Barnstorming Obama plans to pick Republicans for cabinet

[seriousstan]

AS Barack Obama enters the final stages of the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, he is preparing to detach the core voters of John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, with the same ruthless determination with which he has peeled off Hillary Clinton’s supporters.

The scene is set for a tussle between the two candidates for the support of some of the sharpest and most independent minds in politics. Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.

Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain’s closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary. Some regard the outspoken Republican as a possible vice-presidential nominee although that might be regarded as a “stretch”.

Asked about his choice of cabinet last week, Obama told The Sunday Times: “Chuck Hagel is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much,” although he was wary of appearing as though he was already choosing the White House curtains. But after winning 11 primary contests in a row after Super Tuesday, he is ready to elbow Clinton off the stage.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3466823.ece

[Liberty Belle]

1. Picking Republicans is not the way to win a Dem primary.

If I hadn't voted already,knowing he may appoint republicans to cabinet posts would probably push me into Hilary's camp!

[Johnny__Motown]

timesonline is a BS site, don't believe it until a reputable news agency covers it

[MadBadger]

4. Doesnt sound like you ever really supported Obama that much.

[seriousstan]

14. Really? I guess you don't think this is change. THIS is change.

[stahbrett]

5. It's pretty common - Bill Clinton did the same, JFK did the same, etc. (nt)

[grasswire]

20. things were different then

We didn't know so clearly that Republicans were willing to allow treason and treachery and despotism to achieve their goal of ruining Democrats.

[stahbrett]

21. Chuck Hagel is not your typical Republican

http://www.google.com/search?q=hagel+iraq

[grasswire]

22. I understand that.

But I didn't see Hagel stop Bushco or ask W. or Cheney to resign.

[TwilightGardener]

27. Hagel was one of the first to bring up impeachment, a year ago. He caught

a shitstorm for it, especially here in Nebraska. He's called the Bush administration arrogant, incompetent, and just about every other bad thing you can think of. He and Biden prevented Bush from being able to attack Iran and Syria by rewriting the IWR in 2002. He defied them on Iraq war votes and legislation, repeatedly, in the last year. He publicly called out Bush on sabre-rattling with Iran. He voted against waterboarding, supports a measure to close Gitmo, and voted to restore habeas corpus for detainees. What more do you want him to do, set himself on fire in protest? He is a conservative on domestic issues, but is an independent thinker.

[grasswire]

49. here's what Hagel actually said about impeachment

....and it was in response to a question from a reporter for Esquire magazine:

"Bush is not accountable anymore. Which isn't totally true. You can impeach him. And before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes."

I hardly would characterize that as "calling for impeachment."

Here's Hagel truly CALLING FOR IMPEACHMENT. February 1999. The impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.

Mr. HAGEL. I write this statement at my desk on the floor of the United States Senate. After weeks of listening, reading, reviewing, reflection, analysis and contemplation I have come to the conclusion that I will vote to convict the President on both Articles of Impeachment.

The Constitution is very clear. It requires Members of the United States Senate to vote for or against each Article of Impeachment. No improvising. No substitutions. No censures. No findings of fact. The completeness of the charges against the President is powerful. The issue is abuse of power. Did the President abuse his power and therefore violate the Nation's trust in him? We must remember that trust is the only true currency elected officials have.

Perjury and obstruction of justice are not just federal crimes. When committed by an elected official they are abuses of power. When committed by a president they constitute an abuse of the highest power. The standards and expectations for America's elected officials cannot be calibrated. When elected officials bring down those standards and expectations and violate the people's trust . . . they rip the very fabric of our Nation. There is then a dishonoring of the spirit that is the guardian of American justice.

There can be no shading of right and wrong. The complicated currents that have coursed through this impeachment process are many. But after stripping away the underbrush of legal technicalities and nuance, I find that the President abused his sacred power by lying and obstructing justice. How can parents instill values and morality in their children? How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America--one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?

