# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/41 "2013-01-07T19:53:56Z")
The US military has long been co-opted by “evangelicals” (i.e., the people we used to be able to call “fundamentalists” before the spineless media agreed to use a nicer-sounding word). Hagel’s role won’t make a damn bit of difference: the military is not friendly to Jews or gays, or to anyone who isn’t a Protestant Christian who sees himself as on a mission to exterminate nonbelievers. Republican, Democrat, tolerant SoD or asshole, won’t change the institution itself without an enormous cultural shift in the U.S. and a willingness to gut most of the current officers, which obviously is not going to happen. ---
**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, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/42 "2013-01-07T20:02:04Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > 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. Huh? What exactly are you insinuating here? Nice way to spread insinuations about the guy without having to say exactly what’s wrong with him. Does he hate Jews? Gays? Blacks? Mexicans? Iranians? Spit it out. > [@](#): > > 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. And what exactly did he blow? Is the problem that he voted for the Iraq war back in 2002? You only want people who were against the war from the beginning? Or is the problem that he was against the surge? For crying out loud, if you’re going to take the time to write a post critiquing the guy, would it kill you to spell out exactly what’s wrong with him? Because the way you baby-eating movement conservatives are handling your opposition to this nomination is pretty fucking lame. ---
**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, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/43 "2013-01-07T20:06:57Z")
He’s insinuating that Hagel isn’t very friendly to Jews and gays. Whether he should be seen as anti-Jewish kind of depends on what you think of AIPAC, apparently, but he’s definitely made some rather insulting remarks about homosexuals. ---
**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, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/44 "2013-01-07T20:08:06Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > The US military has long been co-opted by “evangelicals” (i.e., the people we used to be able to call “fundamentalists” before the spineless media agreed to use a nicer-sounding word). A nitpick: the two terms are not the same, although some people are both evangelical and fundamentalist. Evangelists are people who feel they must actively preach their religion and try to convert non-believers. Fundamentalists are people who reject modernist interpretations of religious scripture. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/45 "2013-01-07T20:13:24Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > So… all you lefties have forgiven Hagel’s alleged homophobia? Not necessarily, but we need to be open-minded about it. Phobias/hatreds aren’t innate; one can learn one’s way out of them. That’s happened to quite a few people over the last few years in regard to homosexuality, for instance. You never need to be too old to fight your own ignorance. That said, he’s going to be asked about it, naturally, and for another thing _it doesn’t necessarily matter anymore for this job_. DADT is gone, as you may have heard. **CR** , USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz probably has a slightly different opinion on the prevalence of antisemitism in his organization. While the problems with discrimination against non-evangelicals at the Academy have been well-publicized, so has the work to eliminate it. ---
**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, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/46 "2013-01-07T20:19:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > He’s insinuating that Hagel isn’t very friendly to Jews and gays. Whether he should be seen as anti-Jewish kind of depends on what you think of AIPAC Or what you think of Hagel’s blunt assessments of AIPAC. But AIPAC itself says it doesn’t take positions on nominations, and Barney Frank and James Hormel himself have made supportive noises. (Hormel was originally unimpressed by the apology.) The Democrats seem to have their ducks in a row here, and only a couple of Republicans have said they won’t vote for Hagel. It sounds to me like they either don’t feel they can vote against a nominee who was a solid Republican for two terms or they’ve already expended most of their anti-nominee gunpowder by opposing Susan Rice. ---
**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, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/47 "2013-01-07T20:26:32Z")
It is kind of amusing the way the Republicans are trying to play the anti-gay card. I suppose it’s progress, of a sort. And let me know when major jewish organizations come out against Hagel, instead of pundits and anonymous staffers. ---
**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, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/48 "2013-01-07T20:29:12Z")
There was a fairly long discussion of whether Hagel’s AIPAC comments were anti-semitic in a recent GD thread, that seemed to break down almost perfectly along “party lines”, hence my comment. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/49 "2013-01-07T20:48:58Z")
I agree with the OP. Obama may be “strong on defense,” but by picking a GOP SecDef two of three times, he’s playing into the idea that his _party_ is not. That’s a slap in the face to other Democrats who might run for the Presidency or Congress. It’s bad and he should feel bad. ---
