Can someone produce for me what exactly Sen Hagel has previously stated about Israel that is so controversial? The only quote I've heard to date is him talking about being a US Senator and not an Israeli Senator. Is that the quote that people are up in arms about...that a US Senator openly stated that the US interest are his first priority vs the interest of another Country? That his actual voting record, shows complete support of the US/Israeli relationship...that guy...really?!?!

Conservative, fact? Surely you jest!! And where there are jesters, there are kangaroo courts...

Allen - Omaha - like most of us, Chuck Hagel's views on many topics have evolved over the years. He hasn't said ANYTHING that should keep him from being confirmed but, he's President Obama's choice so that will automatically receive scathing reviews from the conservatives. They are still in obstructionist mode and apparently always will be!

Allen, Omaha -

The one I've heard criticized most often is this. All things considered, I've heard a lot worse:

"The political reality is … that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here,” Hagel said in an interview. “I have always argued against some of the dumb things they do because I don’t think it’s in the interest of Israel. I just don’t think it’s smart for Israel.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/chuck-hagel-critics-case-85842.html#ixzz2HJIkZKnt

@JoAnne in PA - Yeah...I guess it's pretty intense once you see it on paper. A US Senator openly challenging the actions of a lobby group...unheard of (unheard of within the context of being a Republican Senator not speaking about the Teachers Union and Labor that is).

Ridiculous.

What is so funny about this is those same republicans who oppose liberals because they are alleged socialist are oppose to a republican because he is honest. Conservative fascist who needs them to make decisions for the rest of us?

SeekingSanity

Allen - Omaha - like most of us, Chuck Hagel's views on many topics have evolved over the years.

you used the word "evolved" which is a dirty word among the righties; just like science is...they don't accept anyone who "evolves" over time . They are 'ok' with a multiple-choice, daily flip-flopper who will say anything to anyone based on the audience he speaks to at the moment but someone who grows into different views over time based on EXPERIENCE, and EDUCATION is not accepted.

bayllie - my bad. Of course the word "evolve" is horrible - especially to those home-schooled! LOL!!!!

Well stated, bayllie.

I don't see how anything has changed. It's still the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" mentality which is seen mostly exhibited by the Right. I said "mostly" Righties!

RedDev, you said it.

What I find disgusting and troubling is that republicans who praised Chuck Hagel as a senator, continued to praise him when he left the Senate, are now the same ones kicking and screaming about his nomination. That's politics at its worse and it is transparently obvious. As for democrats opposing Hagel, I'd say most of them were hoping a democrat would be selected. That said, I think Hagel more closely aligns with modern democrats than he does with modern republicans.

...and we wonder why so many things don't get accomplished in this Country by our elected officials when, in this case, both sides of the aisle continue to reduce real mountains into mole hills and inflate actual mole hills into artificial mountains.

So many of these people and their positions are as palatable as toilet water after they have crapped in it. Absolutely tired of it.

SeekingSanity

bayllie - my bad. Of course the word "evolve" is horrible

just wait, someone will point out that Prez O evolving on gay marriage is = flip flopping.

AlaskaGirl-759554

I don't see how anything has changed.

how can it when the objective is making the other side look bad?

Now, don't get me wrong, both sides play (have always played and always will play) dirty politics and both sides' objective is to win the next election but there is room to play politics and still doing what's somewhat right. But when the Republicans are willing to sacrifice the 9/11 First Responders and the VETS coming back BROKEN from the 2 wars started by the Republican president, then there is no doubt in my mind that they just don't care what the price is for making Obama look bad.

Ballie, so true.

Allen, good point. Both sides, although it is mostly the right, are making a mountain out of a molehill.

I have no doubt that during his nomination hearing, Chuck Hagel will answer their questions. I see newly elected democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin opposes Mr. Hagel probably for the same reason Barney Frank does. I respect both of them but think they need to have the open mind today that they demand Hagel to have had in 1998. I'd suggest both of them, along with all the others who are opposing the nomination, give Mr. Hagel the opportunity to explain his positions, his views, his "evolving on gay issues" BEFORE making assumptions and judgements. The question I'd ask all the naysayers is why are they NOT willing to listen first before condemning? The quick to judge without knowing all the facts aspects of every nominee, or proposal or event, plays a huge role in the dysfunction of Congress, and it makes Congress look foolish. Attack (shoot) first, ask questions after. That has a negative impact on governing.

seeking and bayllie -- no, you got it correct.

when any change in principle or opinion of a democrat -- say debt ceiling condemnation in 2006 to wanting complete dictatorial control now -- is obviously evolution.

billybob-6210632

when any change in principle or opinion of a democrat -- say debt ceiling condemnation in 2006 to wanting complete dictatorial control now -- is obviously evolution.

