Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
As expected, President Obama has nominated former U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, to be Secretary of Defense. The media are trumpeting this pick as a bold, in-your-face move from Obama. ABC News:
Hagel is in many ways an ideal pick for Obama, giving nod to bipartisanship while appointing someone with a demonstrated commitment to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan and to retooling and economizing the Pentagon bureaucracy for the future.
But the nomination of Hagel to replace outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is also politically charged, expected to trigger a brutal confirmation fight in the Senate, where a bipartisan group of critics has already lined up against the pick.
Now, I'm one of those right-leaning folks who opposed the Iraq War. Hagel supported it but opposed the surge effort and that's a big reason that some conservatives began to distrust him. He's also under fire for referring to U.S. supporters of Israel as "the Jewish lobby" and some anti-gay comments made about the appointment of a homosexual ambassador during the Clinton administration. The media keep referring to Hagel as a bipartisan pick. He's only really bipartisan in the sense that he has opponents on both sides of the aisle.
The joke about Hagel, even in Nebraska, was that he was the Senator from France. But I knew folks who worked for him back in the Senate and I always found it interesting that they really didn't like him as a person.
What I'm worried about, as Daniel Larison puts it over at the American Conservative, is "The Ever-Shrinking Republican Foreign Policy Tent." Is there really not room in that party for folks who oppose widespread intervention in global conflicts?
But what do the Ricochetti think? I'm far more disappointed that the joke John Kerry is nominated for Secretary of State, to be honest.
The other big nominee is counterterrorism advisor John Brennan as the new CIA director, replacing David Petraeus.
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (14)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '11
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
Sure there is room in the party for all kinds of things, it doesn't mean its a good idea, nor does it mean that its going to get a lot of support.
Would you vote for Akin to be in charge of the department of health and human services?
Jan '11
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
I actually liked Chuck Hagel originally because he was known for fighting for veteran rights. But I sensed that the moment he realized he could get media airtime for opposing his own party, he milked it for all it was worth.
These nominations have a common theme - they're about attitude. They're much more about the public persona that the nominee gained in partisan politics. Specifically, these were people who forged their public personality by opposing Reagan-style conservatism. Far from being "non-partisan," these picks are ultra-partisan.
If you treat the executive departments as vehicles to make partisan statements (instead of looking for people who can do important jobs), then you're saying either that these jobs aren't all that serious and can be filled by symbols, or that the entrenched bureaucracies at those departments are professional enough and that the secretary is purely symbolic anyway.
These nominees (Hagel and Kerry, not so much Brennan) are about attitude, not competence.
Oct '10
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
I am increasingly tempted to say "[mild COC-violation] the lot of them", no matter their labels or affiliations. There are important things happening in the country and in the world, but no one in Washington seems to care. Which would be fine, if Washington hadn't arrogated to itself ultimate power over every aspect of the life of (basically) everyone on the planet.
Does anyone doubt that a small meteor falling on DC during the inauguration wouldn't be a net gain for the country? (I'm assuming Mollie and her family survive, obviously...)
(Of course, this could be 'first day back at work' blues.)
Oct '10
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
Actually, I doubt this. The problem is not the quality of politicians - with a few exceptions, they have always been crooks and knaves. The problem is the size of government and the impossible duties (and attendant rights) it has taken upon itself: even a government of saints and sages would not be equal to discharging these duties justly and effectively.
Apr '11
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
Pretty much anyone Obama nominates to anything will be someone deeping troubling to most of us. Thus, Hagel, Kerry & whoever else. If I were the GOP, I would voice the obvious objections, but devote the majority of effort towards real cuts in the next round of fiscal negotiations.
Probably not surprisingly, Cato Institute people have been endorsing Hagel in various places including a rebuttal of the anti-Israel charges, for what that's worth.
I don't think having him at Defense would be the end of the world. All in all, having a nominal, off-the-reservation, outcast Republican in there is probably slightly better than having a Dem in there, right?
Mar '11
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
Hagel is a blowhard idiot. But it hardly matters. The Pentagon is so deeply buried in red tape that it has almost seized up entirely.
Defense needs a complete revamping, and when Rumsfeld utterly failed at achieving it, it became clear that in normal peacetime, nobody can do the job.
As for Israel: it is going to have to stand up, and stand alone. The most we can hope for from the US is to not actively interfere with strikes on Iran.
Apr '12
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
As I pointed out in my post on the member feed there is a big difference between Kerry and Hagel. Kerry agrees with Obama's official foreign policy positions while Hagel does not, particularly in key areas like Iran and Israel. That's why his nomination is more significant for what it says about what Obama is really thinking.
Btw, I believe Hagel voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution and only later changed his mind.
Jun '10
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
Hagel is bad for America, bad for Israel, and bad for American defense. He does have a nice head of gray hair.
Brennan, as best I can tell, is a run-of-the-mill Obama sycophant. Given the Obama administration I suppose that's about all we can expect. Weak, and likely incompetent.
Not much new here.
Apr '12
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
As to your question:
Is there really not room in that party for folks who oppose widespread intervention in global conflicts?
