Is that good, bad, meh? Why?
Meh. Peacetime SecDef is a fall guy if something fucks up.
Charles Krauthammer doesn't like it, so I approve.
There has been some push back against him being nominated from both sides of the aisle. Not sure he'll be able to be confirmed.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/04/16353378-hagel-likely-to-be-nominated-for-defense-secretary-next-week?lite
Quote...Hagel's 2008 statement that "the Jewish lobby" intimidates many lawmakers has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle, and some have painted him as weak on defense issues. Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York, a top-ranking Jewish senator, passed on the opportunity to offer an endorsement for Hagel during an appearance on Meet the Press, while Republican Sen. John Cornyn called his positions on Iran and nuclear weapons "unacceptable."
Hagel also recently apologized for his 1998 opposition to an ambassadorial nominee whom he described as "openly, aggressively gay."
There are as many as 10 Democratic senators who could vote no, Capitol Hill sources say. But Hagel has some big backers besides the president who would become the key point people in getting Hagel over the finish line – Vice President Joe Biden and Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, both of whom are huge proponents of Hagel.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2013, 07:16:41 PM
Meh. Peacetime SecDef is a fall guy if something fucks up.
There hasn't been a Peacetime SecDef since 9/11.
He seems like a good choice to me. What am I missing here. Actually, I think he might be better as SecState, but that goes to Lurch who I'm not to found of.
:yawn:
He wont make it.
Is it a bad thing to can an ambassador for being too gay to operate? There is a pretty close co-relation between being too gay and being unable to avoid being a complete ass. Only British gays seem to be able to function.
At any rate, Obama won and so he should get his guys.
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2013, 10:20:14 PM
At any rate, Obama won and so he should get his guys.
Maybe you should learn more about the country you so desperately wish you were born in.
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2013, 10:30:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2013, 10:20:14 PM
At any rate, Obama won and so he should get his guys.
Maybe you should learn more about the country you so desperately wish you were born in.
:lol:
Wannabe CdM is weak.
I'd like to know his vision for the drawdown of Afghanistan and the overall Defense Department.
Quote from: Neil on January 04, 2013, 09:08:28 PM
Is it a bad thing to can an ambassador for being too gay to operate? There is a pretty close co-relation between being too gay and being unable to avoid being a complete ass. Only British gays seem to be able to function.
This was an ambassador to Luxembourg though. A complete ass is appropriate.
Anyway, the guy seems to lack somewhat in diplomacy department but seems level headed and non-partisan. I would say this is a good fit for a defense secretary.
Also I love that the US Senator opposing Hagel for referring to "Jewish lobby" is himself described as a "top ranking Jewish Senator".
Sarah Palin?
I just don't think it's wise to assign political enemies of the president a place in the administration just because they used to be popular generals.
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2013, 06:35:00 PM
I just don't think it's wise to assign political enemies of the president a place in the administration just because they used to be popular generals.
I agree that it shouldn't be a former general--it's a civilian administrative position atop a massive bureaucracy, not a warfighting one--but it considering the machinations involved in dealing with both the Pentagon and the Hill this individual has to contend with, in a Democratic Administration, a middle-of-the-road, accessible and competent Republican would be a useful asset.
That's right, Huntsman for SecDef.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2013, 10:42:16 AM
Sarah Palin?
Some chick that the dems have a hard on for and GOP tolerates. I ain't looking up her name.
You're probably talking about Michele Flournoy, Panetta's policy undersecretary. Been in and around defense circles since the Clinton Administration. Sharp cookie.
That's her.
LOL, I was reading her Wiki bio; graduated from Beverly Hills High School. ZOMG THE LAUNCH CODE IS 90210
Quote from: 11B4V on January 05, 2013, 06:08:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2013, 08:39:37 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 04, 2013, 08:57:00 PM
He wont make it.
If he won't who will?
Good picks IMO
MCCHRYSTAL
FRANKS
Uh, no. Traditionally they don't allow Generals to be Sec of Def. Besides, Franks wouldn't want it and Obama already fired McChrystal.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2013, 06:36:37 PM
Is that good, bad, meh? Why?
Good. He's been working for Obama on intelligence for the past four years and has been highly praised for it. He's an old fashioned moderately realist Republican. I think he should do well managing the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the cuts which are coming. Because of all that I also think he'll be key in deciding whether to attack Iran. If he supports it I think it would be more or less inevitable.
And he'll be approved. I believe that since the 70s Weinberger and Gates were the most contested SoD nominees (they both received 2 votes against). I fear that that convention could be about to go though and that the Republicans could start making cabinet nominees wars of attrition like lower down appointees or judges :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2013, 06:49:07 PM
And he'll be approved. I believe that since the 70s Weinberger and Gates were the most contested SoD nominees (they both received 2 votes against). I fear that that convention could be about to go though and that the Republicans could start making cabinet nominees wars of attrition like lower down appointees or judges :(
This is a whole different age, Shiv. They're going to contest it all they way, and it will be ugly. All because he's Obama's pick.
