Obama sure seems to like republicans serving at the head of his military leadership

[bigtree]

Obama on teevee right now announcing his choice of republican (NY) John McHugh to serve as secretary of the Army . . .

I have the same feeling about this that I do about everything else in my life right now . . . depressing.

[WeDidIt]

1. The guy is from upstate New York

Obama is co-opting moderate Republicans into his administration and the Democratic Party, thus isolating the rest of the GOP to radical rightwing thugs with no power.

And The Swing State Project is already floating potential candidates for his seat.

[bigtree]

2. ok

hope it's worth it

[Kittycat]

3. And further...

It builds his credibility as a bipartisan, and puts people that might normally have political sway over what he does, in his court of control.

[Cha]

19. I agree...plus Prez Obama is looking

for the best person for the job.

OT..I love your sig pin.

[bigtree]

20. is McHugh the 'best person' for the position?

really?

[WeDidIt]

22. Senior memebr of the House Armed Services Committee

So yeah, he probably is the best person for the job.

[bigtree]

27. just his position as the republican ranking member on that committee makes him the best choice?

I wouldn't take much comfort in the fact of his ascension to the leadership of that committee by virtue of his relationship with his fellow republican obstructionist congressional cabal.

[Cha]

23. That's the president's

MO. I'm not worried about it and don't find it "depressing".

[bigtree]

25. of course it is

. . . but, that shouldn't preclude us from making judgments on his choice. It is a nomination, not an appointment.

I'm glad you're not depressed.

[Cha]

29. And, I'm sorry you are. I just

saw Prez Obama with John McHugh on local tv announcing his nominee with his words that he thinks he's the best for the job.

And, here's an article it and local NY politics.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23225.html

[bvar22]

28. I guess that is OK if you are a half republican.

I'm ALL Democrat,
and see no need to move the Democratic Party even further to The Right.
I would LOVE to see just ONE person who opposed the Invasion/Occupation of Iraq given a position of authority in the Obama Administration.

[Kittycat]

34. Meh, this is better.

It forces them to support and act out the president's wishes. They can decent, sure - but in the end, he's the CIC - so they're rendered to the law.

[bigtree]

35. this CIC, especially at this early date in his presidency

. . . is (admittedly) reliant on and heedful of the advice given to him by his subordinates at the Pentagon. Your impression of the president's primacy in these defense issues presumes that the policy is fleshed out from the top down. From what I've seen of this president, he's giving great latitude to his appointees in the military to formulate policy around his broad principle statements and he's pretty much adhered to their mostly conservative recommendations, so far.

[T Wolf]

4. Unless Obama turns around and fires every repuke he has put in a position of influence

in his so-called Democratic administration, all he has done is show that he is DLC-like down to his core. I voted for Democratic principles and values, not repuke ones.

[bigtree]

9. I've never found anything redeeming in the republican posture

. . . and initiative toward the exercise and management of our military forces. I seriously doubt that I'd agree with McHugh as congressman on these issues. I'm awful tired of eating the crap that his republican military leadership has persuaded the president to adopt in the exercise of their militarism so far. He seems to be moving farther and farther away from where I stand.

[Captain Hilts]

5. It's a good strategy for many reasons. nt

[kentuck]

6. I think there is a lot of politics in the nominations also.

In my opinion, Obama believes that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the biggest obstacles to him getting re-elected. Right or wrong, he will have the Republicans more or less calling the shots in those continuing wars.

[ShortnFiery]

10. If those wars continue, he will NOT get reelected. No amount of guilt-trips will sway

the progressives.

Besides, financially he's screwing us as bad as BushCo. Sure, we're getting a few scraps now but the money is continuing to be funneled up to the banskters (upper 1%).

Dammit, if Obama doesn't improve the prospects for the working and middle class with an increased industrial base OR stops these illegal Occupations ... He won't be re-elected in 2012.

[bvar22]

30. Escalating the Wars and Lingering in hostile occupations...

...will be a HUGE obstacle to getting re-elected.
(or at least a huge obstacle for my little vote).

[ShortnFiery]

7. Yes, depressing ... but I held a part of myself suspicious so my political heart would

not be broken.

