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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

MotherPetrie

(3,145 posts)
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:21 AM Nov 2012

Well, fuck me. I thought I was on a DEMOCRATIC forum.

But I've just been reading post after post lauding Chuck Hagel of all people.

Lots of DEMOCRATS here on this board would be perfectly fine with President Obama nominating this very conservative REPUBLICAN with his very conservative (i.e. PRO-war, PRO-Wall Street, ANTI-female reproductive rights) voting record to the very influential and visible position of SECRETARY OF STATE.

Going on record in my own thread to state my total opposition to Chuck Hagel being part of the Obama Administration in any way.

I HOPE this is only a rumor. If it isn't, it's just another slap in the face from the president to his base who are NOT Repubicans and expect him to have a Democratic cabinet!



304 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Well, fuck me. I thought I was on a DEMOCRATIC forum. (Original Post) MotherPetrie Nov 2012 OP
Well, you're on record. Not that anyone gives a shit. Someone has to stop this.... Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #1
No, I am not a good Repubican who blindly approves everything "mypresident" does. MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #7
Oh, I'm sure you don't "blindly approve of everything 'my president' does". Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #12
As a woman- that will be a bad move LukeFL Nov 2012 #57
Chuck Hagel donnasgirl Nov 2012 #217
I'll stop the "partisan bullshit" when the Republicans stop being the party of bullshit Scootaloo Nov 2012 #9
So you agree that Dems should only work with Dems, and vice versa? Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #10
That's not what he said or what I said. "WORKING WITH" is not the same thing as NOMINATING To MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #13
Well apparently McCain, Graham, and Collins all agree with you. They want JK. Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #15
They only want JK so Scott Brown can run for his Senate seat. n/t intheflow Nov 2012 #51
Every one 0of them has made positive statements about Kerry as a person and as karynnj Nov 2012 #127
And how honest have they been in their dealings with Rice. daleanime Nov 2012 #215
Where were all these republicans when Kerry was getting swift-boated? Seedersandleechers Nov 2012 #224
I believe the strategy is called "being kicked upstairs." savannah43 Nov 2012 #268
No, they want senator Brown back. quakerboy Nov 2012 #56
blueorchid blueorchid Nov 2012 #254
Welcome to DU! Can't the legislature just change the law again and make the seat a governors appoint hrmjustin Nov 2012 #256
You're kidding right? zentrum Nov 2012 #62
No they don't... Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #157
Yeah, Republicans just fucking love John Kerry Fumesucker Nov 2012 #180
Thanks for posting that. GOP were handing out those goddam stickers and McCain and AlinPA Nov 2012 #245
Clueless and tone deaf to how republicans lie. Jakes Progress Nov 2012 #241
It is not a "reward" jberryhill Nov 2012 #19
Of course it is a reward. MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #28
No, these are very important jobs... jberryhill Nov 2012 #42
They are both rewards and important positions. Laurian Nov 2012 #247
I totally agree with you. The SOS in a Democratic Administration should be a Democrat. sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #25
Obama has not said the vetting is for SoS. It could be for Director of CIA. Tx4obama Nov 2012 #32
I'm going to wade in here and hope I survive with my head intact... ReRe Nov 2012 #72
I agree. If not Director of CIA, then Sec of Defense. But NOT Sec of State. Tx4obama Nov 2012 #74
Well, if we can femrap Nov 2012 #227
OF COURSE! robinlynne Nov 2012 #175
I once read some one describing the two parties as "one shirt, two pockets." savannah43 Nov 2012 #269
How about Republicans work WITH DEMOCRATS. Notice how the person you responded sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #47
Wish I could rec this post, Sabrina! I'll simply say a hearty & vociferous +1!!! n/t tpsbmam Nov 2012 #290
I agree with you LukeFL Nov 2012 #60
I think that Dems should not work with people who have a policy of fucking America over Scootaloo Nov 2012 #24
I think Dems should fucking destroy the repukes. We won the election, time to shut morningfog Nov 2012 #148
Have we entered some alternate universe ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #164
Thank You! Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #168
The operative word is the 'talented player', the 'accomplished employee'. Cleita Nov 2012 #249
Okay ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #255
Like I said this worked fifty years ago, but things started getting polarized Cleita Nov 2012 #262
In my experience, the arrogant brash employee will work toward the boss' goals ONLY... Hassin Bin Sober Nov 2012 #260
Republicans get what they want by stnading firm and being partisan assholes. They are not going robinlynne Nov 2012 #173
You can't be nice to these people? butterfly77 Nov 2012 #237
It wouldn't hurt for the Dems and the president to tell..... Hotler Nov 2012 #221
In this day and age, I agree that Dems should only work with Dems. Cleita Nov 2012 #248
Well put. Magoo48 Nov 2012 #132
The poster didn't say what you wrote. The concern was about a republican former Senator who bluestate10 Nov 2012 #27
I have absolutely no qualms about Wesley Clark working in this administration. Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #43
You're naive LukeFL Nov 2012 #63
You're calling the President "naive"? Yeah, I Cha Nov 2012 #70
Call it naive... sendero Nov 2012 #114
The President has his way of doing things.. and it's not Cha Nov 2012 #252
What it generally has been. sendero Nov 2012 #261
No, he's not. The gops made a pact to obstruct the night Obama was Cha Nov 2012 #265
Prove it. You're the one making the empty assertion. The naive charge here is well founded. ancianita Nov 2012 #291
Or, it could be that Obama is continuously showing how the GOP is only savannah43 Nov 2012 #272
That would be a good theory.... sendero Nov 2012 #282
oh the deep deep irony!!! your post is fabulously dripping deliciously ironic! BOFFO!!! graham4anything Nov 2012 #85
It would be nice for you to explain what the hell you are talking about. nt bluestate10 Nov 2012 #167
Wesley Clark great as he is thought to be VOTED FOR REAGAN AND NIXON graham4anything Nov 2012 #198
Shorn of all the sturm und drang . . . MrModerate Nov 2012 #40
Please understand this: I am not advocating for Chuck Hagel. I just don't agree... Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #46
So you say Republicans are as honorable as Democrats? Did you miss the election? Bluenorthwest Nov 2012 #110
They were doing everything in their power Generic Other Nov 2012 #141
totally agree Euphoria Nov 2012 #160
This is something that has become more than obvious sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #212
Ray LaHood has been an outstanding Secretary of Transportation who has called Republicans out on Liberal_Stalwart71 Nov 2012 #233
Agreed that not all Republicans are insane statistically alone, that's unlikely . . . MrModerate Nov 2012 #263
Really? Like Romney would have LukeFL Nov 2012 #55
I think Hagel is a balloon.... ReRe Nov 2012 #73
I hope we don't make decisions based on what 'they' would or wouldn't do duhneece Nov 2012 #116
You could and should have made a valid point in a more civil manner. Jim Lane Nov 2012 #88
Well bubba, we are all going to die in any case. You have yet to give any cogent reason whatsoever Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #90
we dont need to stop this 'partisan bullshit' as you call it bowens43 Nov 2012 #96
Yah, lets make the House completely irrelevant. nt Flatulo Nov 2012 #297
Straw Man Argument NWHarkness Nov 2012 #109
LOL, gullible much? Logical Nov 2012 #122
Let the Repukes stop the "partisan bullshit" Doctor_J Nov 2012 #135
You are naive and delusional to think the partisanship is anywhere near morningfog Nov 2012 #146
You are very wrong. Partisan bullshit will continue on the part of the GOp nomatter what we do. It i robinlynne Nov 2012 #172
Putting a weasel in the henhouse is definitely not going to help stop the killing. Zorra Nov 2012 #211
You're femrap Nov 2012 #225
Gee, by that standard, why not Mutt Romney? stupidicus Nov 2012 #229
Get over yourself, no-ones gonna die if Kucinich is on the cabinet instead. Unreal. grahamhgreen Nov 2012 #285
!!! thems fightin woids! PUT EM UP!11!! dionysus Nov 2012 #301
This belongs in META cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #2
Hunh? A strongly worded disagreement with centrist tacking by the administration belongs coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #77
Hunh? If the OP cannot make a point without whining about DU then it is META cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #184
Oh, I got you. Sorry I over-reacted. I guess I didn't tune in initially to the criticism of DUers coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #190
Well, for one, Chuck Hagel would not be able to vote on anything as the SOS WCGreen Nov 2012 #3
No - Hagel and his right-wing record would just represent the U.S. world-wide. He would be face of MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #5
Do you really think that the across the globe uber popular president Obama WCGreen Nov 2012 #20
His past voting record is completely at odds with Obama's. It sure could be used as ammunition. MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #26
It is a totally different job. WCGreen Nov 2012 #41
Hagel most likely is being vetted for Director of CIA, not Sec of State. Tx4obama Nov 2012 #44
Duh alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #91
Well that last Republican CIA director was certainly a tower of propriety and ethics! Bluenorthwest Nov 2012 #111
Do you really view these things only in terms of making things easy for one person? sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #22
It's a way to show the people who are not hyper-partisan that Obama is willing WCGreen Nov 2012 #292
Why are Democrats always 'reaching out'? Towards the Right? We are always leaning over to sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #295
I got nothing more... WCGreen Nov 2012 #296
"Also, he serves at the beck and call of the President and not the republican party." savannah43 Nov 2012 #273
Any member of the cabinet serves at the whim of the president.... WCGreen Nov 2012 #293
No more of these Repukes! DearHeart Nov 2012 #4
Thank you. MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #6
Didn't Hillary vote for all the stuff you laid out there? Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #17
She's a -- you know -- DEMOCRAT! She may not have a perfect voting record - MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #23
Doesn't answer my question. The poster itemized some issues he had a problem with.... Tarheel_Dem Nov 2012 #34
Being a REPUBLICAN is a disqualifier. If that isn't obvious to you, I wonder why you're on DU. MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #193
Yes she did which is why I never supported her and would never support her for sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #213
Yes she did and I don't like her being the SOS. DearHeart Nov 2012 #80
absolutely. elections SHOULD have consequences. bowens43 Nov 2012 #97
I vote for Bill Clinton Angry Dragon Nov 2012 #8
Bill Clinton? freetrucker53 Dec 2012 #304
Won't sex ya, but I totally agree. Tutonic Nov 2012 #11
I've been amazed over the last 4 years at how much Obama gets a pass from DUers. begin_within Nov 2012 #14
Me too? SammyWinstonJack Nov 2012 #118
You're absolutely right. We elect Democrats in order to get rid of Republicans. sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #16
K&R! Holeee shit, I just visitied the link someone posted upthead! Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #18
Who's next? Art_from_Ark Nov 2012 #29
We must learn to be tolerant of other people's beliefs MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #37
Particularly PRO Corporate Beliefs... Iggy Nov 2012 #102
Tolerance is a good start, but to really understand our potential allies on the far right Dragonfli Nov 2012 #120
That was tried by the appeasers in term 1 Doctor_J Nov 2012 #137
Most serious pragmatic adults realize that the mistake was we did not go far enough right! Dragonfli Nov 2012 #203
Where's Dr Fate? OnyxCollie Nov 2012 #220
Likely erecting a shrine to honor his prophet WILL MARSHALL Dragonfli Nov 2012 #234
Thanks for the humor, irony, sarcasm...Dragonfli and Manny Goldstein... KoKo Nov 2012 #151
lols...thanks for this. KoKo Nov 2012 #152
Chuck Hagel is already part of the Obama Administration. Tx4obama Nov 2012 #38
yeah, some of us did progressoid Nov 2012 #156
Wow...and he's supposed to be a moderate republican???? n/t bluethruandthru Nov 2012 #231
