Chuck Hagel, Gay Rights, and Liberalism’s Incoherence
Chuck Hagel, apparently President Obama’s choice to be secretary of Defense, has really stepped in it. Or rather, everyone has just been reminded that he stepped in it big time in the past, and now he’s furiously trying to backpedal his way out.
In opposing President Clinton’s nomination of James Hormel — spawn of Spam (the Hormel meat family) and large Democratic contributor — to be ambassador to Luxembourg in 1997, Hagel, then a Republican senator from Nebraska, said that an “openly, aggressively gay” man should not represent the United States. As reported recently in the New York Times:
“They are representing America,” Mr. Hagel said in an interview with The Omaha World-Herald. “They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly, aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel — to do an effective job.”
Now, of course, Hagel calls his remarks “insensitive,” claims they “do not reflect my views,” and apologizes “to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights.” (That’s more than he’s said to Jews for his remarks about Israel and the Jewish lobby, but then Jews have proven themselves so loyal to Democrats that they can be stepped on with impunity.)
At first Hormel, still a big Democratic money man, was having none of it. In an interview with the Washington Post he “questioned the sincerity of the apology”:
“I have not received an apology. … I thought this so-called apology, which I haven’t received, but which was made public, had the air of being a defensive move on his part.” Hormel added that the apology appeared to have been given “only in service of his attempt to get the nomination.”
But it may work, as Washington apologies of convenience often do. Remember when Joseph Lieberman turned on a dime, abandoning a career of principled opposition to racial preferences to grovel before Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus to silence black opposition to Gore’s selection of him as running mate?
In his inaugural address as chairman of the centrist Democratic Leadership Conference in 1995, Lieberman had said that preferential treatment based on race or gender is “patently unfair,” adding: “You can’t defend policies that are based on group preferences as opposed to individual opportunity, which is what America’s been about.” Such preferential policies, he concluded, have the effect of “breaking ties in civil society that hold us together.” Two years later he was a strong supporter of California’s Prop. 209, outlawing such preferences. But with the prospect of his vice presidential nomination dangling on a thread, he appeared before Maxine Waters and members of the Congressional Black Caucus on the first day of the 2000 Democratic Convention and abjectly recanted, proclaiming: “I have supported affirmative action, I do support affirmative action, and I will support affirmative action.” Labor Secretary Alexis Herman explained that when Lieberman supported restrictions on racial preference he did so “without knowing the full impact … he did not understand the intent of Proposition 209.”
Interestingly, the job-seeking about-faces from both Lieberman and Hagel turned on controversial and contested notions of civil rights. And just as Waters, the Black Caucus, and the civil rights establishment used Lieberman’s past opposition to racial preference policies as a club to pound him into promised fealty to affirmative action forever, so today’s gay activists are attempting to seize on Hagel’s past “insensitivity” to gay rights to secure his endorsement of their agenda. Thus Allyson Robinson, executive director of OutServe-SLDN, a gay rights organization, welcomed Hagel’s apology and “look[s] forward to learning more about his commitment to full LGBT military equality.”
More LGBT for a strong defence? Huh? What the heck does that have to do with it?
More LGBT for a strong defense?
What a bizarre campaign to oppose an American hero and wounded combat veteran.
Hagel served in combat and was wounded twice-he risked his own life again to save his own brothers life-and succeeded
Hagel puts American fundamental interests firsts-always has
Hagel is also a devout Christian
A “devout Christian,” I think not.
A “devout” Christian would not forsake the teachings of his Lord, for political or other gain. He may, may indeed, nay has shown great bravery in the face of physical death but now shows weakness in a moral battle.
Where he may have claimed to be a “follower” of Jesus Christ, he shows that he is/was but a follower of convenience, much like the many who followed Jesus while there was bread and fishes, but turned away from Him when things got hard.
being hit by a bullet does not make one a hero anymore than does the act of putting on a uniform. Hagel deserves praise for combat service just as he deserves scorn for political opportunism. If Hagel really put “American fundamental interests first,” he would not attempt to portray himself as the arbiter of people’s private lives.
Oh, so now you lefturds think having a military background is great…I don’t remember that kind of enthusiasm for Sen. John McCain when he was running for prez. vs. the WON.
You lefties have no idea of how foolish you look when you put your foot in your mouths and openly display your hypocrisy and opportunism.
It is appalling to think that Americans would consider putting a decorated Vietnam war vet in charge of the defense dept considering that he hurt the feelings of some gay dude 15 years ago with an insensitive remark. Shocked I am. The rest of America is also bound to be just as shocked I am sure. Exaggerating Hagel’s sins against political correctness is an excellent idea. After all, American readers are really stupid and it could not possibly boomerang back on you. Could it?