What holds this Nation, this society, this culture, together? Yes, laws are part of it. But it is really the strong moral foundation anchored by values and standards--the individual sense of right and wrong, personal responsibility, accountability for one's actions. This is what holds a free people together. Respect for each other--not because a law dictates that action--but rather because it's the right thing to do.

The President violated his Constitutional oath and he broke the law. His crimes do rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors prescribed in the Constitution. The President's actions cannot be defended by dancing on the pin head of legal technicality. Every American must know actions have consequences. Even for presidents. All Americans must have faith in our laws and know that there is equal justice for all. The core of our judicial process is the rule of law.

Americans deserve to always expect the highest standard of conduct from their elected officials. If that expectation is defined down over time, it will erode the very base of our democracy and put our Republic in peril. That is the point of the Impeachment Clause of our Constitution . . . to protect the Republic. The Impeachment clause of our Constitution is there to ensure the fitness of an individual to hold high office. President Clinton's conduct has debased his office and violated the soul of justice--truth. He has thereby debased and violated the American people. I have no other course to follow than to vote to convict President William Jefferson Clinton on both Articles of Impeachment.

[TwilightGardener]

50. That a conservative mainstream Repub Senator from a red state would even

bring up the possibility against a President from his own party is remarkable, sorry--especially since Nancy Pelosi had already taken it off the table, and only fringe pols like Kucinich were speaking about it. And several weeks later, a former Nebraska Repub Congressman named John McCollister, whom Hagel worked for in the 70's and who was Hagel's lifelong friend and mentor, wrote a scathing and hostile editorial in the Omaha World Herald belittling Hagel for mentioning the word, and also for opposing Bush and the war. That he voted to impeach Clinton is of no consequence to me--he holds fellow Repubs to the same standards, and calls them out when he thinks it's necessary.

[grasswire]

52. that's ridiculous.

Look at what he said about Clinton:


............
The President violated his Constitutional oath and he broke the law. His crimes do rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors prescribed in the Constitution. The President's actions cannot be defended by dancing on the pin head of legal technicality. Every American must know actions have consequences. Even for presidents. All Americans must have faith in our laws and know that there is equal justice for all. The core of our judicial process is the rule of law.

Americans deserve to always expect the highest standard of conduct from their elected officials. If that expectation is defined down over time, it will erode the very base of our democracy and put our Republic in peril. That is the point of the Impeachment Clause of our Constitution . . . to protect the Republic. The Impeachment clause of our Constitution is there to ensure the fitness of an individual to hold high office. President Clinton's conduct has debased his office and violated the soul of justice--truth. He has thereby debased and violated the American people. I have no other course to follow than to vote to convict President William Jefferson Clinton on both Articles of Impeachment.
.........

Compare that to the weasely response to a question from a reporter regarding Bush.

He doesn't hold them to the same standard. Clearly.

[TwilightGardener]

55. Did he CALL for Clinton's impeachment, or just vote for it when the

matter came before him? Senators cannot start impeachment proceedings, and an investigation and actual articles need to be started first. I do think he holds the GOP to the same standards--he called his fellow GOPers "lemmings" on the Senate floor, he berated them in the FRC when they called anti-war folks unpatriotic, he told them to stop saying "cut and run", he told them to stop using fear and terror to win elections. You seem to hold him to a higher standard than many Democrats, for some reason. Did Biden call for impeachment of Bush? Or Dodd?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

24. Hagel owns the e voting machines that steal elections andd he is a repuke period!

If Obama get the nom and pulls this crap.....I will not only NOT vote for him.....I will campaign hard to get everyone I know not vote for him either.....and I'm sure their are other Dems who feel the same.

that's my line in the fucking sand!


that's just the way it is son

[TwilightGardener]

25. Hillary would probably use Hagel in her cabinet, as well. She used him

him--or his good reputation, rather--several times in her defense/explanation of her IWR vote--so did Bill Clinton. And she signed on as cosponsor to his Infrastructure Bank bill, which she has since tried to pass off as her own. Oops, she likes him too! Hagel owns stock in the company that owns part of ESS--he doesn't "own" the voting machines. She'll use a Repub or two in her cabinet, I guarantee it. Were you staunchly opposed to William Cohen, Repub Senator of Maine, being Bill's SecDef?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

28. stop talking out your ass

[TwilightGardener]

29. LOL!

[Ravy]

33. I hope he does if they come from the Senate from democratic

potential states. We have to get a lot of seats in the Senate. He just has to sit on them and make sure they administrate HIS policies (if he is elected, that is)

[MadBadger]

2. OH THE HORROR!

[grasswire]

3. is this a feint to the right?