I could live with him at defense, I think he actually could be good at CIA dsc Nov 2012 #21
Chuck Hagel is ALREADY PART OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTATION. Tx4obama Nov 2012 #30
No, I'll leave my post right here, thank you very much. Oh - MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #31
We need healing now, not hate. MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #33
. Union Scribe Nov 2012 #66
You had me scared for a minute there. robinlynne Nov 2012 #176
Enough with appointing Republicans KT2000 Nov 2012 #35
Mother SamKnause Nov 2012 #36
Spent the whole day arguing with third way "democrat" relatives abelenkpe Nov 2012 #39
Obama has not said the vetting is for SoS. Most likely it is for Director of CIA. Tx4obama Nov 2012 #45
Why is it that, after an election victory, some "Dems" want to move to the right? Bozita Nov 2012 #48
Chuck Hagel has been part of the Obama Administration since 2009 Tx4obama Nov 2012 #53
That's supposed to make everything better? Lol. nt laundry_queen Nov 2012 #143
Look who these people are. woo me with science Nov 2012 #139
Nailed it...! KoKo Nov 2012 #158
Tell it like it is, woo. This should be its own OP. Seriously. Melinda Nov 2012 #159
Damn! +1000 Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #169
You whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #177
I concur, the same group, the same con for years. I also believe it is time to wake up Dragonfli Nov 2012 #197
Excellent post as always. And this needs to be said over and over again to counteract sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #214
Because they are lying politicians ann--- Nov 2012 #207
It's not "kissing butt" to try to work with the other side. CheapShotArtist Nov 2012 #228
the last four years PROVED we don't need to work with the other side.. frylock Nov 2012 #280
Exactly! ann--- Nov 2012 #294
So when is the Other Side going to work with Democrats? sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #299
Good to keep your friends close but your enemies even closer ... MindMover Nov 2012 #49
Only when defending Obama is more important to you than resisting Republican assholes. MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #196
And the voices that claimed Obama would go more to the Left this 4 years.... Bonobo Nov 2012 #50
Lol, is anyone surprised? sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #58
Wow, so true. Imagine if I had started an OP pushing for Chuck Hagel for SOS Bonobo Nov 2012 #61
Someone should try it one day, before it is generally known to be not the idea of the sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #67
That would be an interesting experiment Dragonfli Nov 2012 #98
No one has posted any threads pushing for Hagel to be SoS. The articles ... Tx4obama Nov 2012 #71
Has anyone done that? joshcryer Nov 2012 #89
Holy Miss-the-Point, Batman! nt Bonobo Nov 2012 #92
Get back to me when Hagel is appointed. joshcryer Nov 2012 #99
It is enough that he is being vetted. nt Bonobo Nov 2012 #101
Not really. joshcryer Nov 2012 #104
You no longer surprise me. At all. nt Bonobo Nov 2012 #107
Hagel was critical of Bush's "surge." joshcryer Nov 2012 #108
So if it were to happen whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #185
Depends. I will make a post about it. joshcryer Nov 2012 #239
Nailed whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #182
Unfortunately they don't Doctor_J Nov 2012 #134
some leading democrats prefer republicans to highly qualified liberal democrats nt msongs Nov 2012 #52
You may well have a point, but I won't fuck you. Ken Burch Nov 2012 #54
Patraeus is a registered Republican - if he's replaced by Hagel then what's the big F'ing deal? Tx4obama Nov 2012 #59
We objected strenuously to Petraeus because he was a Republican and we were sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #64
+1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - Well put and definitely coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #82
With Hagel.. zentrum Nov 2012 #65
See comment #76 n/t Tx4obama Nov 2012 #86
So you keep touting Petraeus as if he had not brought dishonor to the office and to Bluenorthwest Nov 2012 #115
Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about Inuca Nov 2012 #183
You're wrong. See my post, #233 Liberal_Stalwart71 Nov 2012 #235
The Third Way/"New Democrats" ALWAYS lean right, hoping nobody will notice. blkmusclmachine Nov 2012 #68
Hagel questioned Petraeus in 2007 - VIDEO Tx4obama Nov 2012 #69
Sen. Chuck Hagel: "What do you believe?" (Jan. 24, 2007) Tx4obama Nov 2012 #75
'Hagel was a harsh critic of George W. Bush's foreign policy, elleng Nov 2012 #76
He is a RINO, everyone knows it..I almost dislike RINOs as much as I dislike DINOs pipoman Nov 2012 #105
It's not about party loyalty Inuca Nov 2012 #186
That may be an excuse for an occasional pipoman Nov 2012 #232
Emphatic K&R. If Hagel wants to be a part of this adminsitration, he needs to coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #78
Chuck Hagel has been part of the Obama Administration since 2009 Tx4obama Nov 2012 #79
I should have been more specific, as the president is entitled to seek advice coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #83
Why let the truth like that spoil the above people's factless lies??? graham4anything Nov 2012 #84
Don't let some facts get in the way bashing the adminstration and Duers. FSogol Nov 2012 #126
Dear MotherPetrie... ReRe Nov 2012 #81
I love you quote Lincoln in your signature. Makes your words so Ironic graham4anything Nov 2012 #87
Whew! You're about the best rantor I ever heard... ReRe Nov 2012 #103
Most of my thread was referring to others, not yours. graham4anything Nov 2012 #131
I agree with everything you said... ReRe Nov 2012 #140
Actually, I like the idea of nominating Jon Huntsman...guess I'm a turncoat. NC_Nurse Nov 2012 #93
Rumor mongers. JNelson6563 Nov 2012 #94
Agreed. Not trustworthy. bluerum Nov 2012 #95
Post removed Post removed Nov 2012 #100
I feel RINOs like Hagel and DINOs like Lieberman pipoman Nov 2012 #106
Welcome to the Big Tent. First day here? Get a GRIP on reality please. Coyotl Nov 2012 #112
Speculative outrage is the best outrage...nt SidDithers Nov 2012 #113
CALL CONGRESS RIGHT NOW $#%@ FSogol Nov 2012 #125
Realize that a lot of people come here because of the graphics and crackerjack web design. Smarmie Doofus Nov 2012 #117
One thing about it madokie Nov 2012 #119
K&R. It is SICKENING to see right wingers being defended here. I do not understand it! forestpath Nov 2012 #121
I like Hagel. So sue me. babylonsister Nov 2012 #123
better to march in lockstep freetrucker53 Nov 2012 #124
"Your not going to get real debate here. " ProSense Nov 2012 #136
This is that upsetting? ProSense Nov 2012 #128
100% bullshit spanone Nov 2012 #129
Calling Skittles. Skittles..... lonestarnot Nov 2012 #130
It's for Dems and those who support everything the president does Doctor_J Nov 2012 #133
Well, well -- another billh58 Nov 2012 #138
We elected the President, now he gets to decide who he puts in his cabinet. It is not up to you. I Pisces Nov 2012 #142
Someone should read the president DU's TOS whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #144
Not exactly. ananda Nov 2012 #147
Mengele is hyperbole, but you get my point whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #153
The reliable Third Way brigade. nt woo me with science Nov 2012 #155
It's really funny to watch people go absolutely apeshit over things that haven't even happened yet. NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #145
Absolutely... SidDithers Nov 2012 #150
Maybe it won't happen whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #154
There's nothing saying Hagel is being vetted for SoS. That makes this OP even funnier. NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #162
Maybe you should inform whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #165
...who is saying exactly the same thing I just said. NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #187
But also defending the choice were it to be true n/t whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #194
I speak only for myself. NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #200
I posted an article on DU that said 'someone' said he was being vetted for SoS or DoD. Tx4obama Nov 2012 #274
Nonsense. We have already been sold. woo me with science Nov 2012 #174
Right. Let's all just stfu and wait till it's too late. Jakes Progress Nov 2012 #242
Yes and after it's too late, those that gave the speeches not to worry seem to be rhett o rick Nov 2012 #302
Along with the admonition Jakes Progress Dec 2012 #303
Actually most presidents dem or rep have a member of the opposition party in the cabinet WI_DEM Nov 2012 #149
I think you are mistaking democrats for progressives IDoMath Nov 2012 #161
I like Hagel. He used to be Senator when I lived in NE. TwilightGardener Nov 2012 #163
HERESY!!!!1!1!11!! WilliamPitt Nov 2012 #166
LOL. TwilightGardener Nov 2012 #170
So you're making fun of people who DON'T support a rightwing Republican being part of Obama's admin? MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #192
*sigh* WilliamPitt Nov 2012 #202
I'm sorry too. His voting record is as right wing as theyc ome. Did you vote for him, too? MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #191
No. TwilightGardener Nov 2012 #195
I agree. robinlynne Nov 2012 #171
Pro-war? Daniel537 Nov 2012 #178
Photo please. Before I consider fucking you. postulater Nov 2012 #179
I'm sure the President could not give two shits about what some of you think. great white snark Nov 2012 #181
You mean he has WORSE things to do. And I am easily satisfied. MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #199
No, not even then, because talking about THAT... bvar22 Nov 2012 #210
Golly. Since you seem to be someone the president does give two shits about Jakes Progress Nov 2012 #243
Supporting Hagel for anything on this board should earn one a pizza. nt. NCTraveler Nov 2012 #188
Pizza? Inuca Nov 2012 #189
Sexy combination. Could be a turn on. Ohh.... ummm. What board am I on again. nt. NCTraveler Nov 2012 #208
"Do as DU says, not as the president does!" whatchamacallit Nov 2012 #201
In a nutshell, yes.... Dragonfli Nov 2012 #204
. . . . . . . . WilliamPitt Nov 2012 #205
I thought supporting Republicans was a violation of the rules here. sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #219
I'm against it, too ann--- Nov 2012 #206
Thanks. Awesome post. I'm right there with you. nt Zorra Nov 2012 #209
+1000 blackspade Nov 2012 #216
Excuse me folks but Vietnameravet Nov 2012 #218
"Some of you are as unbending and demanding as Republicans". CheapShotArtist Nov 2012 #236
Heck no. He appointed Republican hero General Betrayus to the post of CIA Director. Zorra Nov 2012 #259
I too wonder about this continuation of bipartisan compromise. I think Paul Wellstone said it best: midnight Nov 2012 #222
Just a rumor brush Nov 2012 #223
indeed, it gets him nothing but a lot of dismay from his base stupidicus Nov 2012 #226
I've been preparing myself femrap Nov 2012 #230
K&R for use of the word fuck! trailmonkee Nov 2012 #238
I seriously have to wonder... MirrorAshes Nov 2012 #240
Very well put n/t Inuca Nov 2012 #251
Spot on! Thanks for this. nt babylonsister Nov 2012 #264
I'm so old that I know Chuck is a douche...I just can't remember the particulars. peace13 Nov 2012 #244
This message was self-deleted by its author sharp_stick Nov 2012 #246
Welcome to all the Newcomers defending the GOP leftstreet Nov 2012 #250
I want Kerry! blue cat Nov 2012 #253
Im guilty of reccomending him. Im applegrove Nov 2012 #257
I would be very surprised if Hagel is being seriously considered....... Swede Atlanta Nov 2012 #258
Article that came out today says Dept of Defense NOT Sec of State. I think it'll be CIA Tx4obama Nov 2012 #277
Post removed Post removed Nov 2012 #266
Hagel the horrible! Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2012 #267
as a Bona fide "radical leftist" I STRONGLY, STRONGLY support Chuck Hagel's nomination Douglas Carpenter Nov 2012 #270
Don't most administrations appoint a few from the other party to posts of some sort? gateley Nov 2012 #271
Yes, they do. Jennicut Nov 2012 #278
I agree about Hagel -- good experience, and I think he's a good guy. gateley Nov 2012 #283
This thread... The Old Creak Nov 2012 #275
well I like Chuck. PatrynXX Nov 2012 #276
In what world kurtzapril4 Nov 2012 #286
Secretary of DEFENSE rumored short list: John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Ashton Carter Tx4obama Nov 2012 #279
he'd probably be a fine sec. of state arely staircase Nov 2012 #281
I don't blindly trust Obama's judgment, but I do trust his judgment xxxsdesdexxx Nov 2012 #284
Right. Extrajudicial killing of Americans. Priceless. grahamhgreen Nov 2012 #287
Again. I actually trust President Obama's judgment -- not the judgment of George W. Bush xxxsdesdexxx Nov 2012 #288
That's dictatorship. grahamhgreen Nov 2012 #298
Nominate Bill Clinton creeksneakers2 Nov 2012 #289
This is a "Well, fuck me. I thought I was on a DEMOCRATIC forum." KICK nt Zorra Nov 2012 #300