Obama is doing for Dubya EXACTLY what Clinton did for Poppy. And it's all for the benefit of those "at the top: who benefit from two entities, Wall Street and The Pentagon.

It's all ONE BIG CLUB. "You and I are not in the Big Club" . . . George Carlin

[Pirate Smile]

8. I think he wants to get back to foreign policy being less partisan like it used to be.

I don't know that we can go back to that but the partisanization of foreign policy that Bush and Cheney did (and Cheney continues to do) isn't healthy for the country IMO.

[ShortnFiery]

11. What isn't healthy for our country is the obscene amounts of money we spend on death and destruction

It must stop or we will annihilate the Middle Class.

[bigtree]

13. I may be biased in this

. . . but the balance seems to be on the republican side in the direction of our military forces, so far. That's frustrating to see, since I can't find anything worth pursuing in the republican's defense playbook. Accepting half a loaf on the occupations is more than just a delay in achieving sane, sensible policy - it's dangerous and threatens to deepen the military conflicts, not resolve them as the administration claims it will. I've yet to hear an articulation of purely progressive policy on the occupations, but I can read you reams of conservative doctrine dictated from the Pentagon since the election.

[WI_DEM]

12. So did FDR. He wanted defense/foreign policy to be bi-partisan at a time of war

I think politics may also have something to do with this, too. It may open up a congressional seat for the Dems in NY. Obama did appoint a Democrat Secretary of the Navy, however.

[WI_DEM]

14. And JFK for that matter--for the same reasons--bipartisanship in foreign/defense policy

Bob McNamara was a republican and so, too, was McGeorge Bundy, his national security advisor. Of course these people also led us into Vietnam.

[bigtree]

15. FDR had what I view as legitimate defense challenges

I view most of what the president has outlined as military policy regarding Iraq and Afghanistan as his own choice to pursue the nation-building goals he's outlined behind the force of our military. I don't accept that the bulk of the activity is in actual defense of our national security. The politics just serves those opportunistic goals that the president has used to buttress his continuing occupation in Iraq and his escalation of force in Afghanistan.

[WI_DEM]

17. Yes, but as I state other presidents have done this too

JFK for instance not only on defense and foreign policy matters but also his Secratery of Treasury was a conservative named Douglas Dillon. I think Obama is very much a JFK Democrat--as opposed to a Teddy Kennedy Democrat.

[bvar22]

31. And this was a miserable failure for JFK.

Look where it got him and the Nation.
Maybe Obama should take a lesson from the JFK administration?

[ShortnFiery]

16. WE created these wars ... now occupations and we can end them ... we MUST end them

and we will end them.

Just like Vietnam, the natives will hunker down and live "from hand to mouth" ... they have nowhere to go and are in no hurry.

We'll leave after we are nearly BROKE and/or the people's will demands it.

We will NOT win ... in fact, we've already lost. We lost on the day we invaded these nations. :(

[MrScorpio]

18. Keep your friends close and your friendimies closer

[ShortnFiery]

21. No this isn't Lincoln-esque, this is selling out your integrity to Wall Street and the Pentagon.

Deep down, we all know it even if some of us are not willing to admit that we elected another corporatist. It doesn't matter now whether they're democratic or republican, our legislators as well as the judiciary are "in bed" with multinational corporations.

We, the people, are all but screwed IF we don't kick their asses out and elect true POPULISTS.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

24. Oh gosh...

but will you pass be your fire retardant underwear....

Because I agree with you. :hide:

[ProgressIn2008]

36. I agree too. nt

[Individualist]

26. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas

[Psychic Consortium]

32. Obama understands the nature of power better than any US President in modern times.

How to get power, keep it, and use it......

[bigtree]

33. I'm interested to see if he understands the limits of that (assumed) power

. . . and knows when to relinquish that control (when necessary and prudent) to the people he purports to lead as president.

[Psychic Consortium]

38. He does and he will. nt

[Xenotime]

37. Simple fact: pugs and guns don't mix.

[cali]

39. no, dear. that's called an opinion, not a fact. do try and learn the difference

between an opinion and a fact.