Or is he really that naive?

[TwilightGardener]

7. Huh? It's Hagel, it's not some neocon wackjob like DeMint or Inhofe.

[Johnny__Motown]

11. It doesn't matter, it would make the statement that no Dem could do the job as well and that is BS,

[TwilightGardener]

16. No, it says that he likes Hagel--they have worked together on several bills--

and Hagel is a veteran, and a former Deputy Administrator of the VA under Reagan, and a former CEO, and has a lot of foreign policy knowledge and military connections. And using Hagel, who is retiring from the Senate, means we don't lose any of OUR Dem Senators.

[theHandpuppet]

44. Riiiiiight

A 0% rating from NARAL. Good thing he's not some RW nutjob though, huh?

:eyes:

[TwilightGardener]

45. He's pro-life, a Repub from Nebraska. So is our Dem Senator from Nebraska.

So is the Dem Senator from PA--all vote pro-life. That doesn't make Hagel a wack-job, it means he represents his constituents here--unless it also makes ME a wack-job, because I'm Catholic, and personally pro-life myself (meaning I am troubled by the morality of ending a life in the womb, and would never have an abortion), although I do think abortion should be legal and I support embryonic stem-cell research. Wack-job is the "family-values" Christian-right hypocrite nutcases in the GOP, and the neocons, and the pro-torture retards.

[theHandpuppet]

58. He's a BIGOT

0% rating from the Human Rights Campaign
0% rating from NARAL
27% rating from the ACLU

And THIS on embronic stem cell research:

http://hagel2008.blogspot.com/2006/07/hagel-statement-on-vote-against-using.html
“I do not support using taxpayer dollars for the destruction of human embryos. That is the reason I voted against legislation today to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. I did vote to support promising research on adult stem cells and on ways to harvest stem cell lines without destroying human embryos. In 2001, I supported the decision President Bush made to allow federally funded stem cell research to proceed only under strict guidelines which will not result in the destruction of any additional human embryos.

“I will support President Bush’s veto of this legislation,” Hagel said.


Yeah, you keep telling me he's not another "family-values Christian-right hypocrite nutcase" from the GOP. His record PROVES you're wrong.

[monomach]

59. You're worried about stem-cell research?

WTF business would a secretary of defense have with stem-cell issues?

I'm not about to fire a really good forklift driver because he's bad at typing.

[theHandpuppet]

65. A BIGOT

0% rating from the Human Rights Campaign
0% rating from NARAL
27% rating from the ACLU

Would David Duke be okay as the Sec'y of Agriculture? After all, what's his racism have to do with farming?

[TwilightGardener]

60. A "bigot"? Ben Nelson (D-NE) votes the same way. They're both pro-life.

You can believe that certain life-issue practices shouldn't be supported by the federal government, and by tax dollars, and not be a "bigot". My mom is staunchly pro-life--she's no bigot. I believe in choice, and stem-cell research being funded, but I can certainly see both sides of the morality argument. Sorry, you're reaching if you're calling him a bigot. He might be wrong, but not evil.

[theHandpuppet]

67. Keep ignoring the FACTS about this BIGOT

0% rating from the Human Rights Campaign
0% rating from NARAL
27% rating from the ACLU

Do you even have a clue what the Human Rights Campaign is about?

[TwilightGardener]

69. Hagel is not a bigot. Sorry.

[theHandpuppet]

79. Sorry, but his record would indicate otherwise

If you like I can post it all here for you in good old black & white.