I would hope so. I oppose Cato brand libertarian foreign policy but feel the Republican party has defaulted too much to a reflexive John Bolton-style "I'm looking for a fight to prove I'm tough" approach. When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Mar '11
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
This might be an opportune moment to use Rob's new favorite word - a Vuca nomination (am I using or spelling that right?).
Edited on January 7, 2013 at 5:33pmSep '12
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
Hagel's votes in the Senate too often matched Biden's - not exactly something to brag about, even if you're a Democrat. He voted against the surge in Iraq saying it wouldn't work - then it did. He voted for "constructive engagement" with Iran which is a euphanism for "Let's everybody sit around and talk about this, pretending to do something while Iran continues its nuclear development and actually obtains sufficient fissile material for a weapon." If you want to see what the world would look like without the US trying to maintain the peace, just look at history from 1920 to 1939. That experiment in isolationism ended badly. We lost a generation of men in Europe and far too many in the US as well... Would the world be a better place today if we hadn't finally intervened? I doubt it.
Jun '11
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
@Mollie, he's your opposite on Iraq: voted for it, then opposed the surge. Hagel likes interventions and civil liberties restrictions just fine -- Iraq, the Balkans, Patriot Act -- until he doesn't.
He's a card-carrying member of the "pull the rug out from under them" caucus.
Apr '11
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
Even if I thought Kerry or Hagel were good nominees, which I don't. I think the Republicans ought to engage in some hyper-partisan activity to block both of these nominees if only to provide some payback to Reid and Obama for there own antics and partisan hectoring. Bad behavior needs to be punished. The democrats routinely blocked qualified nominees under Bush. Why not do the same? Kerry particularly deserves the same treatment that Robert Bork, and Clarence Thomas received. He should have to go up there and defend every assertion he made in his Vietnam era testimony and answer questions as to what he was doing when he met with the Vietnamese government. I doubt the Republicans have the stomach for it but that is the kind of behavior it is going to take to restore civility. If the left never pays any price they will continue to use the tactic.
Mar '11
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
He does seem to have some rather unusual supporters...
May '10
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
The Secretary's policies are the President's policies. The nomination is insignificant.
Apr '12
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
I agree. That's why Hagel's nomination is so interesting since he opposes some of Obama's key policies.
I also think the test for voting against cabinet nominees is different than for Supreme Court justices. For instance, I'm sure Kerry will make a miserable Sec of State and if I was a senator I'd ask him a lot of embarrassing questions at his confirmation hearing but would vote to confirm. The Prez is entitled to pick the members of his Administration to carry out his policies. Hagel will be an interesting test - will he end up like John Tower who could not get Senate approval because his colleagues could not stand him?
In contrast, Supreme Court appointees are nominees to a co-equal and independent branch of government and are lifetime appointments. If I were in the Senate I would almost certainly vote against anyone Obama nominated.
Sep '12
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
Why is our side trying (pathetically) to micro-manage Obama's cabinet? On the Weekly Standard site, they've been devoting half their space to anti-Hagel posts for weeks now, and whatever the merits of their case it only looks like a personal vendetta to the lay reader. And it's all futile: all the hand-wringing did nothing to halt the nomination, and will likely prove ineffective in the confirmation process. Which gets us exactly...what?
Obama won the election, and guys like Kerry and Hagel clarify what Obama is and where he stands, where people (not 'guys') like Clinton and Pannetta obscured these things. Kerry and Hagel are the faces we should WANT to have associated with the President: first and foremost because they're primarily known for being losers. As a conservative, I was excited when rumors started floating about Dukakis getting the Mass. senatorship: he's the kind of vivid reminder the country needs about why we found leftism so objectionable in the past (those were the days).
We should concentrate our ire on the assault against Constitional liberties. The rest is just distraction, and demeaning to our cause.
Aug '10
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
Seeing that picture of Hagel, Obama, and Brennan standing there made me think of two things, how happy the Muslim Brotherhood must be, and how the base constituency for Current TV new ownership is lining up already.
This is going to force Israel into an uncomfortable position,
and this is going to force the NY Times to outMuslim Al Jazeera, but their Lebanese ownership (Carlos Slim Helu) can handle it.
Edited on January 7, 2013 at 8:08pmApr '12
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
Brennan is the worse nomination in my mind. He's soft on Islamic radicals, and has never shown any willingness to fight people who have declared and pursued war with America for over 15 years. He's sympathetic to our enemies.
Apr '11
Re: Let's Discuss The New Obama Nominations
ChrisZ: Why is our side trying (pathetically) to micro-manage Obama's cabinet? On the Weekly Standard site, they've been devoting half their space to anti-Hagel posts for weeks now, and whatever the merits of their case it only looks like a personal vendetta to the lay reader. And it's all futile: all the hand-wringing did nothing to halt the nomination, and will likely prove ineffective in the confirmation process. Which gets us exactly...what?
13 minutes ago
In Kerry's case, he has made several extreme charges against the American military in Vietnam. If the charges were true he is a confessed war criminal and if they are false then he smeared the US military for personal political gain. That testimony was a propaganda victory for our enemies at a time of war and was used as an excuse to mistreat American POWs. It is something that Mr. Kerry should be called to account for. Hagel is a garden variety political hack; however, there is no reason to play nice with the administration. So what do we gain by cooperating? Especially since the democrats have never dealt in good faith with us.