**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, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/50 "2013-01-07T20:54:19Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Obama may be “strong on defense,” but by picking a GOP SecDef two of three times We don’t know that Hagel will serve through 2017. > [@](#): > > he’s playing into the idea that his _party_ is not. That’s a slap in the face to other Democrats who might run for the Presidency or Congress. Let me see if I understand you: Obama, a Democrat, is strong on defense. But that doesn’t count - the party affiliation of the secretary of defense counts. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/51 "2013-01-07T21:13:23Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > There was a fairly long discussion of whether Hagel’s AIPAC comments were anti-semitic in a recent GD thread, that seemed to break down almost perfectly along “party lines”, hence my comment. What are the “party lines” about conflating refusal to unquestioningly embrace AIPAC positions with antisemitism? Are there pro- and anti-ignorance parties, in your estimation? **Marley23** , I’m sure you understand it’s about _image_, not fact. **fg** does have a point, even if its extent is arguable - this nomination, whatever its merits or other facts, to some degree does strengthen the \*image \*of the Democrats as soft on national security. ---
**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, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/52 "2013-01-07T21:27:54Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **Marley23** , I’m sure you understand it’s about _image_, not fact. **fg** does have a point, even if its extent is arguable - this nomination, whatever its merits or other facts, to some degree does strengthen the \*image \*of the Democrats as soft on national security. I don’t think that image exists at this point, and I think this concern is based on the logic that somehow the party affiliation of the president doesn’t matter much, but the party affiliation of the secretary of defense does. To me, this makes no sense at all. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/53 "2013-01-07T21:49:44Z")
It isn’t about logic \*or \*sense. It’s about image. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/54 "2013-01-07T21:50:15Z")
I’m glad his nominations has stirred up the rabid right. Once again, the Democrats dare them to punch themselves in the dick, and once again the idiots fall for it, and throw a Republican under the bus because he is not conservative enough. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/55 "2013-01-07T21:56:27Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > 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. You seem to be assuming that the meme that Republicans are better for something can’t coexist with a meme that Democrats are better for that same thing. I don’t think that’s how it works. I think the major contrasting ideas here are that Dems are weak on defense and that Repubs are incompetent at foreign policy. I would argue that the latter is stronger right now but that doesn’t mean the former can be safely ignored. > [@](#): > > 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. How does this reality change the perception that is our subject here? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/56 "2013-01-07T22:14:35Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > How does this reality change the perception that is our subject here? Because Obama is seen by the public as strong (perhaps even _very_ strong) on national defense issues- it’s hard to see how the nomination of an ostensibly competent man as SecDef, from whatever party, could make Obama be seen as anything different. ---
**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, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/57 "2013-01-07T22:15:54Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > You seem to be assuming that the meme that Republicans are better for something can’t coexist with a meme that Democrats are better for that same thing. In the OP you appeared to be arguing that this was the widely accepted perception of Democrats, not just “a meme:” > [@2sense](#): > > The perception is that their party is soft. […] In politics it doesn’t pay to play into the negative stereotypes about you. If I were conservative I’d use every opportunity to point out that the Dems were so weak on national defense that they had to borrow a Republican to run it for them. If this is not “the perception” and is just a claim Republicans like to make about Democrats, who cares? ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/58 "2013-01-07T22:23:48Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > The more prominent Democrats with solid security credentials the better it is for them and it doesn’t get any better than SecDef. Bill Clinton had Cohen and now this. In politics it doesn’t pay to play into the negative stereotypes about you. Don’t we normally decry when decisions are made purely for political reasons? If Hagel is the best person for the job it doesn’t matter what party he’s from. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/59 "2013-01-07T22:34:47Z")
Part of being the best person for the job is the ability to have his actions go without excessive unwarranted scrutiny, and the ability to keep the President from having to spend time and political capital defending him from partisan bullshit. The actual administrative and day to day leadership work in a government department mostly comes from its Civil Service careerists, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265/60 "2013-01-07T22:42:55Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It isn’t about logic \*or \*sense. It’s about image. While I understand the image concern of the OP (which perhaps you share), I think it’s about 8 years too old. The tragedy of the Iraq War, and the complete failure of those responsible to take any responsibility for their failures (both their ideas and their execution) is completely understood by the voters at this point. This is amply born out by polling data that shows that Obama (and by extension Democrats) was preferred for handling of foreign policy to Romney (and by extension the GOP). Now you have Obama nominating a man who supported the war but quickly saw it for what it was. He learned from that (and “evolved” on other issues such as gays serving in the military). And soon you will see the GOP attacking that man, a former Senator from their own party, further isolating them from the majority on issues of foreign policy. The other option is a Democrat (pick one) who almost certainly also supported the wars. And there appears to be very few people who Obama trusts on foreign policy issues more than Hagel at this point (perhaps Biden, but he’s a bit busy waxing his Camaro and saving us from the fiscal cliff). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-dumb-for-making-repubs-secdef/646265.md?page=4)