Tarheel_Dem

(31,192 posts)
1. Well, you're on record. Not that anyone gives a shit. Someone has to stop this....
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:26 AM
Nov 2012

partisan bullshit, or we're all gonna die. You need to understand that the president's cabinet acts at his behest. They don't have to agree with him, but they do have to be subordinate. Get over yourself.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,192 posts)
12. Oh, I'm sure you don't "blindly approve of everything 'my president' does".
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:35 AM
Nov 2012

As to the rest of your post, only you know.

LukeFL

(594 posts)
57. As a woman- that will be a bad move
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:24 AM
Nov 2012

From the Predident. Especially after Clinton has done such good work.

donnasgirl

(656 posts)
217. Chuck Hagel
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:37 PM
Nov 2012

Is the republican version of our Vice President(Great Man) Joe Biden,some democrats actually see the need for a partison politics,the man is as moderate as it gets.He is not beyond listening to someone and coming to an informed decision,in other words he does his homework and does it well,it is called working across the isle and it is what this country needs.

 

MotherPetrie

(3,145 posts)
13. That's not what he said or what I said. "WORKING WITH" is not the same thing as NOMINATING To
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:36 AM
Nov 2012

cabinet positions! Especially the premiere SOS position. That is a reward NO Republican deserves!

karynnj

(59,430 posts)
127. Every one 0of them has made positive statements about Kerry as a person and as
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:31 AM
Nov 2012

a Senator in the past. McCain listed Kerry in 2000 as a Democrat he could work with on foreign policy. McCain in his book on the Senate years praised Kerry's diplomatic work with Vietnam getting them to agree to conditions he thought would have been impossible. Not to mention he praised Kerry for the support Kerry gave him personally when he was attacked. I could find links where nearly every Republican - before SOS was an issue and Brown a possibility for the seat - praised Kerry effusively. Corker and Lugar did in committee after Kerry was with Kharzi and for his work on START. Graham was immensely impressed with Kerry on climate change - especially when he called Pickens because it could possibly help the bill. Both Collins and Snowe have praised Kerry on legislation they did jointly. Not to mention, it is almost a cliche that the Senate easily confirms their own - they know them as people as well as officials.

Obviously, that is not what they said in 2004 - but what Democrats said of Mccain 2008 did not match their earlier praise.

Therefore, I think their praise is honest. However, I do not doubt that they would love to win another seat and see it as possible. It doesn't matter that I think it unlikely as he couldn't run on his record and a second nasty election will be a loss. They could be right and me wrong.

I also suspect that they know Kerry is a strong voice in the Senate and on partisan issues, he is calmly, articulately and persuasively arguing against them. So, even without Brown winning, a Senate with ANY first term Democrat rather than Kerry might seem easier to them.

blueorchid

(1 post)
254. blueorchid
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:29 PM
Nov 2012

That is correct. Gov. Patrick can appoint someone but it is Ma. law since 2009 that
in 146 to 160 days there has to be a special election. Brown won in a special election
here in Ma. because people don't show up to vote like in a Presidential election. Right
now Ma. doesn't have another strong Democratic candidate in the wings to keep Brown
from winning the second special election. Special election time frame doesn't allow
for a new candidate to be firmly established. After his recent defeat, Brown still had up his fund
raising site just in case there is an opening. Gov. Patrick has already stated that he
will remain Gov. until his re-election. Brown is hoping to stay in Washington by hook or by crook or run
for Governor when re-election time comes around. We in Ma. will be plagued by
Brown for years to come - bet on it. Kerry must stay in the Senate. Along with
Senator Warren replacing Senator Kennedy's seat, Ma. finally has a strong Dem.
representation again. We can't under any circumstances have Brown undercut
Senator Warren in the Senate.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
256. Welcome to DU! Can't the legislature just change the law again and make the seat a governors appoint
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:39 PM
Nov 2012

and the special election can be held in 2014.

zentrum

(9,865 posts)
62. You're kidding right?
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:28 AM
Nov 2012

They just want to eliminate JK as a Democratic seat in the Senate. It's another way to hurt us and disempower Obama.

Sekhmets Daughter

(7,515 posts)
157. No they don't...
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:04 AM
Nov 2012

They want Susan Rice who is quite a big interventionist herself and is also heavily invested in Canadian Oil Fields....Keystone Pipeline ring a bell? The State Dept. will have the final word on moving forward with that pipeline. The Republicans are daring (as if he is a boy who cannot resist such temptation) the president to nominate Rice. Then, after a token resistance, she will be approved by a wide majority.
Scott Brown lost by 8 points to Warren, there is no guarantee he would win against a decent Democratic candidate....

AlinPA

(15,071 posts)
245. Thanks for posting that. GOP were handing out those goddam stickers and McCain and
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:17 PM
Nov 2012

his ilk said nothing. Republicans hate Kerry, it's foolish to think otherwise.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
19. It is not a "reward"
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:40 AM
Nov 2012

Treating these kinds of things like candy to be dished out as "rewards" is an unproductive posture.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
42. No, these are very important jobs...
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:07 AM
Nov 2012

...which, in order to be done, require high intelligence and extensive knowledge and an extraordinary skill set. They are important to the security and prosperity of the country.

I have no particular shine about Hagel, and I am confident that Obama will appoint whomever he believes is best able to do the job in the way he wants it to be done. And that will not be a process of reviewing a Christmas shopping list to reward the good little boys and girls.

Laurian

(2,593 posts)
247. They are both rewards and important positions.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:54 PM
Nov 2012

I'm sure there are Democrats deserving of a reward who are more than capable of doing the job, so why go to Hagel? I'm pretty tired of the one sided bipartisan crap.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
25. I totally agree with you. The SOS in a Democratic Administration should be a Democrat.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:47 AM
Nov 2012

Makes you wonder why a Democratic President would consider giving such a powerful position to a member of the party that during the campaign he told us were not doing a good job for the American people which is why we should elect Democrats. Well, we agreed. It's astounding to see people advocating returning Republicans to power after the people threw them out.

We have two parties, not one.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
72. I'm going to wade in here and hope I survive with my head intact...
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:57 AM
Nov 2012

I think the balloon is that he might be considered for Sec of Defense. No?

And everyone needs to remember what balloons are for....they are for reactions.
So react away!

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
74. I agree. If not Director of CIA, then Sec of Defense. But NOT Sec of State.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:05 AM
Nov 2012

I'm leaning more towards CIA, because...

Chuck Hagel is currently the Chairman of President Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board
Assumed office: October 28, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel

And Petraeus is a registered Republican - if he's replaced by Hagel then it wouldn't be much of a change in regards of party affiliation.

 

femrap

(13,418 posts)
227. Well, if we can
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:27 PM
Nov 2012

throw Hagel under the bus for dealing in opium and every other drug, I'm all for it.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
47. How about Republicans work WITH DEMOCRATS. Notice how the person you responded
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:11 AM
Nov 2012

to worded that. Why admonish Democrats who HAVE tried to work with Republicans? I found that comment to be very strange.

Here's the attitude we need to take:

Republicans need to work with Democrats. That poster got it backwards.

We helped Democrats to WIN! Republicans need to be told 'we expect YOU to work with US.

No wonder we are always viewed as the weak party. Dems won! Republicans are not in a position to call the shots as suggested in that comment you responded to.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
148. I think Dems should fucking destroy the repukes. We won the election, time to shut
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:51 AM
Nov 2012

them down. They are the ones who need to enter the 21st century.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
164. Have we entered some alternate universe ...
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:26 AM
Nov 2012

where people believe (want to believe/act as if) the political world operates differently from the world they live in?

In football ...The coach sets the line-up. He/She picking an unpopular, but talented, player to start. The coach calls the play and that unpopular player had better run the play that the coach calls ... Period.

In industry ... The boss assigns an arrogant, brash, but accomplished, employee to head up a sales unit. The rest of the sales time doesn't like the guy/gal; but you can rest assured that the arrogant, brash, but accomplished, employee will work towards the boss' sales target ... Period.

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
249. The operative word is the 'talented player', the 'accomplished employee'.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:09 PM
Nov 2012

I don't believe any Republican, including Hagel, is in those leagues. President Obama is doing another one of his reaches across the aisle to a hostile party, who will try to figure out how to cut that arm off that he is reaching with. This could have worked in the fifties or even early sixties, not today.

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
262. Like I said this worked fifty years ago, but things started getting polarized
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:19 PM
Nov 2012

right and left since Nixon got his bad ass and dirty tricks into office, so today you really can't back the man/woman, but you have to back the party or at least the policies of your party of choice. One of the reasons we have so many red states is that the politicians in those states will sincerely promise to address the concerns of the people of those states and they will throw them some crumbs to keep getting elected. However, by and large they have to follow the policies of their caucus, so they can't deliver on the promises they make at a national level.

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,181 posts)
260. In my experience, the arrogant brash employee will work toward the boss' goals ONLY...
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:02 PM
Nov 2012

... because it benefits HIMSELF. At the first chance he gets, he will steal the boss' customers and go to the competition for a better deal for HIMSELF or open up a competing shop across town

robinlynne

(15,481 posts)
173. Republicans get what they want by stnading firm and being partisan assholes. They are not going
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:54 AM
Nov 2012

to change., Being "nice" to them only gives them more latitude. It is bad for the country.

 

butterfly77

(17,609 posts)
237. You can't be nice to these people?
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:40 PM
Nov 2012

Whatever deals they make they are plotting and planning how to lie,cheat,steal and hurt the American people in some way. They are only worried about how they can fill their pockets.