For me, not so much his gay comment but his thoughts and actions on Israel and Iran. This is much more disconcerting.
Give him some time – he’ll come around. These chuckle-heads always have. They do and say whatever it takes to obtain or gain power. Its an elixir and they cannot get enough of it.
I have some additional discussion of the liberal incoherence regarding equality and non-discrimination here:
http://www.discriminations.us/2013/01/chuck-hagel-gay-rights-and-liberalisms-incoherence/
“Hagel puts American fundamental interests firsts-always has
Hagel is also a devout Christian.”
That’s it, he’s toast.
The GOP should not participate in this little diversion of Obama. They need to focus on energy, budget and regulatory abyss of the Obama agencies.
When the committee holds hearings, the GOP should hold meetings on energy, budget and regulation and/or anything else that is important. Such as can we afford a Pres. spending millions on luxury vacations?
Sec Def was Panetta. Hagel might even be an improvement. Oh, and Kerry as Sec State? Just skip the votes. Don’t support and don’t vote at all on their appointments.
Oh, and then there’s less need for Reid’s filibuster change. After all, if the Dems can’t get Sec Def and Sec State confirmed with their own votes, how foolish can any other position be?
All Hagel and other aspiring cabinet members need to is say, “I stand firmly for whatever is trendy.” The two most recent Supreme Court appointees were backpedaling prior statements like a bear on a unicycle at the circus. Needless to say, once confirmed they performed exactly as Obama presumed in nominating them to begin with.
Well as sure as sun rises in the east, O’Dismal will nominate a liberal, “republican” former Senator in order to tear apart the republicans. He will sit back and watch both the Reps tear into Hagel. As much as I despise O’Dismal, he’s a brilliant politican….constantly advancing his agenda. Moving the football and always on offense. The Reps really don’t know what’s hitting up along side the head, front, center, and back.
You could not be more right. WSJ reported: “(Speaker) Boehner confirms that at one critical juncture he asked Mr. Obama, after conceding on $800 billion in new taxes, “What am I getting?” and the president replied: “You don’t get anything for it. I’m taking that anyway.”
In other words, the republicans are playing “go-fish” with a poker master. Only, he’s not a poker master. He’s an amateur and that makes the republicans even more amateurish. It’s like a Pop Warner team thinking they can take on the local high-school junior varsity, for another analogy.
It is remarkable that the republicans can’t, don’t or won’t see it. If we here at PJM and other sites can see what he’s up to, predict it, propose counters to it, then why can’t the republicans who are elected to do just that?
My guess is they want as much power as the democrats and are happy to let them raise the bar so that when it’s their turn (ha, fat chance now) they can wield it. *sigh* It’s deja-vu all over again. Rome, anyone?
You got it right. When the republicans stupidly agreed to set up the sequestration process I knew it wouldn’t turn out well for them. It gave the democrats everything they wanted without losing too much that they cared for. I knew the republicans could not stand up to the caterwauling that would ensue from the MSM and the democrats. They did not disappoint. Perhaps with a speaker with some backbone things might have turned out for the better.
And Chuck being Chuck has fallen right in line with Obama’s wishes. after a very undistinguished career in the legislature seeking attention he has finally found his long sought for place…stabbing the GOP, Israel and the military in the back, just exactly what delights Obama. He can’t administer his way out of a paper bag either.
If this is an indication of our policies we could save a lot of time and money. We could just take those nuclear warheads of ours that Obama wants to destroy and sell them to Iran. We could use the profits for the mandatory gun buy back program here and we will all have a more peaceful world.
If the Gay community and Jews have some concerns there is always plenty of room for them under the Obama Bus.
I’m surrpised nobody has quoted Groucho Marx yet. “Those are my views, and if you don’t like them — I have others.”
The man gives you a freakin Republican, and your STILL upset and throwing hissyfits. Continue to show yourselves to be the obstinate fools the rest of the world sees you as. Your making it easy for Hillary 2016.
And had Romney nominated someone like Artur Davis or Zel Miller or some other Democrat or former Democrat who had views that were controversial or not in vogue with the mainstream of the Democrat or liberal base, you’d be germane with it?
I think not.
Gee wiz, magic marker. Not every republican is worthy of support.
refer to my comment @2
The Senate should say no to this terrible choice.
Hagel has no natural constituency, except perhaps for those who want a foreign and defense policy that is tougher on Israel and softer on Iran.
Israel would be clear that Obama views the Jewish state with hostility. Iran would be clear that it has nothing serious to fear from the Obama administration.
Nothing else can explain this odd nomination. Team Obama tried to couch it as a bipartisan act, inasmuch as Hagel was a Republican Senator. But key Republican Senators have made it clear that they don’t want Hagel at the Pentagon. Key Democrats have also failed to express enthusiasm over that prospect. If there’s a bipartisan consensus around Hagel, it’s that Obama should nominate someone else.
If the President would like to abandon his election promises about stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program he should just say so.
Trying to change US Defense and Foreign Policy by just appointing Hagel will be understood that way in the Senate and will
not be accepted.
Ten out of twenty-five members of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, Democrats, Republicans and Independents,
have already expressed their concerns about him.
To me he is the stereotypical Archie Bunker type bigot. His policies have been anti gay (even now after his late and self serving apology he doesn’t support equal benefits for gay military families.
there are many ways a Secretary of Defense could help gay military families no matter how DOMA is decided and Hagel has not come out in favor of any of these.
Reports to the contrary, LGBT equality is not yet a done deal in the military. There is still the matter of partner benefits. There still remain a handful of regulations that could be revised independent of the Defense of Marriage act that could bring some equity of compensation and benefits to gay and lesbian service members. but remain denied due only to Department of Defense foot-dragging:
Included in the discretionary benefits currently denied are spousal identication cards, and shopping at the PX, the former cited in the Pentagon’s own Working Group study as not requiring DOMA repeal to deliver.
His remarks about the Jewish lobby having too much influence would cleary be seen as bigoted if you substitute any other
minority group’s lobby. Try NAACP or La Raza and see how long you would be considered.
He is anti-African American (with a 11/100 rating from NAACP and admires Strom Thurmond as a great role model. anti Woman (vs choice and contraception)
By contrast, he has a 100% rating from the NRA.
and
Hagel has drawn additional heat from insiders who claim he lacks the credentials needed to manage a department as large and essential as the Pentagon.
“Yes, Hagel has crazy positions on several key issues. Yes, Hagel has said things that are borderline anti-Semitism. Yes, Hagel wants to gut the Pentagon’s budget. But above all, he’s not a nice person and he’s bad to his staff,” said a senior Senate aide who has close ties to former Hagel staffers.
“Hagel was known for turning over staff every few weeks—within a year’s time he could have an entirely new office because nobody wanted to work for him,” said the source. “You have to wonder how a man who couldn’t run a Senate office is going to be able to run an entire bureaucracy.”
Others familiar with Hagel’s 12 year tenure in the Senate said he routinely intimidated staff and experienced frequent turnover.
“Chuck Hagel may have been collegial to his Senate colleagues but he was the Cornhusker wears Prada to his staff, some of whom describe their former boss as perhaps the most paranoid and abusive in the Senate, one who would rifle through staffers desks and berate them for imagined disloyalty,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq. “He might get away with that when it comes to staffers in their 20s, but that sort of personality is going to go over like a ton of bricks at the Pentagon.”
Multiple sources corroborated this view of Hagel.
“As a manager, he was angry, accusatory, petulant,” said one source familiar with his work on Capitol Hill. “He couldn’t keep his staff.”
“I remember him accusing one of his staffers of being ‘f—ing stupid’ to his face,” recalled the source
Sources expressed concern about such behavior should Hagel be nominated for the defense post. With competing military and civilian interests vying for supremacy, the department requires a skilled manager, sources said.
“The Pentagon requires strong civilian control,” a senior aide to a former Secretary of Defense told the Free Beacon. “It’s already swung back in favor of the military over the past five years. A new secretary of defense should push it back in its rightful place, but it’s doubtful Hagel would be that guy.”
“It’s not clear that [Hagel] has the standing, the managerial prowess, or the willingness to gore some oxen,” said the source.
One senior Bush administration official warned that Hagel is ill informed about many critical foreign policy matters.
“He’s not someone who’s shown a lot of expertise on these issues,” said the source, referencing a recent Washington Post editorial excoriating Hagel’s record. “That [op-ed] was extraordinary.”
“Only in Washington,” the official added, “can someone like [Hagel] be seen as a heavy weight. He’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer.”
Hagel’s reluctance to chastise Iran also remains a central concern.
As chief of the Pentagon it is expected he would avoid planning for a military intervention should Tehran refuse to end its clandestine nuclear enrichment program.