[theHandpuppet]

81. BIGOT with a capital B

Hagel's scorecard from the Human Rights Campaign --- 0%
Hagel's scorecard from NARAL --- 0%
Hagel's scorecard from the ACLU -- 27%
http://www.feministmajority.org/congress/PDF/110th%20Co...

PRO-LIFE AND CONSERVATIVE JUDGES
Senator Hagel has been a consistent supporter of life since he came to the Senate and has supported everyone of President Bush's judicial nominees, including Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

Chuck Hagel - Social Conservative (part 1)

http://hagel2008.blogspot.com/2006/07/hagel-statement-o...
As long as I'm back on series of posts from last month, I'll add another couple of posts to the series of Chuck Hagel the conservative. While Chuck Hagel's focus has never been social conservative issues, his voting record is clearly that of a social conservative.

Here are some interest group ratings based upon his voting record to give you a sense of what his voting record looks like.

Christian Coalition
1999-2000 - 100%
2001 - 60%
2003 - 100%
2004 - 100%

American Conservative Union
2000 - 88%
2001 - 84%
2002 - 95%
2003 - 100%
2004 - 87%

You can check out these two and more at this earlier post. His rating on abortion issues is solid:

Rating by NARAL Pro-Choice
2000 - 0%
2001 - 0%
2002 - 0%
2003 - 0%
2004 - 0%
2005 - 0%

Rating by National Right to Life Committee
1999-2000 - 100%
2001-2002 - 100%
2003-2004 - 82%

Here are Senator Hagel's ratings by family issues interest groups:

Family Research Council
2000 - 100%
2003 - 100%
2004 - 83%

American Family Association
2003 - 100%
2004 - 100%

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

Chuck Hagel on Corporations
Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 87% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)

Chuck Hagel on Abortion
Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance (190 members). (Dec 2006)

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

Chuck Hagel on Government Reform
Voted NO on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (Jul 2007)
Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)

Chuck Hagel on Health Care
Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
Voted NO on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
Voted NO on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
Voted NO on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
Invest funds to alleviate the nursing shortage. (Apr 2001)
Rated 12% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)

And there's plenty more where that came from.

HAGEL = BIGOT

[Inuca]

62. No offense

but based on your comments here I am afraid that characterization applies to you much better than to Hagel. He has his own beliefs, many of which I personally disagree with, others that I like or even admire. But I never saw or heard him vilify those that hold a different position (unless you count his scathing attacks on his republican colleagues that blindly support the war and administration's position on it). He does not strike me as the kind of person that sees the world as black&white. You on the other hands....

[theHandpuppet]

66. And you're full of it

0% rating from the Human Rights Campaign
0% rating from NARAL
27% rating from the ACLU

He does much worse than talk up his bigotry -- he passes legislation making it a LAW.

[OzarkDem]

71. Hagel who owned the "electronic voting" machine company?

You can suck up to him if you want, I think most Dems will take a pass. He's worthless.

As John Edwards said, you can't bargain with the GOP, they'll steal you blind.

[TwilightGardener]

76. Hillary sure likes him.

[theHandpuppet]

80. And if she would pick him for a cabinet post I'll be just as pissed off

But what gets me is all the cheerleading right here on DU for a man who has an ABYSMAL record from the HRC, NARAL, the ACLU and the NAACP.

Disgusting.

[Johnny__Motown]

9. this looks like part of the kitchen sink approach to me

[mattclearing]

12. I don't see how anyone watching this race can think Obama is naive.

He has left the Clintons stammering.

Cabinet positions maybe, but daring the opposition party to assassinate you and take power would never ever happen. Does anyone really expect to see a Republican on stage in Denver? GTFO.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

68. It better be a feint.

[Neshanic]

6. Lovely. The Obama supporters are in for a BIG surprise.

[high density]

8. I trust the Times Online reporting as much as CTV when it comes to American politics

They really should stick to reporting on their own politics because their coverage of ours leaves something to be desired.