yes, you are right. Then Senator Obama in 2006 wa against raising the debt ceiling, and yes, he said he was wrong for being against it- so it's not "evolving," it's admitting to being wrong . That said, we all know that the biggest contributor to our debt is the BUSH TAX CUTS which continue to be unpaid for. On top of that the interest on the money borrowed for the BUSH TAX CUTS also keeps adding EVERY SINGLE YEAR to our debt. There is only one party that was always for making the BUSH TAX CUTS permanent. The 2nd biggest contributor to our debt is the 2 UNPAID wars that the Bush Adminstration started by lying, and manipulation of information. Yet, there is only one party that wants to increase the defense spending.

while Senator Obama was not directly responsible for the debts incurred by the Bush Administration, President Obama is responsible for the debts incurred by the Bush Administration....so, after all, I guess you can call it "evolving"

not evolving but admitting he was wrong -- is that synonymous with a republican flip-flop?

when does the obama administration begin accepting responsibility? all previous administrations have been held accountable -- both justifiably and not -- for what happens on their watch. obama has broken with that tradition.

the decision to extend the bush tax cuts in 2010 and earlier this year are obama's are they not? so we are continuing to pay for them by democrat preference. and the debt added during the current administration is doubling what we pay for interest on the debt.

and again with the bush lies thing. it was never a lie. whether you can accept that or not is immaterial except for your continued self-gratification.

while many argue that spending growth is slower with the current administration it is a fact that the debt has grown faster and will continue to grow faster on his watch than that of any of the previous 43 administrations.

are you in favor of nancy's idea to increase taxes another $1T? that will fall on everyone as there is not enough left in the few rich to cover the costs of this administration

billybob-6210632

not evolving but admitting he was wrong -- is that synonymous with a republican flip-flop?

no, a flip flop is telling the rich donors behind closed doors that 47% of Americans are moochers while denying it publicly.

flip flop is saying you are for something in the morning and then being against it in the afternoon.

the decision to extend the bush tax cuts in 2010 and earlier this year are obama's are they not?

ask yourself why did Obama cave in...I will give you a hint: the Republicans were willing to sacrifice the 9/11 First Responders (you know, those who ran into the WTC burning buildings to save others) and those unemployed (that lost jobs due to the 2008 Financial Meltdown that happened under the Bush Administration)

this one is called a Republican Extortion - not an Obama flip-flop...keep trying though.

are you in favor of nancy's idea to increase taxes another $1T?

there was only one President in our modern history who had balanced budgets; Reagan - 8 yrs of deficits; Bush 1 - 4 yrs of deficits. Bush2- 8 yrs of deficits. So yes, if we need to go back to the Clinton taxes to balance our budget, I am all for it.

the debt has grown every year since 1958. do not delude yourself about BJ Bill. he came close but did not succeed. i would mention that he benefited from the internet boom (it happened on his watch) while bush was saddled with the bust (it happened on his watch)

so you support raising taxes on all Americans. wonder how many of you colleagues on the left will concur as there is already some complaining from the left about the smaller paychecks this year.

Billybob, get real, Clinton came more then close. It boom had very little to do with his success either. It was a policy of more, yeah thats right more taxes on those that could afford it most and investment in America with the money, He put 100000 cops on the street. He repaired infrastructure. These things is what created the largest expansion of a peace time economy ever. He balanced the budget and had a surplus that would have led to a decline in debt had George W. Bush followed his lead. He didn't and the rest is history, Bush doubled the debt, handed Obama a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit budget along with two unpaid for wars and a and unpaid for drug benefit. Then there was the great recession which cut revenue at a the same time that America needed more money. History has repeated itself as the last president to try trickle down economic was also a failure and we are feeling the repercussions of Reagan still today.

billybob-6210632

the debt has grown every year since 1958.

tell that to the Republicans who are complaining that Obama = financial Apocalypse. As I said, Reagan raised debt ceiling 17 times but he is a Republican hero. But Obama, according to the Republicans, needs to be obstructed every time on everything. You would think that the #1 priority for Republicans would be America and Americans, huh?

do not delude yourself about BJ Bill. he came close but did not succeed

1st, I'll take BJ Bill over GWB anytime. Clinton's BJs killed ZERO Americans. Pathological liar and manipulator of information Bush killed thousands of Americans and cost this country trillions.

2nd, the unemployment was as low as 3.9%, the budgets were balanced, the economy was booming, there were no wars, yeah...keep putting Clinton down because you cannot admit that a Democrat was much better than any other Republican in our modern history. it's gotta hurt like a b*tch to admit that, huh?

And when the House sends their proposals to the Senate, the Senate of NO tables it. When did Harry Reid, the Leader of the Senate of NO pass a budget last?

You can't place all blame on one party.

are you sure its tabled, or tabled because mitch places a filibuster 60 vote requirerment?

You are saying Harry hasn't passed any legislation? Of course, you can't back that up!! Just look at his recent work on passing nominees, over Christmas no less. How many days has the Senate worked over the ever vacationing House governed by the Tang-elo Weeper.

Send Harry Reid reasonable legislation and not tea bags perhaps he could get a vote on it. As it is, nobody but the worst of the worst tea bags get to go from house to senate. Oh and not so funny one, the tea bag days are numbered. Get on a new bridge or go in the water.

1funnygirl

And when the House sends their proposals to the Senate, the Senate of NO tables it. When did Harry Reid, the Leader of the Senate of NO pass a budget last?

you are oblivious to how the process works, arent't you. Show me how the Obama proposal (because that's all the presidents do - they submit a "wishlist" to Congress) is exactly the same as what the Congress had voted on...I will give you a hint: the Republicans added changes that they knew were going to be rejected by the Democrats.

johntho - so if reid decides that proposals from the house are not reasonable then it is ok for him to just trash it without getting the views of the entire senate? got it.

harry's way or the highway.

No billybob, if Harry feels there is not enough votes for a bill he doesn't waste your money and mine discussing it. Get it. You really need a government class. Maybe you could look up Majority leader and speaker of the house and find out their jobs.

BCWC - you give to much credence to politicians. We all know they wear penny loafers. Now, I'm not suggesting they are light in the loafers, but if the foo @!$%#s, er em, if the shoe fits....

RedDev ... just pissed that my choice, General Wesley Clark, was never considered.

O'boy ... should stir up some manure dust with that.

BCWC - I would like to see Colin Powell considered. But we can't have to many Black Men in leading government roles. Mmm, BCWC, BMWM, interesting!!

RedDev- I'm not sure Colin Powel wants the job again. I think his being fed lies by the Bush administration left him with a distaste for the job.

bcwc - Wesley Clark would be great in some post. I have a lot of respect for him. But, I like Hagel for SoS

RedDev, I understand that Colin Powell's wife is ailing from a progressive mental disorder ... he is not of John Edwards ilk.

bcwc - I had heard something was wrong with Powell's wife but I hadn't heard what it is. How sad for them.

he is not of John Edwards ilk.

I believe you mean Newt - in sickness as in health, until divorce (Calista) do us part.

RedDev - or whichever wife Newt is divorcing at the time. Dear Calista is wifey #3. And, of course John McCain divorced his first wife, right after she had had a horrible accident, because of his affair with Cindy!

Leave office for a while and the entire GOP becomes captive to the teabaggers. The senior GOP members don't even recognize their party any more.

JoAnne - I would line up to protest against John McCain for anything - including garbage man! The man has sunk lower than whale sh*t in the bottom of the ocean!

"And leading the charge would no doubt be.....John McCain."

JoAnne, please warn me when you are going to do that. Now I have got to clean my monitor. Lunch is all over it. ( - ;

Hey, Seeking -

If he could just manage to take the lid off the can before dumping it upside down into the truck, I'd at least be willing to give him a tryout......I haven't seen a lid on my block in all the years I've lived here! :)

P.S. - Sorry, Johntho! Step away from the keyboard before reading my reply to Seeking!

And leading the charge would no doubt be.....John McCain.

Wouldn't be the first time a republican filibustered himself in public. Speaking of which, isn't that something Vitter used to pay for on the side?

sfcret: "I do believe the most of the left wingers posting their support for Hagel are doing so because of their support for anything President Obama wants."

Okay, let's assume for the sake of discussion that you're right - why should that be so surprising? I know a lot more about President Obama than I do about Chuck Hagel, and I have to assume that he knows more about Hagel than I ever will. One of the main reasons I voted for the President again is that I think he's smarter than I am, he knows more about Washington than I do, and I trust his judgement in these types of decisions better than I would trust my own.

And what exactly do No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D have to do with being Secretary of Defense anyway?

JoAnne - As to your last paragraph, I was pointing out his Congressional votes and not saying that they have anything to do with SOD. Let's don't ASSUME anything, and maybe you should wait and see what happens in the confirmation hearings. BTW, IMO President Obama's picks have not been the greatest so far during his 4 yrs in the White House.

" BTW, IMO President Obama's picks have not been the greatest so far during his 4 yrs in the White House."

You have every right to your opinion, of course - and if something new comes out about Hagel during the confirmation hearings that I strongly object to, then fine - I'll be happy to withdraw my support. All I'm saying is that if there was anything THAT bad, I trust that the President would already be aware of it and wouldn't have made this pick in the first place.

And you were the one who brought up No Child and Medicare, not me. All I'm saying is that if he were running for President himself, those things might make a difference in my support for him. But if the President - whose judgement I evidently trust a lot more than you do - can get past those things for this particular job, then I see no reason why I can't do the same.

I mean geez.....even a die-hard liberal like me doesn't expect the entire government to be made up of nothing but other die-hard liberals! Why is that so hard to believe?