Hotler

(11,225 posts)
221. It wouldn't hurt for the Dems and the president to tell.....
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:01 PM
Nov 2012

the repugs to go fuck themselves once or twice.

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
248. In this day and age, I agree that Dems should only work with Dems.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:06 PM
Nov 2012

The Republicans will not yield, so nor should we.

bluestate10

(10,942 posts)
27. The poster didn't say what you wrote. The concern was about a republican former Senator who
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:50 AM
Nov 2012

had a very conservative voting record, including being negative on some issues democrats say are important to them. I prefer a lifelong democrat like Wesley Clark or even moving the Veteran's administration head from the VA to the SOS or SOD posts, he has pretty good international experience.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,192 posts)
43. I have absolutely no qualms about Wesley Clark working in this administration.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:08 AM
Nov 2012

I just think the hyperbole re: Chuck Hagel is a bit over-the-top. I know this board, and ones like it, serve a very partisan readership. But the very people who feign outrage that this president might appoint someone with an "R" after his name, belies their constantly chiding others for supporting this president "just because he's a Democrat". Can you say h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?

Look, this president's entire professional career, even as a community organizer, seems to have been built on consensus building, and working with the opposition. I just want people to wake up and realize that there are forces among us who have vested interests in unending gridlock, and partisan bickering. If we all came together and did a kumbaya, it would put many of them out of work.

sendero

(28,552 posts)
114. Call it naive...
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:46 AM
Nov 2012

. or whatever you want, there is something not right with someone who, after holding out olive branch after olive branch, each met with scorn, derision and lies, keeps doing it.

It takes 2 to tango. The Republicans are never going to tango with Obama, it is as simple as that and anyone who doesn't see that is naive at the very least.

Cha

(294,893 posts)
252. The President has his way of doing things.. and it's not
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:17 PM
Nov 2012

your way but it certainly isn't naive.

sendero

(28,552 posts)
261. What it generally has been.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:05 PM
Nov 2012

... is not doing much of anything. Blame it on the "obstructionist" Republicans, but Obama is an enabler.

Cha

(294,893 posts)
265. No, he's not. The gops made a pact to obstruct the night Obama was
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:28 PM
Nov 2012

Inaugurated. The President gets things done in spite of them and in spite of everyone who whines he should be more like them.

savannah43

(575 posts)
272. Or, it could be that Obama is continuously showing how the GOP is only
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:00 PM
Nov 2012

concerned with getting back into power, no matter how many Americans they have to hurt to do so. Obama cannot be blamed for not trying to advance the people's work just because he can outsmart the big crybabies. Is this what could be called three dimensional chess?

sendero

(28,552 posts)
282. That would be a good theory....
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:56 PM
Nov 2012

... if the average American paid that much attention to what actually happens in Washington, and if the MSM accurately covered it.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
198. Wesley Clark great as he is thought to be VOTED FOR REAGAN AND NIXON
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:42 PM
Nov 2012

yet you are using him in an anti-Obama picking Hagel for something because he is not a democrat post.

oops.

your argument is undone by your own post.

It shows the Bing Crosby statement to be true. "Everybody has an angle".

 

MrModerate

(9,753 posts)
40. Shorn of all the sturm und drang . . .
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:04 AM
Nov 2012

The issue is that Hagel is neither qualified nor suited for the post (IMO), and if Obama's offering it as bipartisan candy, he should think twice or maybe three times.

One of the reasons that Clinton has been a good SoS is that she exists in the same political universe as Obama, which can't be said of Hagel.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,192 posts)
46. Please understand this: I am not advocating for Chuck Hagel. I just don't agree...
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:11 AM
Nov 2012

that a Republican can't serve as honorably as a Democrat in the position. It doesn't have to be Hagel. Not all Republicans are batshit crazy, you just don't get to hear from them anymore.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
110. So you say Republicans are as honorable as Democrats? Did you miss the election?
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:25 AM
Nov 2012

Where were these honorable Republicans when their Party was engaging in racist vote suppression tactics across the land? Where were they when Trump kept saying Obama was Kenyan, and that he had proof, again and again? Why did these people you call honorable not take a stand against such racist tactics? Where were the 'not batshit' Republicans when they were all ready to vote for Paul Ryan and Mitt the Tax Cheat? When the people were standing on line for hours?

Generic Other

(28,979 posts)
141. They were doing everything in their power
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:07 AM
Nov 2012

to make sure all the cabinet positions would be Republican, that no Democrats would have any voice in government. Just as happened during the Bush years. Seems to me that we have a few too many Republican leaning folks on this board who get all upset with the rest of us anytime we object to having our party hijacked.

I am trying as hard as you Blue to remember one single act of courage on the part of any Republican in the last election. All I remember is intense unfounded criticism, nastiness and hideous lies.

If Hagel wants a place in a Democratic administration, let him become a Democrat. Until all likely Democratic candidates have been placed in positions of trust, there is no excuse for even one Republican taking the job. Until all the positions left unfilled are filled by Democrats chosen by our twice-elected president, there should be no positions opened for Republicans. They rule the house, all the chairmanships of committees.

Screw the bastards. I did not vote for a single Republican for a reason. They cannot be trusted to govern.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
212. This is something that has become more than obvious
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:56 PM
Nov 2012
Seems to me that we have a few too many Republican leaning folks on this board who get all upset with the rest of us anytime we object to having our party hijacked.


I can't think of one honorable Republican in the current crop who are in power right now. I'd love to see some names though.
 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
233. Ray LaHood has been an outstanding Secretary of Transportation who has called Republicans out on
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:34 PM
Nov 2012

their hypocrisy regarding the stimulus. He has gone above and beyond defending this president.

I agree with you. There are some honorable Republicans.

As for Chuck Hagel, he was a vocal opponent of the Iraq invasion. He also supports the START Treaty and further reduction of nuclear arms. I may not agree with him on social issues, but he's not like the Republicans who are serving today.

 

MrModerate

(9,753 posts)
263. Agreed that not all Republicans are insane statistically alone, that's unlikely . . .
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:20 PM
Nov 2012

But I'm hard pressed to come up with names of any who aren't.

Maybe that's because the ones who haven't been driven out of the party for ideological impiety aren't nearly as ostentatious as the nutbags who remain.

LukeFL

(594 posts)
55. Really? Like Romney would have
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:22 AM
Nov 2012

Appointed a Democrat to any of his cabinet position?

Why, we Are the ones alwaYs giving in? Why chuck hagel? He is not even a freaking pragmatic.

I hope this is NOT TRUE

duhneece

(4,086 posts)
116. I hope we don't make decisions based on what 'they' would or wouldn't do
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:48 AM
Nov 2012

I'd like the Democratic Party to always take the higher ground, to do what is best & right for our country.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
88. You could and should have made a valid point in a more civil manner.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:05 AM
Nov 2012

I was on the jury for this post and was in the majority, as we voted 2-4 to leave it alone. I considered it a close case, though. Your post would have lost nothing if you had edited out the unnecessary abrasiveness. For example, change "Not that anyone gives a shit" to "I disagree with you" and drop the "Get over yourself" entirely.

By the way, for all this agita about the possibility of a Republican joining the Obama Cabinet, it's worth noting that there already is one there. Ray LaHood served seven terms as a Republican member of the House of Representatives and endorsed McCain in 2008. Nevertheless, Obama appointed him as Secretary of Transportation. He has served in that post since January 2009.

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
90. Well bubba, we are all going to die in any case. You have yet to give any cogent reason whatsoever
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:18 AM
Nov 2012

as to why it should be us that stops "this partisan bullshit" and you completely neglect to note that damn near everything this President has done over the last four years has been to appease the republicans.

So maybe you can explain why you believe that this should be added to an already lengthy list of republican ideas.

When you're done with that, could you please tell all of us just how much this President has gained from his previous appeasements to the dumber half of the nation?

 

bowens43

(16,064 posts)
96. we dont need to stop this 'partisan bullshit' as you call it
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:39 AM
Nov 2012

we need to continue it. We need to win. we need to make the other side completely irrelevant. we ned to not givr inch and not even consider what they want or think. making them part of the administration would be a dumb-ass move and not he first dumb ass move obama has made.

'or we're going to die'??? LOL , seriously???

NWHarkness

(3,290 posts)
109. Straw Man Argument
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:24 AM
Nov 2012

Every Democratic president in recent memory has appointed Republicans to high level cabinet posts.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
135. Let the Repukes stop the "partisan bullshit"
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:22 AM
Nov 2012

I cannot believe that ANYONE on the DU suggesting more appeasement from Obama. That is purely disgusting

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
146. You are naive and delusional to think the partisanship is anywhere near
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:49 AM
Nov 2012

resolution. And, it needs to be the repub fucknuts to see the light, not us to concede.

robinlynne

(15,481 posts)
172. You are very wrong. Partisan bullshit will continue on the part of the GOp nomatter what we do. It i
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:52 AM
Nov 2012

is time for our party to BE PARTISAN and do what our party stands for. nothing good will come of being bi-partisan. It is a slogan. nothing more.
Either we continue to build a country for the 1% or we go back to being the united States which created unions and a middle class. Going in 2 opposite directions simply makes you unable to walk.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
211. Putting a weasel in the henhouse is definitely not going to help stop the killing.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:50 PM
Nov 2012

Your conservative concerns are disturbing.

We've already suffered way too much from the insanity of conservatives.

No need to validate their craziness.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
184. Hunh? If the OP cannot make a point without whining about DU then it is META
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:17 PM
Nov 2012

The OP could have said something about Hagel without it being a mewling puke-fest about all the people at DU he/she thinks suck.

 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
190. Oh, I got you. Sorry I over-reacted. I guess I didn't tune in initially to the criticism of DUers
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:28 PM
Nov 2012

and was paying attention more to the trial balloon of a Hagel cabinet nomination.

My bad. I'll leave my original post here so your response will stand and others can educate themselves about DU policies.

Apologies if I came across as harsh

WCGreen

(45,558 posts)
3. Well, for one, Chuck Hagel would not be able to vote on anything as the SOS
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:27 AM
Nov 2012

so really, it doesn't really matter what he voted on before.

Also, he serves at the beck and call of the President and not the republican party.

Having someone from the other party in a 2nd term administration is a pretty regular occurrence.

Think about it, it would save a whole bunch of rancor directed at the President about foreign affairs and let the President spend more time with foreign affairs.

 

MotherPetrie

(3,145 posts)
5. No - Hagel and his right-wing record would just represent the U.S. world-wide. He would be face of
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:29 AM
Nov 2012

the entire Administration.

WCGreen

(45,558 posts)
20. Do you really think that the across the globe uber popular president Obama
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:41 AM
Nov 2012

would ever be overshadowed by Hagel...

WCGreen

(45,558 posts)
41. It is a totally different job.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:04 AM
Nov 2012

I would never expect a Republican to be asked to be a Secretary of Labor or head the EPA or Treasury.

Foreign affairs are the least partisan part of the Administration.

And remember this, the SOS serves at the presidents whim. He can be fired at anytime.

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
91. Duh
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:22 AM
Nov 2012

It's funny when the hyperventilating gets in the way of basic common sense.

