft on this basis; and even though it made me mad at the time, I understand his stand on this better now. It's sort of like the debt-ceiling issue: Congress approves spending, then wants to not pay the bills for the stuff they already approved. We elected a president and then don't want to let him have his choice of advisors.)

Like it or not, we elected Obama as our president. He seems to have a great amount of trust in both Hagel and Brennan, and is close to them. Now both right and left are saying he shouldn't be allowed to have the people he trusts execute his policies, because they don't like this or that about them. This already scotched Susan Rice. I don't like this kind of pre-emptive judgment.

What's Gates' position? TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #1
Don't know but he seemed to follow the Presidents lead still_one Jan 2013 #3
Gates wasn't a legislator, so no one really knows. The point is, it doesn't matter. TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #5
Actually what Rachel brought up was the Army has their own set of rules as evidenced by the tail still_one Jan 2013 #8
In the case of something that affects all military personnel, stuff like that TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #13
example rachal used was that preventing military hospitals from performing abortions. Is that up to still_one Jan 2013 #16
I would think so. I can't imagine a decision like that coming from TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #20
Tailhook was NAVY. ABERDEEN was Army. It all percolated up to DOD. There are a number of DOD MADem Jan 2013 #15
Who controls what medical procedures, like abortions, military hospitals perform? still_one Jan 2013 #17
CONGRESS. MADem Jan 2013 #19
ok, thanks for the information still_one Jan 2013 #21
If there's money involved, or law, it's all down to Congress. MADem Jan 2013 #22
Bingo. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #27
Great point. n/t godai Jan 2013 #29
Dennis Kucinich used to have those same positions frazzled Jan 2013 #2
I am not sure if Kucinich even opposed it in case of rape, and I don't think he ever had issues with still_one Jan 2013 #4
He used to be very anti-abortion Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #9
I should have made my point more explicit frazzled Jan 2013 #12
Kucinich used to be a RABID pro-lifer, until it didn't play well nationally. MADem Jan 2013 #14
I know when someone mentions Chuck Hagel Capt. Obvious Jan 2013 #30
O.... K..... defacto7 Jan 2013 #6
Rachel's point was that it would be interesting still_one Jan 2013 #10
Rachel's just trying to stir the pot Cali_Democrat Jan 2013 #24
And she is right. bemildred Jan 2013 #28
Let's get him in front of a Senate Committee and let him answer. People do change. nt MADem Jan 2013 #7
I am not arguing for or against, but it does make it worth paying attention to see exactly what the still_one Jan 2013 #11
And that was exactly Rachel's point - she said she can't wait for the confirmation hearings! bullwinkle428 Jan 2013 #31
how does abortion relate to his Secretary of Defense job? BainsBane Jan 2013 #18
this worries me, too. Who knows if he's evolved on abortion rights even tho he CTyankee Jan 2013 #23
Please read this statement from the executive director of the Service Women's Action Network. Heidi Jan 2013 #25
Hagel can't shift Congress if they don't want to be shifted, and that's just the truth. MADem Jan 2013 #34
Rachel discussed exactly how this relates. She brought up a brand-new policy implemented bullwinkle428 Jan 2013 #32
They still aren't covered in most instances...and that's Congress's fault, not Obama's. MADem Jan 2013 #35
Actually that was not the flast time but Inuca Jan 2013 #36
I agree with you.If this was before reelection he wouldn't have picked him. SummerSnow Jan 2013 #26
Let's just hope that President Obama "had a word" with Hagel on this issue CTyankee Jan 2013 #33
Hagel isn't the decider on this matter. Congress is. MADem Jan 2013 #37
I know that it is. My concern was that Hagel could have some latitude CTyankee Jan 2013 #38
I've never known a SECDEF (and I have known a few of them down the years) who MADem Jan 2013 #39
I think you nailed it, brother pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #40
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Rachel discussed hagel's ...»Reply #12