[casus belli]

10. The author of this piece is a Bush supporter.

Not that it would sway her objectivity at all or anything...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7B35E8F7F8-3A55-49BF-ABE1-6F605642A203%7D

[Johnny__Motown]

13. WTF is the Barnstorming thing anyways? Shouldn't it be BRAINstorming? spell check screwed them up?

[seriousstan]

17. Barnstorming...he has won the last..what? ...11 primaries?

That is what they mean by barnstorming.

[Johnny__Motown]

18. ah, ok, doh,,,,, you are right I am wrong. but still looked strange to me

[Eric J in MN]

19. From dictionary.com

barn·storm (bärn'stôrm') Pronunciation Key
v. barn·stormed, barn·storm·ing, barn·storms

v. intr.

To travel around the countryside making political speeches, giving lectures, or presenting theatrical performances.

[LeftyMom]

15. That's not bad strategy.

The 'Pubs can't attack a withdrawl plan as cowardly if it's championed and implemented by a highly decorated Republican.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

23. IF Obama does that I would NOT vote for him if he get s the Nom...that's a fact

[MadBadger]

26. Fine by me

[davidinalameda]

32. lord forbid he tries to work with republicans

maybe he should just lock up all the republicans up on some island

:sarcasm:

we need to start looking beyond partisanship in this country so we can undo the mistakes of the last eight years

[ElsewheresDaughter]

35. my how your memories wane once you've been to the tent revival

[ruggerson]

43. republicans, as an institution, want you dead, buddy

[davidinalameda]

63. all republicans want me dead?

that's news to me

and I'm sure that's news to many republicans

hyperbole much?

[monomach]

64. Sadly, it's true. I asked my wife whether she wanted to kill me.

She said "yes." She then yelled at me for leaving the toilet seat up.

She's a Republican. Coincidence...?

[davidinalameda]

77. they must be stopped

maybe when Lord and God Obama wins, he can put them in the re-education camps along with the Hillbots

lest I forget

:sarcasm:

[donheld]

30. Bill Clinton had at least 1 republican on his Cabinet

[DemBones DemBones]

31. Which party is Obama in?

Yes, Clinton did have Repubs in his administration -- and he gave us NAFTA and otherwise governed like a Republican, so why not hire them? He just gave speeches that pandered to liberals sometimes.

No doubt Obama would do the same.


As for the statement "he is ready to elbow Clinton off the stage," that's obvious but you never know what might happen at the convention. The party leadership doesn't want Obama taking the party down with him.

Hillary Clinton has a better chance of beating McCain and she has a better record, not a really progressive one, but better than his. But Dems rarely choose the best possible nominee.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

36. sadly true

[Kitsune]

34. Every time I think I'm ready to vote for Obama in November, he goes and does something like this.

First McClurkin; now that I'm willing to give him leeway on that, he's saying he'll appoint republicans to his cabinet...

I swear it's almost like he's doing it on purpose >__<

[ctaylors6]

38. I've been going back & forth. This doesn't help me either. I doubt he'd put RW nut, but gang of 14

will probably look good to him at this rate. If this is just a taste of how he's going to go to the center for GE, it makes me very nervous.

[monomach]

40. Did you vote to reelect Clinton?

If you did, shut up.

His Defense Sec. was GOP.

[Kitsune]

78. I was 13 at the time.

Try again.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. For A Republican, I Really Don't Mind Hagel All That Much.

I also don't mind if there are some republicans in the cabinet, if they are good enough and objective enough for the position. If they don't do as expected or are less than honorable, Obama would have the power to make the situation right. Not really much risk here, and I can't say Hagel wouldn't make a good defense secretary.

[bullwinkle428]

39. I'm okay with this idea in principle, but I'm LMAO over the comments

of some of Obama's staunchest partisans here at DU going apeshit over a story a couple of months ago, when it was suggested that John Edwards was thinking of doing THE VERY SAME THING (while he was still in the race)!!! :rofl:

[jenmito]

41. Hmmm...Edwards pledged to have Repubs. in his cabinet. Obama's talking about Hagel-one anti-war

Repub. who's not afraid to speak out against Bush. What's the problem?

[bridgit]

42. BO's worse yet, stumbling over himself to appear 'the true uniter', Chuck Hagel is no friend...

Obama's been played. And he seems *great* with that. Pealing away John McCain supporters who themselves failed early on in their attempts at President of the United States is not a plus for me. BO has placed on display the hypocrisy not of "republican lite"...

But: Republican Lighter Than Air

[TwilightGardener]

47. Hagel has always been a friend to Democrats. He defended Al Gore

publicly during the Florida recount, and defended Max Cleland--threatened Bill Frist to get the RNC to stop running the ad that made Cleland turn into Osama Bin Laden. His best buddies in the Senate are Kerry, Biden, Webb, and Reed. Just because he has a conservative voting record doesn't mean he's going to try to subvert Democrats. This fear is unfounded. Of all the Repubs in Congress, he's about the only one I would trust not to be a quisling in a Dem administration.

[bridgit]

56. Hagel brought us ES&S, which it has been suggested was the means by which...

he became your senator. So sure, perhaps after having had to sleep with some of the dreams his business has left us he prefers the perception of friend to dems...yet another 'maverick' republican in the mold of John McCain but a republican nonetheless

Though as for quisling, he had the ear of the president once and at a time of great turning; and chose to speak no words of descent into it

I say these republicans who've been marginalized by the cheney/bush fiasco, are vying circling for posts they would never receive from their own party. I agreed with Clinton's choice of William Cohen, but Cohen came with no similar longing to mend so many fences as soon as possible though of course we will see

[TwilightGardener]

57. "Descent"? Or dissent? I can't count how many times Hagel has

dissented from Bush and the GOP--publicly. That's why the GOP by and large hates him. And as for ESS, nobody in Nebraska thinks he rigged elections. Not Ben Nelson, certainly, when Hagel beat him in 1996, and not anyone else when he beat the fringe-nut Matulka in 2002. It's not an issue here, and never was. It's internet speculation, and that's it. I'll defend the guy, because he put his political career at risk to do the right thing, and I'm grateful to him for consistently speaking up and acting on behalf of the troops--like my husband--who don't have any power. I don't see why he'd be a risky cabinet choice at all.

[bridgit]

61. likely 'dissent', that's what I get for posting while having to go pee...

awwww, the pause that refreshes :thumbsup: In spite of it all, I'm an optimist, and feel that these things will always, somehow, work themselves out. There can be little doubt, however, that while some republicans may have been walking backward they were all marching in lock-step for those first couple, highly destructive years.

Sure, you bet, defend him, it's all good and I agree with that; I still reserve the right to *not* defend Arnold cause he has a couple ideas once in a while, is married to Mary, has a dem strategist, and wears a green tie...sometimes :)

[LaurenG]

46. That thought used to just tick me off until several of our more seasoned

and knowledgeable posters explained that it happens all the time. I can't say I like it but the odds are some republican will be appointed no matter who wins.

[uppityperson]

48. Is this a reputable news site or is this another Drudge type "reporting news" site? eom

[PM7nj]

53. it's a Murdoch paper

[uppityperson]

54. Trash RW then, NOT reputable source. Thanks.

[AZBlue]

51. Oh STOP!! This is hardly the first time a President has chosen a bi-partisan cabinet.

Stop with the inanity - it's beyond absurd now. You're grasping at straws and pulling out every Rovian tactic in the book. It's disgusting.

[OzarkDem]

72. This is not the era for bipartisanship

Its no longer necessary (due to their extremism and lockstep support of their agenda)
and its no longer wise (due to the breadth and depth of corruption in the GOP)

Why would Obama want to reach out to criminals?

[OzarkDem]

70. No surprise, they're funding his campaign

Geez, he's gotten pretty transparent in his love for the GOP.

[SoxFan]

73. How was the traffic?

[Forkboy]

74. LOL

OD created a monster with that thread. :D

[kentuck]

75. OMG ! Now Hillary has to worry about the Obama Republicans...

That's not fair. Obama is not happy just winning the majority of Democrats, now he wants to suck a large percentage of Republicans away from John McCain. That's dirty politics. How dare he?