Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Chuck Hagel on the issues

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:35 AM
Original message
Chuck Hagel on the issues
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

ABORTION:
Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted 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)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
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)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance (190 members). (Dec 2006)

CIVIL RIGHTS
Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Issue a commemorative postage stamp of Rosa Parks. (Dec 2005)
Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 11% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

CRIME:
Click here for 5 full quotes on Crime OR background on Crime.
Prosecute most dangerous crimes with full range of options. (Nov 2002)
Voted NO on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)
Rated 50% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation. (Dec 2000)
Rated 75% by the NCJA, indicating a mixed record on criminal justice. (Dec 2005)

ENERGY:
Click here for 18 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR background on Energy & Oil.
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted NO on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)

ENVIRONMENT:
Click here for 8 full quotes on Environment OR background on Environment.
Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land. (Dec 2007)
Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Voted YES on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
Voted YES on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. OBAMA HAGEL 2008
This is the point you are trying to make, no? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Actually I'm hoping we just resurrect Ronald Reagan and make him VP
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rAVES Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. its post modern progressivism!!1
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trashcanistanista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
3. I admire his tenacity on Iraq and his courage to stand against
his own party on THAT ONE ISSUE, and slamming Betray-us, he has gotten fame for that, and he is a nice looking guy. But yeah, he is a HARD CORE repub and outside of a general lobotomy, has no place in our party or in the Obama administration. I think Obama got more out of him than he will get out of Obama in selecting him to accompany him overseas. This is an excellent reminder for anyone who thinks otherwise and I thank you for posting. It will, hopefully, put a dampner on the Obama/Hagel threads that frequently crop up on the site. K&R. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I think there could be a place for Hagel in the administration
It's normal for the president to select a few members of the other party to be a part of the administration and Hagel could clearly be a part of it provide it's an issue where he agrees with our party line and not one of the many he disagrees with
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. yep, defense, veterans affairs, etc. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
4. But he's post-partisan, right?
If Obama says so, then it must be so. /sarcasm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sensitivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
7. Is this part of well funded lobby AGAINST OUR NOMINEE'S right to choose his team????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. More like Democrats speaking up
The voters have a right to not vote for the opposition Party, you know. Many of us will not. The promotion of Republican hard core right wingers on this site is repulsive to many of us. The world is round, get over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trashcanistanista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Amen.
"repulsive". Exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sensitivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
10. I hope you realize that the voting record means SQUAT! It says who you caucus with. SHOCK, HES REP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GihrenZabi Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
11. To play Devil's Advocate...
We live in a Republic, right?

Not a Democracy.

You can call it a "Democratic Republic" if you like, but in the end our elected officials are meant to represent the constituencies who elect them.

So go through this list of votes and ask yourself...is Chuck Hagel voting for what Chuck Hagel wants, or is he voting for what his constituents want?

There's a double-standard being applied here. The majority of Obama's hardcore base wanted him to filibuster FISA, but he didn't because he was playing politics - the majority of Americans haven't raised the alarm over FISA, therefore it wasn't worth him ringing the alarm bell.

So Obama didn't vote for what Obama wanted, but for what the new constituency - Americans at large - seemed to want and support.

People let Obama off the hook for this.

There's also a KEY piece of information missing from that list of Hagel's votes - what happened to the legislation. If you're going to look at vote records, then you need to account for procedural votes, votes that are largely symbolic in meaning, etc.

For example:


Prohibiting U.S. Assistance for Groups that Support Coercive Abortion - S Amdt 2707 - Vote to adopt an amendment that would prohibit Federal funds from being distributed to organizations that support the practices of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. No Vote from Senator Obama.

Funding Amendment to AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Bill - S Amdt 5077 - Would have taken $15 million away from the appropriations to fight these diseases. No Vote from Senator Obama.

FISA Amendments Act of 2007 - Vote to pass a bill that expands the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including allowing electronic surveillance of foreigners outside the U.S. without a court order and granting immunity to electronic communication surveillance providers. - No Vote from Senator Obama

Iraq Withdrawal Amendment - S Amdt 3875 - Vote to adopt an amendment to an amendment to re-deploy troops in Iraq within 90 days, with the exception of those troops needed for temporary purposes to conduct targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, to provide security for U.S. government personnel, to provide training to members of the Iraqi Security Forces who have not been involved in attacks against the U.S. Armed Forces, or to provide training and equipment to members of the U.S. Armed Forces to maintain and improve their safety and security. No Vote from Senator Obama

Energy Tax Credits Amendment - S Amdt 4419 to S Amdt 4387 to HR 3221 - Vote to adopt an amendment that modifies and extends certain tax credits and deductions for renewable energy development. No Vote from Senator Obama.



Boy, if you didn't know how those votes actually turned out, some of this should raise some eyebrows, shouldn't it?


I'm no fan of Chuck Hagel, though I think the idea of this sort of bipartisanship is just the sort of inter-party cooperation this country has utterly lacked for 16 years, but I AM a fan of logical consistency.

Go back through that list and tell me how all those votes wound up. The only ones I'm really concerned about are the ones where Chuck's vote actually made a difference in terms of whether the legislation passed or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeFleur1 Donating Member (973 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Voting
If a representative is so far removed from his constituency that he must vote against his conscience time and time again he should not be representing the people of that district.

It would be a bit like putting a racist on the ticket to get more votes from the Klan. Please. Hagel's stand on Iraq and his support of the troops is to be lauded but that does not let him off the hook on other important issues that confront America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 23rd 2014, 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC