It's clear after one term that President Obama chooses his fights very carefully, and this afternoon we learned that he's prepared to fight for Chuck Hagel.
President Barack Obama on Monday nominated Chuck Hagel, a former Republican senator, as his next defense secretary and counterterrorism adviser John Brennan to head the CIA, urging the U.S. Senate to confirm them quickly.
Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran, would replace Leon Panetta at the Pentagon. Critics have already launched attacks over Hagel's record on Israel and Iran.As Obama noted in his remarks this afternoon, Hagel, if confirmed, would be the first enlisted
serviceman to ever serve as Defense Secretary, the first veteran of the Vietnam War to serve in the post, and one of very few injured servicemen to hold the position.
Though I suspect the confirmation odds are in Hagel's favor, the fight is likely to be one of the more interesting nominating fights we've seen over a cabinet secretary in many years, for a wide variety of reasons that will cross traditional partisan/ideological lines.
* Hagel's a Republican: For some Democrats, the fact that Hagel was a conservative Republican senator is an immediate cause for concern, in part because of his voting record, and in part because Democrats run the risk of reinforcing mistaken caricatures if the party's presidents keep turning to Republicans to head the Pentagon. That said, the bulk of the preliminary criticism on Hagel's nomination is coming from the GOP.
Keep in mind, though, as Steve Clemons mentioned to Rachel on Friday's show, the White House sees this as an opportunity: "[T]here are very qualified, competent people in the Democratic Party who are more than competent to run the Department of Defense. That said, the Democrats that came in, many of them that came in with President Obama, that were also part of the concern that Americans don't trust Democrats to deploy power, to be forceful in the world have adopted in many of the institutions they have built in the last four to five to six years a Pentagon-hugging strategy of not wanting to reform or cut because of the fear that they will be considered Vietnam Democrats, anti-military Democrats." Having Hagel in place to cut Pentagon spending and end the war in Afghanistan gives the administration bipartisan cover.
* Hagel's evolution: As a senator, voted in support of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but later moved away from his party's line and came to see the wars in a very Obama-like way.
* Israel: Far-right activists are accusing Hagel of being anti-Israel because he's noted, out loud, the influence of the Israeli lobby in U.S. foreign policy. As Fred Kaplan and John Judis have explained, there's not much to this.
* Iran: Hagel does not want a war with Iran, and the right seems to find this problematic.
* Spending: The Washington Post editorial board criticized Hagel because he supports cutting the Pentagon's budget, which he sees as "bloated." This sounds to me like praise.
* Gay rights: In the 1990s, Hagel opposed gay rights, though his views have reportedly evolved. For what it's worth, Barney Frank, who said he hoped Obama wouldn't nominate Hagel, in part because of his LGBT views, now says he hopes Hagel is confirmed. Also, the SLDN has endorsed his nomination.
Collectively, there's plenty here to make for a pretty dramatic fight. The same Republicans who used to praise Hagel now want to tear him down, and the same conservatives who wanted to protect him from smears and now themselves doing the smearing.
That said, I'd note for historical context that only one Defense Secretary nominee has ever been defeated by the Senate: John Tower in 1989, who lost 47 to 53, amid reports he was an alleged womanizer with a drinking problem.
Leave a Comment:
Letting deep Pentagon cut proposals come from a Republican, Hagel, is a classic and brilliant chess move by Obama. It will be interesting to see where the Dem caucus is on this fight.
the @!$%# sandwich is brennan. he of the "black sites" and "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a bush holdover whose nomination **for the exact same job** was so controversial he withdrew his name in 2008.
hagel? hooray.
brennan? @!$%# that guy.
Maybe the phrase "Obama taps Hagel" isn't such a good one. Some people might get the wrong idea. Then again, another way of saying it isn't family friendly.
I don't know anybody that listens to a thing the WP editorial board says. The only thing left worth preserving is Dionne, Robinson, Plum Line, and Wonk Blog.
The nomination is going to make it impossible for Republicans to claim that Dems are soft on defense if budgets cuts are imposed through the sequester or by agreement. Another factor is that Hagel is a former serviceman and he understands the needs of personnel when making decisions. It is more likely that those concerns will outweigh the desires of private contractors. A good example is the electrical contractor in Iraq that did shoddy work and caused some deaths and injuries. I would expect Hagel would have taken prompt action rather than wait for bad publicity.
Hagel has apologized to the gay community for his past statements. Attitudes can change over time. I do'nt think Hagel will paint a rainbow on his cheek, but look at Mitt Romney, he painted his face orange(ish) brown to show latino's how much his attitude had changed.
The other interesting part of nominating Hagel is heading into the budget fight is how the Republicans will look when the oppose him. Plays right into the Republicans oppose anything Obama does even if the used to support it narrative. How will they look when the President reaches across the aisle, nominates a guy with an R next to his name for a key cabinet post, and then has Republicans come out and oppose it.
Hagel needs to be willing to look his chickenhawk former colleagues in the eye when they attack and calmly say that his decisions on defense will be informed by his decorated service in combat in Vietnam, and if they are going to criticize his views all he asks is that they first state what military service they had that shapes their views.
Should make for a much, much shorter confirmation hearing.
good for Obama - He should have done the same thing with Rice .
Ya got to stand up to intolerance and stupidity , something the republicans have in abundance.
Absolutely. It will be interesting to see if Obama goes to the mat for Hagel, after the way he's threw Susan Rice and several others under the bus.
mpguy, I'm thinking about Van Jones and Shirley Sherrod...
Frankly, I think Chuck Hagel is someone you could have a disagreement with without being disagreeable. His stances on Israel, Iran & Defense - I'm not mad with him, and we can agree. He has an issue with gay people - and there are many in America that do - so he needs to work on himself and get over it (or at least keep it to himself). And at least he was willing to recognize that his support for Iraq was wrong, which also shows that he's willing to re-think his own actions and make the mea culpa - again not mad with him. What the GOTP is showing by opposing him, that they are: petty, petulant, small minded, willing to turn on their own, cantankerous and sooo wrong for America right now!
Next...
Agreed. His attack on Hormel was wrong and distasteful but it was also 14 years ago. Ideally you'd like Cabinet level appointees to be a little more on the forefront of justice and not make such remarks even in the 1990s, but some perspective is important: if polls are to be believed, a whole lot of Americans have changed their views on gays and gay rights in the past 14 years, and hooray for every one of them.
Shall we find ourselves any other politician who was around at that time who would have taken a different position than Hagel did? Including the guy who's appointing him? How many people reading this blog would have taken a different position at the time? (I'm thinking not too many) At the current time, he has no more "issues" with gay people than the rest of them do.
Ancient history, but as I remember DADT was a radical change and quite progressive. That was 19 years ago. Things change. People change. We can hope so, anyway.
I, too, think Hagel is a good choice. I like that he does not hold an "Israel can do no wrong" stance. I want a SofD that watches out for the troops, and makes friends and alliances with our global neighbors. I like that he refused to sign the petition(?) about Hamas and Hezbollah (sounds too much like signing a pledge to prove you are not a communist!). Too many Christians equate events in Israel with the "End Times," and their policies have tied up their agenda with Zionists, many of whose philosophies are also extreme. He seems a man who will say what he thinks and that he can be trusted. He is likely to go after contractors, and calling excess in the Pentagon budget "bloat" is a good sign. And the gay thing - drop it. He had the grace NOT to say "sorry, IF I offended anyone." What is despicable is watching his so-called friends in his party saying he is not a Republican and dissing him. Every new day brings us a new low in Republican thinking.
Unfortunately, Brennan is one of Bush's people.
Machiavello estaria orgulloso de su brillante y aplicado alumno.Creo que hace bien.Los ya desunidos Republicanos tendran que practicar la antropofagia a la vista y paciencia de la opinion publica.
You can bet all the Modern Major Generals in Versailles-on-the-Potomac are going to have fun saying "Yes, sir!" to a former Sergeant.
TC,
Good to see your racist $@@ on here! Where's your T-Shirt?