The people who told us for years that Obama would be a "one-term" President because he has "slapped his base in the face" atre having a hard time understanding how terribly wrong they were. They are like the right wing loonies, except coming out of their own Common Dreams bubble of nonsense.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
111. Well that last Republican CIA director was certainly a tower of propriety and ethics!
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:29 AM
Nov 2012

An adulterous liar allowing security leaks, such a great recommendation for putting another of his GOP comrades in that seat....

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
22. Do you really view these things only in terms of making things easy for one person?
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:43 AM
Nov 2012

Millions of Americans voted Republicans OUT. The people have spoken. Are you saying that he should appoint a Republican simply to make things easy for himself without a thought for the millions of people who will be affected by returning Republicans to positions of power like this? Is everything just a political game? No wonder we cannot get this country back on track and out of the clutches of the Far Right.

Presidents nominate people all the time and yes, they know they will face opposition from the opposing party. That's just part of being President. And anyone who cannot handle that should not be president.

WCGreen

(45,558 posts)
292. It's a way to show the people who are not hyper-partisan that Obama is willing
Fri Nov 30, 2012, 02:04 AM
Nov 2012

to reach out and so attract more support from average Americans who don't focus so intently on partisan politics.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
295. Why are Democrats always 'reaching out'? Towards the Right? We are always leaning over to
Fri Nov 30, 2012, 03:01 AM
Nov 2012

the Right?

Have you ever heard of a Republican reaching out, towards the Left?

Do you realize that we WON! Many of us supported this President very reluctantly, and slowly over the past decade, many Democrats have grown increasingly disillusioned with this Party who supported all of Bush's policies even after he left office. So they are hanging on by a thread to whatever support they have.

So who is this President trying to impress again? This country is shifting fast towards the Left. If the Dems keep leaning right, we are very likely to have an historical realignment of the Political landscape. It wouldn't be the first time.

Obama should not take his victory as HIS victory. He won because the other choice was so bad not because he was so great. His career is at an end. Now it's his legacy that matters. Either he acts like a Democrat and shows respect for the people who elected him who made it clear they do not want Republicans in any position of power, or his legacy will be that he betrayed those who gave him their votes and he will prove that they were correct to have done so reluctantly.

I just wish people would stop enabling the deception. He doesn't need to show the people something they do not want to see. They want Democrats not Republicans in power. If they did not they would have elected Republicans.

WCGreen

(45,558 posts)
296. I got nothing more...
Fri Nov 30, 2012, 04:16 AM
Nov 2012

Except this, just because the other side is full of selfish and petulant child like people doesn't mean we should be that petty.

I thought that we were suppose to be the adults in the room.

savannah43

(575 posts)
273. "Also, he serves at the beck and call of the President and not the republican party."
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:11 PM
Nov 2012

Really? When will the brainwashing be held?

WCGreen

(45,558 posts)
293. Any member of the cabinet serves at the whim of the president....
Fri Nov 30, 2012, 02:07 AM
Nov 2012

It's not an elected post so president Obama could dismiss him at any time...

DearHeart

(692 posts)
4. No more of these Repukes!
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:28 AM
Nov 2012

They were the ones who allowed Bush & Co. to get away with all the shit that they did! Iraq war, Guantanamo, Patriot Act, etc., and now we're supposed forget all of that and allow them to be appointed to Obama's cabinet??

NO WAY should Chuck Hagel EVER be in the Cabinet, let alone Secretary of State!

[link:http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm|

Tarheel_Dem

(31,192 posts)
17. Didn't Hillary vote for all the stuff you laid out there?
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:40 AM
Nov 2012

"Iraq war, Guantanamo, Patriot Act, etc."? What's the disqualifier?

 

MotherPetrie

(3,145 posts)
23. She's a -- you know -- DEMOCRAT! She may not have a perfect voting record -
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:46 AM
Nov 2012

But she is not a conservative rightwing asshole like Chuck Hagel.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,192 posts)
34. Doesn't answer my question. The poster itemized some issues he had a problem with....
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:56 AM
Nov 2012

and it just so happens that HRC voted in the affirmative on the issues laid out by said poster. Don't tell me you're a big ol' hypocrite. By the way, Hillary is one helluva SOS, but I just want to make sure that the ideologically pure among us aren't dismissing Hagel simply because of the (R). How much further are we gonna be dragged down that bad road? Washington is going to have to find a way to find consensus and work together, and block out the static noise coming from the partisan hacks on both sides.

Saying that President Obama should only appoint Democrats to his cabinet is like saying that Walmart, or any other corporation, should only employ Republicans. Don't you see anything wrong with that?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
213. Yes she did which is why I never supported her and would never support her for
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:00 PM
Nov 2012

President. However, appointing her as SOS was appointing someone who is a Democrat and who was not likely to pull what Republican Petreaus pulled against a Democratic President.

DearHeart

(692 posts)
80. Yes she did and I don't like her being the SOS.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:24 AM
Nov 2012

IMHO, I would think that any one of them would be a disqualifier.

 

bowens43

(16,064 posts)
97. absolutely. elections SHOULD have consequences.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:41 AM
Nov 2012

fuck the republicans . we don't need them, theyre all the same.

 

freetrucker53

(36 posts)
304. Bill Clinton?
Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:41 AM
Dec 2012

Bill Clinton gave us nafta, ending welfare as we know it, and many other dirty deals that the republicans couldn't probably have accomplished if they had been in the white house.
So I vote to send Clinton to hell.

Tutonic

(2,522 posts)
11. Won't sex ya, but I totally agree.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:35 AM
Nov 2012

I appreciate that our President wants to be inclusive but he needs to stop letting the enemy sleep in the downstairs bedroom.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
16. You're absolutely right. We elect Democrats in order to get rid of Republicans.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:39 AM
Nov 2012

So I'll ask the supporters of Republicans in Democratic cabinets here, if Republicans are acceptable in such powerful positions, then why do we vote for Democrats?

This is what people were afraid of, that we throw them out, and the Party Leadership invites them back in. They have learned nothing. We objected to Petraeus and were told to 'stfu'. Now there is every possibility that he was conspiring to embarrass the President before the election. Once a Republican always a Republican and that is where their loyalties are.

If the people wanted to vote for Republicans they would have done so. It is a betrayal of the support given to Democrats to take the victory the people gave them only to return power to the people they threw out.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
37. We must learn to be tolerant of other people's beliefs
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:03 AM
Nov 2012

We Democrats have a big tent. Huge. Really ginormous. Bigger than the Sun.

We should pull together and fight Liberals instead of demonizing patriotic Americans like Hagel.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
120. Tolerance is a good start, but to really understand our potential allies on the far right
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:57 AM
Nov 2012

I find it is more pragmatic to adopt their beliefs entirely, a sensible approach would be to assimilate nearly all of the serious policy beliefs held by the right and adopt them as our own. That would be a positive effort at bipartisanship that could fully annex even tea party members into the large tent of the modern Democratic party finding a "third way" if you will around the poisonous gridlock that the liberals appear intent on promoting.

It has worked well with welfare reform and free trade in the past, and remember the landmark Democratic health reform we adopted from the Heritage foundation, that right wing sensible proposal is now a Democratic approach to health care.

I propose that we look further into the Heritage Foundation for all of our new policy positions. After all, yesterday's Reagan can be the new Democratic success story.

I like your third way approach Manny, but you are living a few years in the past, it is obvious to all sensible, serious Democrats that this is a good start (http://www.thirdway.org/) but still a bit too far left to take us into 2016.

True courage would take us to battle against all entitlement spending as it is little more than a vicious attack on the money our job creators will need if our trickle down theories are ever to work, trickle down only works if the top gets all the money, not just most of it, keeping our money out of their hands is class warfare on a massive scale.

Time to be courageous enough to become the enemy and defeat them by agreeing with them


DLC Dragonfli

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
137. That was tried by the appeasers in term 1
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:25 AM
Nov 2012

Remember, "If Obama moves all the way to the right, the Repukes will have to agree with him or die!" Well, they still got to disagree with him AND get a bunch of right wing policies implemented. It worked just like it was supposed to. Success!

Doctor DLC

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
203. Most serious pragmatic adults realize that the mistake was we did not go far enough right!
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:50 PM
Nov 2012

Sure, we went at least as far as the Republicans were in the nineties, but, we should have reached out to the tea party, they beat us to the common ground new center while we were still extreme left supply side Chicago school of economics relics.

We have to beat them to the new center while it is still considered right.
We are too slow in keeping up with them to meet them in the center (remember, the center keeps moving right, we have to do a better job of keeping up with the Ryan Intellectual crowd of serious policy makers.)

THEN THEY WILL HAVE TO AGREE WITH US!


KoKo

(84,711 posts)
151. Thanks for the humor, irony, sarcasm...Dragonfli and Manny Goldstein...
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:52 AM
Nov 2012

With all the "revelations" coming out...it's hard for some of us not to fold in despair...but, you two have lifted my spirits.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
38. Chuck Hagel is already part of the Obama Administration.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:03 AM
Nov 2012

Chuck Hagel is currently the Chairman of President Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board
Assumed office: October 28, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel

I've never heard anyone holler about that before


progressoid

(49,644 posts)
156. yeah, some of us did
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:02 AM
Nov 2012

Along with Leach, Huntsman, and a slew of other Reps. And lets not forget the centrist corporate friendly Dems.

Maybe we didn't holler loud enough?

dsc

(52,092 posts)
21. I could live with him at defense, I think he actually could be good at CIA
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:43 AM
Nov 2012

but due to the fact that the SOS has been so out front on both women's and gay rights he would be very unacceptable for SOS.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
30. Chuck Hagel is ALREADY PART OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTATION.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:51 AM
Nov 2012

Chuck Hagel is currently the Chairman of President Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board
Assumed office: October 28, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel

And no one knows what he is currently being vetted for. Most likely is it for heading up the CIA.

I think your outrage is a bit over-the-top.

There were rumors of Obama picking Hagel as his VP in 2008 - that didn't happen - and nothing might come of this current vetting either.

p.s. If you wish to gripe about DUers then I suggest you take to the META forum where it belongs.



 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
33. We need healing now, not hate.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:56 AM
Nov 2012

A few more years of austerity, protection for bankers, and meeting Republicans 90% of the way, and things will be right again.

Take your HATE elsewhere, mister!

KT2000

(20,523 posts)
35. Enough with appointing Republicans
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:01 AM
Nov 2012

Huntsman quit to run against him, Patreus was a bad call, Geithner has worked well for Wall Street.
Let's find some who are loyal to a Democratic president - Democrats!

SamKnause

(12,971 posts)
36. Mother
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:03 AM
Nov 2012

I agree with you 110% MotherPetrie !!!!

We may have to work with and tolerate Republicans, but we do not have to nominate or hire them !!!!

abelenkpe

(9,933 posts)
39. Spent the whole day arguing with third way "democrat" relatives
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:03 AM
Nov 2012

Who were also pushing this nonsense that we need to be more bi partisan, need to put ss and Medicare on the table, that it wont effect me (at 40) but only my children, that we need to reach across the aisle. Forget that shit. Every time a democrat has said that this country moves further to the right. Would Romney if had won appoint a democrat to secretary of state?

My only regret is that more democrats did not get elected to the house. We need democrats to start pushing this country back to the left. Or stop pretending to be democrats! Anything else is just more of the same thirty five year losing strategy.

