# Dems Dumb For Making Repubs SecDef **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 6, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265 "2013-01-06T17:16:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/21 "2013-01-07T06:16:23Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > How so? Perhaps I’m not explaining this well, but at the start of the thread you argued that the Democrats were perceived as soft on defense and nominating a Republican was a mistake because it plays into that perception. I argued that the Democrats are looking strong on defense these days, and you said that that makes it even more important they not nominate a Republican. So if the Democrats are seen as weak on defense, nominating a Republican is bad, and if they’re strong on defense, nominating a Republican is bad. If you think they shouldn’t nominate Republicans, I can respect that and I don’t really disagree. But in that case it’s not really about the perception because you’re making the same argument regardless of how they are perceived. In real world terms, Obama has looked strong on defense and the party affiliation of the secretary of defense is not going to sway any votes. The 2016 Republican nominee is not going to do anything different if the secretary of defense is a Republican. > [@](#): > > If your line of attack is weakening, shoring it up seems pretty logical to me. But it isn’t weakening. I’d say the perception of Democrats on national security issues hasn’t been this strong in generations. > [@](#): > > It’s about the perception that the defense of the nation is safer in the hands of a Republican. The defense of the nation isn’t in the hands of a Republican. It’s in the hands of Obama (to the extent it’s in any one person’s hands), and Hagel would be the person who is tasked with running the military on a day-to-day basis. Obama has the final say. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/22 "2013-01-07T06:17:36Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > [I found this very informative.](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/01/chuck_hagel_for_secretary_of_defense_republicans_wants_to_block_him_from.html?fb_action_ids=10100397962247285&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=sm_fb_like_toolbar&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210100397962247285%22%3A430935693645260%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210100397962247285%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%7B%2210100397962247285%22%3A%22sm_fb_like_toolbar%22%7D) In fact it made me feel better about Hagel’s candidacy in spite of his disgusting comments about James Hormel years ago. Spoiler alert: the conclusion is that Republicans don’t have a problem with Hagel. They have a problem with Obama and this is the only thing they can do about it. I do think there wouldn’t be a problem if a different president were nominating Hagel, but he has been an occasional thorn in the side of the GOP. There are probably some Republicans who think there’s been too much conciliation by some of their own recently, so some of this may be a warning for others to keep in line. But my reading of Hagel’s actual foreign policy ideas has been one not very far at all from the mainstream of either party. He is just one of those politcians who is willing to address issues outside of the pre-approved party lines. As for the Hormel thing, there’s been a lot of evolution on that subject over the years on both sides of the aisle in recent years. So far I’m satisfied it was pandering, and that he is sorry for it. But if his recantation is just more pandering I’d reconsider that. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/23 "2013-01-07T06:48:17Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > As for the Hormel thing, there’s been a lot of evolution on that subject over the years on both sides of the aisle in recent years. So far I’m satisfied it was pandering, and that he is sorry for it. But if his recantation is just more pandering I’d reconsider that. It’s true that things have changed a lot since 1998, but if anything, there should be more emphasis on this precisely because Obama has undone ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ and is the first president to support gay marriage. It makes the choice of Hagel that much more questionable because there has finally been some major progress on that front. As far as I can tell Hagel’s comments didn’t stem from any particular political issue, they were only prompted by Hormel’s sexuality - he was the ambassador to Luxembourg, which is pretty much the definition of an unimportant posting - and it’s obvious the apology was politically motivated because he only recanted his remark a couple of weeks ago when his nomination was being discussed and people remembered the comment. His apology is clearly politically motivated. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/24 "2013-01-07T06:57:23Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It’s true that things have changed a lot since 1998, but if anything, there should be more emphasis on this precisely because Obama has undone ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ and is the first president to support gay marriage. It makes the choice of Hagel that much more questionable because there has finally been some major progress on that front. As far as I can tell Hagel’s comments didn’t stem from any particular political issue, they were only prompted by Hormel’s sexuality - he was the ambassador to Luxembourg, which is pretty much the definition of an unimportant posting - and it’s obvious the apology was politically motivated because he only recanted his remark a couple of weeks ago when his nomination was being discussed and people remembered the comment. His apology is clearly politically motivated. Well that’s the part I don’t know. He may not have addressed those statements directly until recently, but I don’t know what else he’s said or how he’s acted since 1998. The current fight over foreign policy issues may end up obscuring that in the news. It is a concern for the SoD because of the change to DADT, so I’d pay attention to more information on that subject. But I’m not finding a big problem with his foreign policy issues. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/25 "2013-01-07T08:13:51Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > It’s not about Obama. He’s not going to nominate himself for SecDef and can’t run for POTUS again so his credentials are immaterial. It’s about the perception that the defense of the nation is safer in the hands of a Republican. But any problem that arises on this issue from Obama appointing Hagel will be pretty much limited to Obama. Let’s say Cuomo is the Democratic nominee in 2016. Will the Republicans attack him on national security issues? Probably. As you note, it’s an ongoing issue Democrats have to face and Cuomo will have to take his turn, regardless of whether or not Hagel is nominated. But will the Republicans specifically be able to use Hagel against him? Not really - Cuomo would just say he doesn’t have to answer for the Obama cabinet. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/26 "2013-01-07T11:32:15Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It’s true that things have changed a lot since 1998, but if anything, there should be more emphasis on this precisely because Obama has undone ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ and is the first president to support gay marriage. It makes the choice of Hagel that much more questionable because there has finally been some major progress on that front. I guess, but because Obama has been so committed to getting gays into the military, I’m not really that worried about what Hagel will do with regards to the same. Even if he really doesn’t like gay people, I don’t think he’ll have much room to act on those feelings. Plus, Hagel hasn’t exactly been an anti-gay crusader. The fact that you need to go back to a debate about an obscure official in the Clinton Administration to find him saying something embarassing on the subject supports this. Compare to someone like Michelle Bachmann, whose probably said three worse things about gay people _this week_, and for whom opposing gays is a signature issue. Even if privately he’s a homophobe, he hardly seems likely to be passionate enough about the issue to fight the administrations pro-gay polices. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/27 "2013-01-07T11:54:54Z")
The thing I heard some pundit say that makes the most sense to me is that Obama knows he’s going to have to make some deep cuts to reduce the deficit, and he feels that the place he can cut the most money with the least harm to the country is defense (we’re out of Iraq, we’ll soon be out of Afghanistan, we are depending more on unmanned drones, and we spend more than the next 20 countries combined), but any reduction in defense spending is characterized as “gutting our military” by Fox News and its allies in Congress. Having a Republican Vietnam Vet SecDef proposing those cuts will help sell them to the country. It won’t make the likes of Michelle Bachmann support them, but at least it should rob her of the ammo she would have if someone like John Kerry presided over the same cuts. As for Hagel’s apology of convenience over gay rights, I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. A lot has happened since the last century, and a lot of people who used to be strongly opposed to gay rights have seen that it’s not the end of the world. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/28 "2013-01-07T12:51:31Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > I guess, but because Obama has been so committed to getting gays into the military, I’m not really that worried about what Hagel will do with regards to the same. Even if he really doesn’t like gay people, I don’t think he’ll have much room to act on those feelings. I don’t expect him to act on it in any particular way either, and no, he doesn’t have the anti-gay record of a Bachmann or Santorum. I’m saying this nomination does send an unfortunate message: that even after the progress that’s been made over the last few years, all he has to do is mutter a quick, self-interested ‘sorry’ for attacking an ambassador over his sexuality and he’s considered fit to run a Defense Department that just repealed DADT. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/29 "2013-01-07T13:48:32Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I don’t expect him to act on it in any particular way either, and no, he doesn’t have the anti-gay record of a Bachmann or Santorum. I’m saying this nomination does send an unfortunate message: that even after the progress that’s been made over the last few years, all he has to do is mutter a quick, self-interested ‘sorry’ for attacking an ambassador over his sexuality and he’s considered fit to run a Defense Department that just repealed DADT. Alot of peoples views on homosexuality have changed in the last decade and a half. So long as they’re willing to say they were wrong, I don’t see much value in locking them all out of public service. Hagel says he was wrong in 1998, and now is committed to continue implementing the end of DADT. So long as he follows through on that (and we both seem to agree he probably will), I don’t really care what he thought of gays fifteen years ago. Plus, there are plenty of politicians who wouldn’t be willing to offer an apology, “muttered” or otherwise, for their anti-gay views. I think we’re better off resisting those people being put in positions of power while welcoming people that are willing to say they’ve changed their minds. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/30 "2013-01-07T14:05:19Z")
Yeah, look at people like Robert Byrd or George Wallace, who started out their early political careers by being extremely racist, but then they sincerely changed their tune when they realized how wrong they were. I have no trouble believing the same might be true for this guy. It’s funny but sometimes the more outspoken and hateful you are about something, the easier it is for you to see how wrong you are and change your ways. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/31 "2013-01-07T14:50:29Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It’s also a good political move. As the Republican base gets more narrow and conservative, Obama is making a bipartisan gesture. Democrats want to start making the argument that they’re more in line with moderate Republicans than the current Republican party is. > > It also puts Congressional Republicans in a hard place. If they attack Hagel, they’ll end up looking so obstructionist that they’re even willing to attack a fellow Republican to get at Obama. If they support Hagel and oppose other nominations, they’ll look like they’re just following party lines. And if they back off and let the nominations slide, then the Obama administration gets what it wants with minimal fuss. I think this pretty much covers it. How better to fully and finally demonstrate that the Republican caucus is obstructionist than to watch them attempt to block a nomination from their own party? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/32 "2013-01-07T15:06:18Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I don’t expect him to act on it in any particular way either, and no, he doesn’t have the anti-gay record of a Bachmann or Santorum. I’m saying this nomination does send an unfortunate message: that even after the progress that’s been made over the last few years, all he has to do is mutter a quick, self-interested ‘sorry’ for attacking an ambassador over his sexuality and he’s considered fit to run a Defense Department that just repealed DADT. Sometimes you’ve got to take “yes” for an answer. If you hold that anyone who used to espouse anti-gay views is unfit for office regardless of what they currently espouse, then why would anyone bother to recant their previous positions? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/33 "2013-01-07T15:14:40Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Hagel says he was wrong in 1998, and now is committed to continue implementing the end of DADT. So long as he follows through on that (and we both seem to agree he probably will), I don’t really care what he thought of gays fifteen years ago. That’s true. Ultimately his own views (whatever they are) may not matter since he’ll be implementing Obama’s policies. > [@](#): > > Plus, there are plenty of politicians who wouldn’t be willing to offer an apology, “muttered” or otherwise, for their anti-gay views. Yes, and they wouldn’t get nominated for this job. There are also politicians who wouldn’t have to apologize for calling someone unqualified for a diplomatic job because he was “openly, aggressively gay” in the first place. Ideally Obama would go with one of those. In the grand scheme of things I guess Hagel’s apology is going to be at least politically sufficient given the things Obama wants to do. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/34 "2013-01-07T15:29:39Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > If you hold that anyone who used to espouse anti-gay views is unfit for office regardless of what they currently espouse, then why would anyone bother to recant their previous positions? A sincere change of opinion? Hagel could have changed his mind at any time in the last 14 years but didn’t mention it until he was up for this job. And if he didn’t recant, would anyone really care? He left office four years ago and it’s not like anyone would be clamoring for his views if he weren’t being nominated. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/35 "2013-01-07T18:00:30Z")
Since I am one of the few board token conservatives, I suppose I can say something, although anything I say will obviously be evident that I am warped, hellish monster who eats puppies and kitties alive and is a simpleminded religious sheeple, of course. I really, really don’t like Hagel. I don’t hate him, but I find him poorly qualified for most high offices. He has no relevant experience. I could see him heading some kind of economic advisory service (of which there are several, or even serving as Sec State (there’s a reason why I wouldn’t want him for Sec State, but he ahs the ability if not the character). I don’t see how he has any knowledge or skills which would particularly prepare him for such a role. More than that, he honestly looks like a pleasant person with some unhealthy views on a wide array of Americans and foreign peoples, and that may compromise his ability to do his job honestly. And let’s not forget he kinda blew the most important military call in the last decade, so… yeah. Not a choice I could support unless there’s a lot in play I don’t know, and I’m certainly not hearing strongly-voiced support from almost anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/36 "2013-01-07T18:08:54Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I really, really don’t like Hagel. I don’t hate him, but I find him poorly qualified for most high offices. He has no relevant experience. I could see him heading some kind of economic advisory service (of which there are several, or even serving as Sec State (there’s a reason why I wouldn’t want him for Sec State, but he ahs the ability if not the character). I don’t see how he has any knowledge or skills which would particularly prepare him for such a role. He was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ans the Select Committee on Intelligence. Prior to his Senate tenure he was deputy administrator of the VA, CEO of the USO, and a Red Cross board member. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/37 "2013-01-07T18:12:15Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I really, really don’t like Hagel. I don’t hate him, but I find him poorly qualified for most high offices. He has no relevant experience. He was a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and apparently he got good reviews in his latest job as chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board. His decorated military service is of questionable relevance, but I’ll throw that in there to be comprehensive. Ninja’ed, but jeez, that is plenty of resume. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/38 "2013-01-07T18:56:40Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Yes, and they wouldn’t get nominated for this job. There are also politicians who wouldn’t have to apologize for calling someone unqualified for a diplomatic job because he was “openly, aggressively gay” in the first place. Ideally Obama would go with one of those. In the grand scheme of things I guess Hagel’s apology is going to be at least politically sufficient given the things Obama wants to do. This is an interesting area of this issue, and I’m not sure how to make my call on it. If his 1998 words were really an isolated incident, motivated by political factors, maybe an apology is all that’s needed. But it’s still a legimate question, even if he is implementing Obama’s policy, his opinions will have an effect throughout the defence department. Policies can be implemented at full bore, or they can be slow walked. I don’t get the impression this one area is going to matter in this case, but it will be worth keeping an eye on. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/39 "2013-01-07T19:44:12Z")
So… all you lefties have forgiven Hagel’s alleged homophobia? Figured you would. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/40 "2013-01-07T19:45:51Z")
Read the thread, did you? Figured you didn’t. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265.md?page=3)