Obama could appoint Dick Cheney, and they'd still try to find a way to shoot it down. Anything to cockblock the President.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2013, 09:30:44 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2013, 06:49:07 PM
And he'll be approved. I believe that since the 70s Weinberger and Gates were the most contested SoD nominees (they both received 2 votes against). I fear that that convention could be about to go though and that the Republicans could start making cabinet nominees wars of attrition like lower down appointees or judges :(
This is a whole different age, Shiv. They're going to contest it all they way, and it will be ugly. All because he's Obama's pick.
Obama could appoint Dick Cheney, and they'd still try to find a way to shoot it down. Anything to cockblock the President.
As I said before - the Dems knew this going in, so they should have gone for a different presidential nominee. ^_^
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2013, 09:50:59 PM
As I said before - the Dems knew this going in, so they should have gone for a different presidential nominee. ^_^
The only Dem nominee that would avoid this problem would be Mitt Romney.
If the Dems nominated Romney, the GOP would suddenly all be Santorum supporters.
Quote from: garbon on January 08, 2013, 09:50:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2013, 09:30:44 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 08, 2013, 06:49:07 PM
And he'll be approved. I believe that since the 70s Weinberger and Gates were the most contested SoD nominees (they both received 2 votes against). I fear that that convention could be about to go though and that the Republicans could start making cabinet nominees wars of attrition like lower down appointees or judges :(
This is a whole different age, Shiv. They're going to contest it all they way, and it will be ugly. All because he's Obama's pick.
Obama could appoint Dick Cheney, and they'd still try to find a way to shoot it down. Anything to cockblock the President.
As I said before - the Dems knew this going in, so they should have gone for a different presidential nominee. ^_^
Yeah, cause they were so nice to Hillary.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2013, 09:30:44 PM
This is a whole different age, Shiv. They're going to contest it all they way, and it will be ugly. All because he's Obama's pick.
Obama could appoint Dick Cheney, and they'd still try to find a way to shoot it down. Anything to cockblock the President.
:yes: Like they're doing with Lurch.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2013, 09:12:17 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 08, 2013, 09:30:44 PM
This is a whole different age, Shiv. They're going to contest it all they way, and it will be ugly. All because he's Obama's pick.
Obama could appoint Dick Cheney, and they'd still try to find a way to shoot it down. Anything to cockblock the President.
:yes: Like they're doing with Lurch.
In case of Lurch, I'm sure that Republicans are not thinking about Brown's chances of getting back a Senate seat. Not at all. :whistle:
Quote from: DGuller on January 09, 2013, 09:15:30 AM
In case of Lurch, I'm sure that Republicans are not thinking about Brown's chances of getting back a Senate seat. Not at all. :whistle:
OK. But other than that they're going to cockblock every single nomination. Because they're Obama's picks. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2013, 09:47:40 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 09, 2013, 09:15:30 AM
In case of Lurch, I'm sure that Republicans are not thinking about Brown's chances of getting back a Senate seat. Not at all. :whistle:
OK. But other than that they're going to cockblock every single nomination. Because they're Obama's picks. :)
Didn't say
every pick*. Just the ones they really, really care about. Like this one.
*That doesn't involve a black female.
My bad. I misunderstood the part where you said they were cockblocking him because he was Obama's pick. You know, in the same way that every nomination is Obama's pick.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2013, 01:26:38 PM
My bad. I misunderstood the part where you said they were cockblocking him because he was Obama's pick. You know, in the same way that every nomination is Obama's pick.
Are you going to say they're not going to?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2013, 01:27:59 PM
Are you going to say they're not going to?
I'm saying they're not going to cockblock every one of Obama's picks.
I think Nagel will get confirmed. He'll go into his hearing, he'll profess undying love for Israel, swear that he hates the Ayatollah and Hamas and Hezbollah with every fiber of his being, and a couple of senators will vote against. Enough senators have gone on record saying they have "serious questions they would like answered at the hearing" that Hagel just has to mouth the right words and he's in.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2013, 01:32:52 PM
I think Nagel will get confirmed. He'll go into his hearing, he'll profess undying love for Israel, swear that he hates the Ayatollah and Hamas and Hezbollah with every fiber of his being, and a couple of senators will vote against. Enough senators have gone on record saying they have "serious questions they would like answered at the hearing" that Hagel just has to mouth the right words and he's in.
What's the over/under going to be?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2013, 01:34:13 PM
What's the over/under going to be?
I could see around 6 nayes/abstentions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2013, 01:35:43 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2013, 01:34:13 PM
What's the over/under going to be?
I could see around 6 nayes/abstentions.
If I was a gambler, I'd take the over on that. He'll be confirmed, I think, but it'll be closer than that.