Bozita

(26,955 posts)
48. Why is it that, after an election victory, some "Dems" want to move to the right?
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:14 AM
Nov 2012

Some folks have lost their compass.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
53. Chuck Hagel has been part of the Obama Administration since 2009
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:18 AM
Nov 2012

Chuck Hagel is currently the Chairman of President Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board
Assumed office: October 28, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel


woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
139. Look who these people are.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:42 AM
Nov 2012

Always the same Third Way group. They are deliberate scenery, and their purpose is to try to get you to believe that your values and principles are a relic, and in the minority now.

They have to do that, because the numbers by which we outnumber them are vast. Remember Chomsky telling us that they can't overpower us with force, so they will try to do it by shaping our perceptions and expectations.

The point we all need to grasp here is that we really have one party now, not two. Our electoral system has been purchased, and we are now being managed. Everybody has got to stop pretending to be shocked and surprised when one of the two corporate-selected candidates for President gets into office and immediately continues the process of selling us out...our lives and our children's lives...for corporate interests. We have been purchased. We have a problem.

We waste energy responding to Third Way propaganda that feeds us a constantly changing, ludicrous kaleidescope of justifications for what is happening:

The President seeks the same goals you do, but the Republicans are just too powerful right now.

or

Your views are out of step with the party. The country is more conservative now. You are fringe.

or

What you see as a betrayal is just a compromise *this time.* Adults have to compromise. Stop being a purist.

or

It's all part of a chess game on your behalf that you couldn't possibly understand...


Meanwhile, the corporate government picks up where it left off and continues its work of refashioning this nation and all of us into profit spigots for the ones who own us now, and we are moved steadily into serfdom and corporate fascism and endless war.

It is time to wake up and stop pretending, and instead figure out what we are going to do about it.

One acknowledgement we need to make is depressing as hell: The truth is that we cannot depend on the government we have to save us, or protect us, or represent us anymore. They are working for the other side. We have to save ourselves, because voting alone is not enough anymore.

The other acknowledgement we need to make is positive beyond measure. The propaganda we are fed about being in the minority is absolute bullshit. We saw it during the election, in the way the corporate candidates pivoted leftward in their rhetoric to gain our votes, and we see it every day in polls and in conversations with neighbors and friends. Americans don't hunger for a corporate state; we still hunger for the same values and principles and just society that we always have.

We are vastly greater in numbers than the corporate interests who have hijacked our country. They have power now only because we have allowed them to have it. We can take it back.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
158. Nailed it...!
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:04 AM
Nov 2012


Very good post pointing out what we are facing with the push back to marginalize those of us who are informed enough to know what's been going on, btw.

Melinda

(5,465 posts)
159. Tell it like it is, woo. This should be its own OP. Seriously.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:06 AM
Nov 2012


Of course, I expect to see the usual suspects attempting to highjack your thread, if you do take the path I suggest. Might makes right and all that. Anyway, your post is spot on, people are easily manipulated which is sad enough, but here on DU... well, its just much sadder, isn't it.

Thanks for this post. K&R if I could.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
197. I concur, the same group, the same con for years. I also believe it is time to wake up
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:39 PM
Nov 2012

We have to somehow use the numbers we have to take it back, we can not win a bidding war to purchase our now for sale government, so we must somehow take back the deed as it was never meant to be the politicians property to sell out from under us.

I keep falling short on the "how".
How do we stop the easy purchase of policy (as well as the sale of much of the commons) by the few against the wishes of the many?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
214. Excellent post as always. And this needs to be said over and over again to counteract
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:10 PM
Nov 2012

the lies which they have to pay for:

The propaganda we are fed about being in the minority is absolute bullshit. We saw it during the election, in the way the corporate candidates pivoted leftward in their rhetoric to gain our votes, and we see it every day in polls and in conversations with neighbors and friends.


And this:

Always the same Third Way group. They are deliberate scenery, and their purpose is to try to get you to believe that your values and principles are a relic, and in the minority now.


Yes, they are everywhere, on the media, on political forums, but they have failed so you wonder why they keep trying. The people are more awake today than ever before and are not buying their corporate garbage, or their carefully selected words and phrases directed at the 'left'.

Don't forget 'Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good' and 'Concern Troll' and 'Purity Troll' or 'we are in the reality based community' etc etc.

One thing people should now be fully aware of, when people repeat these phrases, they are spreading propaganda. Normal people do not talk in talking points and we should always be wary of anyone who uses these phrases.
 

ann---

(1,933 posts)
207. Because they are lying politicians
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:09 PM
Nov 2012

Obama veered left to get re-elected and now, with nothing to lose, he'll start kissing more GOP butt. Sickening.

CheapShotArtist

(333 posts)
228. It's not "kissing butt" to try to work with the other side.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:29 PM
Nov 2012

That's how our government is supposed to work. We didn't elect a king or a dictator.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
280. the last four years PROVED we don't need to work with the other side..
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:47 PM
Nov 2012

what the fuck has the other side done to work with us? nothing!

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
299. So when is the Other Side going to work with Democrats?
Fri Nov 30, 2012, 02:02 PM
Nov 2012

Republicans need to start reaching out to Democrats. Where did they get the idea that the people speaking as loudly as they have, gives them any right to refuse to work with Democrats?

And why do I always see this 'Democrats have to work with Republicans' mantra here?

You have it backwards. We WON. Republicans have to work with Democrats. That is what the people want. They said so.

Please try to get it right. I'll say it again: Republicans need to start working with Democrats. That is how our government works. Especially when they lose.

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
50. And the voices that claimed Obama would go more to the Left this 4 years....
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:17 AM
Nov 2012

fade away and die in shame and embarrassment.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
58. Lol, is anyone surprised?
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:24 AM
Nov 2012

For some, anything goes so long as it is approved by Dems. What's astonishing is that if someone here, a member of DU, were to just suggest that they liked a Republican better than Democrat, they would be alerted on, juried, TOS'd and PPR'd and whatever other alphabet tools were available would be put to use on them for even thinking such a thing.

But if the WH does it, no problem. It's a fascinating phenomenon.

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
61. Wow, so true. Imagine if I had started an OP pushing for Chuck Hagel for SOS
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:28 AM
Nov 2012

I would be PPR'ed faster than you can say Joseph Lieberman.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
67. Someone should try it one day, before it is generally known to be not the idea of the
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:36 AM
Nov 2012

OP, but a fact from our Dem Leadership. It would be fun to watch the fireworks, the alerts, the calls for a pizza for promoting Repubs here, lots of reminders that this is a Dem site etc etc.

And then to see what happens when the truth is told. The twisting and turning would be of mammoth proportions.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
98. That would be an interesting experiment
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:48 AM
Nov 2012

If nothing else it would introduce the conditions necessary to observe the effects of cognitive dissonance on the neo-liberal Conservatives that would be forced to change position 180 degrees in order to defend the third way tactics of the Dem leadership.

cognitive dissonance:
The mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The unease or tension that the conflict arouses in a person is relieved by one of several defensive maneuvers: the person rejects, explains away, or avoids the new information, persuades himself that no conflict really exists, reconciles the differences, or resorts to any other defensive means of preserving stability or order in his conception of the world and of himself.


it would give me a chance to catalog which of the conservative Democrats tend to reject the information that clarifies the rightward Dem leadership position, explain it away, or simply ignore. it (my favorite are the ones that ignore the current POTUS's attempts in the past to negotiate cuts on the safety net, even when faced with the evidence they pretend he never put them on the table, FASCINATING display)

The contortionist like nature of the arguments required to pretend that no conflict really exists are always fun to observe.
To have all the contortions in one single OP by putting the right wing idea out there as one's own, only to reveal after the cries of "troll" are put forth that it is a Dem leadership position after all and not one's own - they would have to defend it downpost of where they condemn it.

It would be a fascinating OP to use to point out and study text book examples of said dissonance.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
71. No one has posted any threads pushing for Hagel to be SoS. The articles ...
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:56 AM
Nov 2012

... the articles that came out today said only that he is being vetted - that is what was posted on DU.

Folks have been playing a guessing about what position it's for on other threads.

SoS is highly unlikely, DoD maybe, BUT it's probably to replace Petraeus at the CIA.

But there has been no word yet from the White House.


Hagel is already part of the Obama Administration.

Chuck Hagel is currently the Chairman of President Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board
Assumed office: October 28, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel




joshcryer

(62,260 posts)
99. Get back to me when Hagel is appointed.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:51 AM
Nov 2012

I'll either be outraged or I'll laugh at you for hyperbole.

joshcryer

(62,260 posts)
108. Hagel was critical of Bush's "surge."
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:48 AM
Nov 2012

He could potentially make a good candidate for DoD or CIA (left of Petraus) given his foreign policy libertarian stance.

No. Not fucking really.

Would I want someone else? Yes, fucking assuredly.

Is he beyond vetting? With a bipartisan President? No.

joshcryer

(62,260 posts)
239. Depends. I will make a post about it.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:49 PM
Nov 2012

But I will not sit around hemorrhaging like a fool about it.

If SoS I would though.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
134. Unfortunately they don't
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:16 AM
Nov 2012

they'll still be here blaring about how we should shut up and accept the appeasement/right-wing lurch

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
59. Patraeus is a registered Republican - if he's replaced by Hagel then what's the big F'ing deal?
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:24 AM
Nov 2012

Everyone probably needs to take a deep breath and chill

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
64. We objected strenuously to Petraeus because he was a Republican and we were
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:31 AM
Nov 2012

told to stfu. Now it looks like once again, the Liberal wing of the party was right. From all accounts it appears that Petraeus really was what Progressives called him, 'General Betayus'. And they are letting him go under the pretext it is because of an affair.

All you have to do is study the timeline of those events and a picture emerges that proves no Democratic president should ever appoint a Republican to such a position. Especially one like Petraeus who was so loyal to his old boss.

They let him go rather than expose something they no doubt think, wrongfully imo, would be bad for the country. The truth is never bad for a country, but this administration prefers always to 'look forward' rather than prosecute criminals.

There could not have been a worse choice for the Iraq War and for the CIA, than that Bush supporting, failure. He has certainly left this administration with a huge problem and plenty of fodder for his friends in the Republican Party to make trouble with.

 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
82. +1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - Well put and definitely
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:29 AM
Nov 2012

needed saying. Betray-us should be facing a Court Martial for insubordination and conduct unbecoming. At a minimum. I might even be thinking treason isn't completely out of the question (and the penalty for treason during a time of war is the firing squad).

zentrum

(9,865 posts)
65. With Hagel..
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:35 AM
Nov 2012

...we'll have more war, more intrigue, more hostile relations with difficult countries.
Obama will get more militaristic and bellicose advice.

Hagel is in fact a dangerous choice who will not de-escalate crises but enflame them.

The poster is right.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
115. So you keep touting Petraeus as if he had not brought dishonor to the office and to
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:47 AM
Nov 2012

the administration. Frankly, I look at what he did and my reaction is 'this is why we don't appoint Republicans to important jobs'. You seem to say 'Dave did great, let's get another one!'
The General left in shame. So sure, let's order another round of the same!

Inuca

(8,945 posts)
183. Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:16 PM
Nov 2012

Do you know ANTHING about Hagel's positions on foreign policy and national security issues? Do you think that Biden thinks very highly of him just because he is a nice guy? Or the extremely laudatory words kerry had for rhim during his last participation in the foreign relations committee he was a member of while in the Senate? He is anything but a neo-con, more dovish than many dems actually.

 

blkmusclmachine

(16,149 posts)
68. The Third Way/"New Democrats" ALWAYS lean right, hoping nobody will notice.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:45 AM
Nov 2012

And Obama is not up for reelection. Grab the lube, it's gonna be a rough 4 years to be a REAL Democrat (not the phony bipartisan kind).

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
69. Hagel questioned Petraeus in 2007 - VIDEO
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:45 AM
Nov 2012





Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- 9/11/2007

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) peels the bark off of General David Petraeus, Commander of the Multinational Forces in Iraq and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the Iraq Surge Report.


Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
75. Sen. Chuck Hagel: "What do you believe?" (Jan. 24, 2007)
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:10 AM
Nov 2012



Remarks by Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 24, 2007. He asked his colleagues in the Senate to state what they believe and what they were willing to support, told them that if they were too fearful of doing so then they should "go sell shoes," and compared the Iraq conflict to a "grinder."




elleng

(129,094 posts)
76. 'Hagel was a harsh critic of George W. Bush's foreign policy,
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:13 AM
Nov 2012

especially his decision to invade and occupy Iraq, which he once called "an absolute replay of Vietnam."

In the years since, he's remained a strong critic of Republicans in Congress.

"Now the Republican Party is in the hands of the right, I would say the extreme right, more than ever before. You've got a Republican Party that is having difficulty facing up to the fact that if you look at what happened during the first 8 years of the century, it was under Republican direction," Hagel told The Cable in a May interview. "The Republican Party is dealing with this schizophrenia. It was the Republican leadership that got us into this mess. If Nixon or Eisenhower were alive today, they would be run out of the party."

"Reagan would be stunned by the party today," Hagel said.'

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/28/chuck_hagel_being_vetted_for_national_security_post

Inuca

(8,945 posts)
186. It's not about party loyalty
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:19 PM
Nov 2012

it's about what you believe in and, at times, even about principles.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
232. That may be an excuse for an occasional
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:31 PM
Nov 2012

departure from the party position, not a departure from virtually every party position. No, RINOs and DINOs are traitors....once a traitor, always a traitor.

 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
78. Emphatic K&R. If Hagel wants to be a part of this adminsitration, he needs to
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:19 AM
Nov 2012

change his party registration and publicly announce his switch. Otherwise, he belongs to a party of war criminals and mercenaries and has no place representing the U.S. to the rest of the world.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
79. Chuck Hagel has been part of the Obama Administration since 2009
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:22 AM
Nov 2012

Chuck Hagel is currently the Chairman of President Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board
Assumed office: October 28, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel
 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
83. I should have been more specific, as the president is entitled to seek advice
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:32 AM
Nov 2012

from anyone he or she sees fit, regardless of party affilaition.

Cabinet membership is another matter entirely. Hagel needs to renounce publicly the Rape-publi-scum Party or continue as an advisor.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
84. Why let the truth like that spoil the above people's factless lies???
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:41 AM
Nov 2012

If one asks me, but they don't

getting the homeless middle ground repubs on our side anyhow makes very acute political sense, especially as Hllary in 2016 and 2020 would get some of those votes, over the simply extremist far right loons that are now the ENTIRE republican party.

Sheesh, the way some talk above, they must think Abraham Lincoln was the world's worst person who ever existed, being that he was a (shhhhhhhhh, better not give away that secret).

Sheesh, the other party is down to angry old white men, and fading rapidly.
They alieniated just about every group out there
Now, if the middle group of the other party of white males slides over to our side to

wouldn't simple math show we would get 75% of the vote soon?

again (shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh wouldn't want to spoil the rant of some of the others above)

let's keep it a secret. They appear to be like an angry mob.

btw, some of the others have an angle they are spewing too. Everybody does.

btw2-a few posters above mention someone else. You gotta laugh at the irony about that person's past too. I have a feeling they forgot a little tidbit about back then.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
81. Dear MotherPetrie...
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:27 AM
Nov 2012

... I think the Hagel deal is just a balloon, meant to get quick feedback, instant reactions. I may be totally naive. Hell, who knows what's going on up there. But I defend your reaction. I'm not real happy about R's in the administration, either. To me, putting rivals in there is like throwing a roadblock in front of yourself. Thing is, PO has to nominate people who the R's in the Senate won't block. "When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on." --- >FDR.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
87. I love you quote Lincoln in your signature. Makes your words so Ironic
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:03 AM
Nov 2012

in that without those on the other side, Lincoln never would have attained his signature greatest piece of legislation that he did.

Lincoln & Obama are both such similiar presidents.
It is why LIincoln is #1 on the all time list and already I rank Obama at #4 after
FDR(whom you quote) and LBJ (who also ironic enough needed the opposition to get his signature legislations rammed through.

Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.
And the heartbreaking elections of 1968, 1980 and 2000 showed it

When the democrats came together to LOSS 3 races that should have been theirs by a mile, because of some damn stupid wedge issues in each one, and the holier than thou attitudes of the Democrats in those years.

LBJ would have handily defeated Nixon as LBJ knew how to win.
(and Bobby would still be alive to run in 1972.)
The division in 1980 that fracture caused Carter to lose
And the idiocy of Ralph Nader and the holier than thou (including Gore) to jettison Bill Clinton allowed W to steal in there.(But without the prior holier than thous, the race would not have been close. Disavowing a president so popular he would have won a 3rd term had he been allowed to, for the sake of purity well, it reeks.

And agian, this holier than thou attitude is rearing its ugly heads.

Please go see the movie "Lincoln".
I think the single biggest thing uber liberal Spielberg was trying to show was how politics is yes ugly, but great things happen by shifting a word here or there, by allowing the opposition a little dignity, a little grace, and then without them even realizing it, ramming home the goal itself- the prize one was looking for in the first place.
It matters little how one gets that prize- the object is the end goal

(Same as how after the first debate, I was mortified with the reaction here against Obama, and mortified at how quick Ed and Rachel threw Obama overboard like those that threw LBJ CARTER and Gore overboard in the past.

Only Rev. Al Sharpton on air said the truth that needed to be said.

but again, won't want to spoil people's rants just will rant myself against the rant.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
103. Whew! You're about the best rantor I ever heard...
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:32 AM
Nov 2012

... I had no idea that something so innocent would incite this passion in one such as yourself.

It just seemed to me that the op author needed some aid and comfort. I did say that I don't know what all goes on up there, insinuating I don't know why our leaders do the things they do with very little explanation of their actions to the people who voted them into office.

Lincoln had a team of rivals and was assassinated. JFK did the same thing and was assassinated. I guess that's the reason I don't like the rivals method of running an administration. Maybe there are some good republicans out there somewhere, but after the last 30 yrs or so, I wouldn't know where to find one. PO already tapped the few good ones still left.

You didn't hear me on here griping about POs performance in that 1st debate. It was surreal to hear what was coming out of Romney's mouth that night. Who can prep for a debate in which the opposition shows up with a complete personality split? I, too, thought the pundits went too far that night.

I haven't seen the Lincoln movie yet. Sons and I can't get our schedules matched up. I hope we can see it this weekend.

BTW, will you kindly define what you describe as an "uber liberal" and why they are so disgusting to you? Do you mean a "purist"?

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
131. Most of my thread was referring to others, not yours.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:05 AM
Nov 2012

IMHO we are never going to get a President as good as Obama.
We cannot get 100% which some demand, and that we can never get all.

and you are correct in that not many are good republicans (and Ihave not seen one tea party or libertarian I would consider good either). But there are a few like Charlie Crist and Angus King(independent), and a bunch others who's support makes it bipartisian, and people in America do want to see that.(Like during Hurricane Sandy, President Obama coming to NJ and meeting Chris Christie, you saw Christie immediately drop his normal hate fed money to beg for more money, and his ratings climbed because of it).

Take health care, people mumble this or that, we don't have enough, and for 50 years, after LBJ got the major changes in so many things, nothing was furthered on health care, someone on each side decided not to do it, or stop what was going to happen (as in 1993 after Bill took office.)

Sen. Ted Kennedy, whom I loved put health care reform as his #1 issue, starting with trying to get health care for all. He personally knew he could not start out wanting a single payer system, or a system like in France, where you work, pay your taxes, but when you get sick,
you go to doctor/hospital and get better, when you leave hospital ZERO bills it is all paid from when you are working and well(or also paid if you don't work), you don't lose your insurance from not paying as there is no insurance at all in reality.
And it is humane and it works(don't believe the lies they tell about France, the health care works.)

What I refer to as "uber liberals" are the ones that whine Obama did not get us single payer now when they snapped their fingers. It was impossible to get better now.

But Obama got us 10% forward, instead of "100% of nothing".
And it is not even fully in place and won't be til 2014.
Personally, my self-employed family group premium did NOT go up this year, first time in about 20 years since not having a work company paid health insurance that it did not go up 15%

So that is what I refer to as "uber liberals".
(I have nothing against socialists, communists, anybody and don't mean uber liberal to refer to socialist or communists.)

As for most holier than thous I was referring-they are not purists. They themselves have an agenda too.(theirs).

What has happened in the past is that those were direct causes to loses by democrats in 1968, 1980, 2000 etc. and division could lead to a republican(most likely Jeb Bush) to get into the white house like W did in 2000 due to Nader and theft.

and i want the strongest candidate to win (and not just talk about this good issue but be strong and win) in 2016 and do so quickly and without a divisive fight. Let the republicans fight it out. We sure won't move forward with the republican candidate.


And there is already an undertone here on DU for 2016 presidential, between Obama's Secretary of State Hillary running again, and Eliz. Warren. Me personally wants Hillary because she will win and is multi-issues, whereas Warren is one issue at have never been vetted nationally.(whereas Hillary's dirt is well known and discarded now).

Hillary IMHO would have won in 2008, except for one thing-she did not have mine, or any of Obama's voters,which were needed to win. In 2016 Hillary has my vote and I am sure most others, especially when he backs her in 2016 itself.

And all of a sudden, there are new code words I don't like.
They say they want a "fresh" face when not wanting Hillary. They say Hillary is too old, and other things nobody says about a male candidate. (Not to mention they want Warren, but don't realize she is just about the same age as Hillary)

So they have their angle as I have been referring to it lately, since watching the Bing Crosby movie "White Christmas" last week, where his character says everybody has an angle, and certainly in politics, they do.


As for Lincoln, see it with your sons, I saw it with my family, it is something to see.
I do feel that Lincoln is President Obama with a direct line between
Lincoln-FDR-Dr.King-LBJ-Jimmy Carter-Obama.

As for what you refereed to (I don't much like to talk about that but I feel that no longer will happen because of what happened when LBJ took office. I feel (if the official story is not true and it was political) that whoever did it, did not imagine that all the good things LBJ did would happen because of the political capital afforded to him by what happened to JFK.
I am not convinced it would have been politically possible for JFK himself to do what LBJ did
even if they wanted to.

And I love as said Teddy, but wish 1980 primary was not so devisive that the democrats never truly united and recovered. Wish Teddy had run in 1976, 1984, 1988,etc.

And I myself voted twice for Rev. Jackson for President and wish in 1988 he had been picked as VP with Dukakis, or even 1992 with Clinton. (I like Al Gore the liberal, but back in the 1980s, Al was much more rightwing and he was not my choice in 1988. Jesse Jackson was.

And I like to debate/discuss issues, and never move to censor anyone's opinion, long as they don't attempt to silence mine.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
140. I agree with everything you said...
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:05 AM
Nov 2012

...and I do hope you are right about PO being as good as we can get. I feel like I'm related to the man and his family. Have been fond of him since that 2004 Convention speech. And I miss Teddy so much. His "...WHEN WILL THE GREED STOP????!!!" still echoes in my mind.

I was about to jump off my own personal cliff while ago (fretting over the "Grand Bargain" business,) but got up and ran an errand and that calmed me down. Then I came back to the addiction box (computer) and found your reply... Was half afraid to open it.

NC_Nurse

(11,646 posts)
93. Actually, I like the idea of nominating Jon Huntsman...guess I'm a turncoat.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:35 AM
Nov 2012

He does speak fluent Mandarin, which could come in handy. He seems so sane, for a Republican. It would just be fun to watch McCain's head explode too. And Mitt Romney's too!

JNelson6563

(28,151 posts)
94. Rumor mongers.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:57 AM
Nov 2012

Don't worry. DU gets hysterical over every bit of speculation that gets floated. Many here pull various notions from thin air and go on and on like it's an established fact.

Julie

Response to MotherPetrie (Original post)

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
106. I feel RINOs like Hagel and DINOs like Lieberman
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:37 AM
Nov 2012

are far less trustworthy than either repubs or Dems, in general...turncoats

 

Coyotl

(15,262 posts)
112. Welcome to the Big Tent. First day here? Get a GRIP on reality please.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:42 AM
Nov 2012


Chuck Hagel being vetted for national security post


http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/28/chuck_hagel_being_vetted_for_national_security_post

Hagel was a harsh critic of George W. Bush's foreign policy, especially his decision to invade and occupy Iraq, which he once called "an absolute replay of Vietnam."

In the years since, he's remained a strong critic of Republicans in Congress.

"Now the Republican Party is in the hands of the right, I would say the extreme right, more than ever before. You've got a Republican Party that is having difficulty facing up to the fact that if you look at what happened during the first 8 years of the century, it was under Republican direction," Hagel told The Cable in a May interview. "The Republican Party is dealing with this schizophrenia. It was the Republican leadership that got us into this mess. If Nixon or Eisenhower were alive today, they would be run out of the party."

"Reagan would be stunned by the party today," Hagel said.
 

Smarmie Doofus

(14,498 posts)
117. Realize that a lot of people come here because of the graphics and crackerjack web design.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:50 AM
Nov 2012

As for Hagel: if Obama wants to nominate a philistine, put him in charge of Education.

He'd be an improvement.

babylonsister

(170,869 posts)
123. I like Hagel. So sue me.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:19 AM
Nov 2012

If he has our country's best interests at heart, as most rethugs don't, I have no problem with him.


Chuck Hagel being vetted for national security post
Posted By Josh Rogin
Wednesday, November 28, 2012

snip//

Hagel, a moderate realist on foreign policy, would be a comfortable ideological fit for the president. He has publicly supported many of the administration's foreign-policy moves from his perch at Georgetown University, while often excoriating the GOP for what he sees as a takeover by "the extreme right."

Hagel was a harsh critic of George W. Bush's foreign policy, especially his decision to invade and occupy Iraq, which he once called "an absolute replay of Vietnam."

In the years since, he's remained a strong critic of Republicans in Congress.

snip//

But former Senate staffer Steve Clemons, now editor-at-large at the Atlantic, said that Obama would be smart to pick Hagel.

"Hagel hides his keen understanding of complex strategic realities beneath an every-guy, aw-shucks veneer. He is one of the shrewdest, most well-informed, experienced national security hands who has served as a major force in GOP land in the legislative branch," Clemons said. "Hagel has been feeding tough-love messages to Obama for some time on the Middle East, on Russia, on China, on the design and missions of the armed forces and the intelligence ecosystem surrounding them."

Hagel and Obama have been close since Obama was a candidate for president. His wife Lilibet endorsed Obama in 2008 and Hagel traveled with candidate Obama to Iraq that summer, along with Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI). If selected, Hagel would bring his independent streak into an administration that looks increasingly packed with Obama loyalists, as compared to the "team of rivals" Obama surrounded himself with in 2009, which included outsiders like Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, his primary campaign adversary.

"He is not a yes man," Clemons said. "{Obama and Hagel} have maintained a disciplined, honest relationship about real issues. Picking Hagel means Obama is not going to sit on his laurels for round two of his presidency."

more...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/28/chuck_hagel_being_vetted_for_national_security_post

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
136. "Your not going to get real debate here. "
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:24 AM
Nov 2012

There are at least 60 people who agree with the OP.

I'm sure DU can produce a few more people to make it a "real debate."

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
128. This is that upsetting?
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:43 AM
Nov 2012

The recent thread denying global warming (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021876292) was more bizarre.

I mean, Bob Gates was Defense Secretary for a few years.

billh58

(6,631 posts)
138. Well, well -- another
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:29 AM
Nov 2012

Gungeoneer who has ventured outside the Gungeon to take a swipe at President Obama.

Pisces

(5,578 posts)
142. We elected the President, now he gets to decide who he puts in his cabinet. It is not up to you. I
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:13 AM
Nov 2012

voted for the person I thought would best run the country and now I am trusting him to do it. He is not going to make
his decision by consensus on this forum.

Stir up shit somewhere else.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
144. Someone should read the president DU's TOS
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:41 AM
Nov 2012

Face it, Obama could tag Josef Mengele for Surgeon General and many DUers would argue in support of it.

ananda

(28,717 posts)
147. Not exactly.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:50 AM
Nov 2012

There might be people masquerading as Dems who would argue in favor of Mengele.

We do have trolls and masqued Reep marauders who post here.

NYC Liberal

(20,121 posts)
145. It's really funny to watch people go absolutely apeshit over things that haven't even happened yet.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:47 AM
Nov 2012

Like a few years ago, when people here were going NUTS over the DADT repeal and insisted: first, that it wouldn't pass (and Obama didn't want it to); then that Obama wouldn't sign it; then that Obama and the DoD would not certify it.

It's also funny that time and again, it's many of the same people doing this.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
274. I posted an article on DU that said 'someone' said he was being vetted for SoS or DoD.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:21 PM
Nov 2012

Just because we post articles on DU does not mean that we agree with the articles.

NO ONE knows the truth yet. President Obama has not said anything about who is on his short list or who he is going to appoint to any of the positions.

I personally believe that Hagel is being vetted for Director of the CIA.

My preference is Susan Rice for SoS.

Bottom line it is up to President Obama

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
174. Nonsense. We have already been sold.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:54 AM
Nov 2012

Last edited Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:57 PM - Edit history (7)

We get austerity no matter what. Medicare and Social Security were used as hostages, by corporate Democrats, to give us austerity.

We get drilling no matter what. We get right-wing appointees no matter what. We get Holder continuing on.

We get assaults on public education. We get media consolidation.

We are always being propagandized that we have somehow won or been represented, if we are merely spared one more particular blow in a barrage of corporate assaults.

Let me repeat: All the rhetoric is being set up to praise a Democratic President if he merely *refrains* from taking this or that additional bludgeon to the poor and middle classes.

Nothing has happened yet to harm us? What a joke, and what a weak, pathetic argument if it attempts to suggest that we are actually being represented. What have we won? What we are owed is a complete change in rhetoric and in direction. We are owed passionate, public acknowledgement of the truth about how we have been looted and robbed and impoverished for 30 years, with all of our wealth going to a few greedy pigs at the top. We are owed a sweeping, passionate, and sustained correction of the economic lies that we have been hearing for 30 years. And we are owed a sustained, serious campaign of action to REVERSE the structural changes of the past 30 years and the damage that has been perpetrated on millions of Americans.

Of course, that will not happen from the government we have now. We are mocked if we even suspect yet another assault, and, in the midst of a SEA of assaults, we are fed ridiculous propaganda that tells us the absence or withholding of any *particular* assault is proof enough, all by itself, that we are winning and have real allies in Washington.

None of that flies anymore. People will demand representation, until we receive representation.

Jakes Progress

(11,120 posts)
242. Right. Let's all just stfu and wait till it's too late.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:13 PM
Nov 2012

It's just so funny that people keep up with what is going on and voice opinions about it. It's much better to just let shit happen and then say it's too late to do anything about it. Just wait until too late and then prate about moving forward. That's how you get your conservative agenda past liberals.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
302. Yes and after it's too late, those that gave the speeches not to worry seem to be
Fri Nov 30, 2012, 02:52 PM
Nov 2012

amazingly quiet only to speak out about not worrying about the next issue.

Jakes Progress

(11,120 posts)
303. Along with the admonition
Sat Dec 1, 2012, 12:26 PM
Dec 2012

to just move forward, not to examine the past. That is the definition of progress that they think of when they think progressive.

The tea party has taken over the republicans, and the reagan democrats have commandeered the Democratic leadership.

WI_DEM

(33,497 posts)
149. Actually most presidents dem or rep have a member of the opposition party in the cabinet
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:51 AM
Nov 2012

and you won't hear too many laudatory things being said about Hagel on any GOP boards either.

 

IDoMath

(404 posts)
161. I think you are mistaking democrats for progressives
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:13 AM
Nov 2012

This IS a democratic forum. Democrats are not necessarily progressives and vise-versa. If you look at the terms of service, being too far left can get you booted.

Democratic party. Progressive movement. Different entities. Occasionally moving in the same direction.

 

MotherPetrie

(3,145 posts)
192. So you're making fun of people who DON'T support a rightwing Republican being part of Obama's admin?
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:34 PM
Nov 2012
 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
202. *sigh*
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:48 PM
Nov 2012

No.

I think there's got to be a Democrat or three who can also do the job. I would prefer they be nominated over a Republican.

I was, actually, JUST MAKING A JOKE.

And frankly, your post above is exactly, precisely what makes my joke funny.

So thanks.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
178. Pro-war?
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:03 PM
Nov 2012

Hagel stood up to the neo-cons in his own party, and yes, a few neo-cons in the Democratic Party as well, when he saw that the Iraq war was a fraud and even during the Israel-Lebanon war in 2006, when most members in both parties refused to support a ceasefire. He's even more progressive than Pres. Obama on some foreign policy issues, such as ending the embargo against Cuba. Educate yourself before you speak, son.

great white snark

(2,646 posts)
181. I'm sure the President could not give two shits about what some of you think.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:13 PM
Nov 2012

Not because he hates Liberals or he is really a Republican. Some of you of course will drape yourselves around that theory but the truth is some of you will never be happy whatever he does. He was villified for appointing "yes men" and now the same for even considering Hagle.

He's got better things to do than trying to satisfy the unsatisfiable.

 

MotherPetrie

(3,145 posts)
199. You mean he has WORSE things to do. And I am easily satisfied.
Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:43 PM
Nov 2012

If not nominating rightwing Republican assholes with hideous voting records like Hagel to important positions in his administration is too much to ask, then when does it stop being too much to ask? When Medicare and SS have been decimated, all middle class tax deductions are history, and all Bush tax deductions have been extended another year?