“The military brass is already reluctant to offer up any military options on Iran even though it’s their job to have something on the books and to leave the options of the commander in chief open,” said the aide. “Hagel will only reinforce these worrisome tendencies.”
“Chances are he’ll view any legitimate effort to talk about military options with Iran as some plot by the ‘Israel Lobby’ to box him in,” the source said.
There is no reason to believe his appointment would change Israeli policies.
But there is a very strong likelihood that it would be a fatal blow to the chances of a negotiated settlement with Iran.
Iran would have to conclude that it doesn’t have to fear
finishing it’s nuclear weapons program or even continuing towards ICBM’s pointing at America.
Democratic senators, several of whom have already voiced concern, also should vote no on someone who’s views on many major issues are opposite of the President’s
and who’s language is bigoted, and instead insist he appoint a better person like Michelle Flournoy.
Flournoy closely mirrors the previous stated policies of the President, the Democratic Party, and the American people.
Pretty silly: when you want to work under a horse’s tail you grab it by the nose.
Hegel is not much for Israel, and that is what has many people riled. That is the substance, and the gay business is just a stick to beat the dog. The whole thing is a sort of question to his base.
Better though, he will be a lighting rod for Obama win or lose on the Israel question. Obama has no use for the place, as do many liberals. He gets the nod, he can really go for it, while Obama can do a Benghazi if something happens.
If he loses, well, he can go with someone perhaps more of what he likes. No loss there really. A good tussle will make the second round easier.
Hagel is really ideal, as he puts his opponents in a quandary. You like him for this gay stance, even though you can’t say so, you might let Israel slide. The Left hates Israel, and knows Obama is on board for the other issues.
You enemies have reasons to both like and dislike the guy, so I think he is in, or at least a great prep for act two.
Stop being duped. Hagel will be appointed. If Obama wants it, he will get it. The Dems won and will continue to win. They are the strong horse. That’s it.
He’s the south end of a north-bound horse – I’ll give you that!
The issue is not an insensitive statement towards gays, but his refusal to submit to AIPAC and Zionism. This is America, and we have interests that vary from those of Israel. Perhaps it is time to require all dual citizens in government to pick their nation. If it is Israel first, run for the Knesset. This nomination to myself reflects a glimmer of hope regarding Obama. I would have expected a transgender nominee. A second best guess would have been CFR member Angelina Jolie, since Washington has descended into pure theater, while the bankers and their cohorts tighten their grip on, and rape of, America. As to my glimmer of hope statement, that is probably self-delusion. What better way to create the image of independence from the heavily Jewish bankers who run the West, than nominate someone who gives the appearance of independence from Zionism. The same bankers gave us Obama, and this site wastes much of it’s talent and energy screaming that he is a Muslim. So what? Islam has no power. Power resides in the hands of the globalist bankers. They funded Marx and the Communist revolution, which resulted in the murder of 60 million Russians, and starvation of 20 million Ukrainians. They fund both sides in wars. They shipped grain to North Vietnam while Americans died in the rice paddies to the South. Who owns Obama was made obvious when “he selected” the son of a Jewish terrorist, Rahm Emmanuel, as his WH chief of staff (i.e. handler). To say he is Communist is to say he is a tool of the globalist bankers. Of course, our MSM is throwing everything it can into this fight against Hagel. I watched Dan Senor on Fox casting stones. The litmus test for any office must be: is he good for America? Period.
Oh yeah? Exactly how do our interests “differ” from Israel? What do Israel’s adversaries represent that requires American backing in opposition to Israel?
The politica/philosophical gulf between the U.S. and Israel’s enemies is greater than that which existed between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War, and even between the U.S. and Nazi Germany during WW2. At least in Nazi Germany, a woman could get learn to read, drive a car, or get a job. Oh yes, all we see from the countries surrounding Israel, the extreme religious intolerance (ask the Copts of Egypt), the support for terrorism, the dismal human rights recored all around…yes, there as all things that America can get behind, can’t we, and show those Joos over there in Israel who is boss, right?
Let’s be clear: With you your comment, Andre, you prove that this nomination is ALL about Israel – as in sticking it to our only worthhile ally in the region – above and beyond any other issue. This is why in spite of Hagel’s lousy record on both gay and women’s issues – both allegedly so important to Obama’s liberal base – the liberal establishment is behind Hagel.
We are now in the process of trading in our ally Israel – the economic, military, and technological diamond of the region – for the camel dung that surrounds said diamond. Egypt is a failed state waiting to happen; I’ll bet the Russians don’t even WANT them back. The rest of the region is variations on the same theme. BUT…we can’t CAVE to the JEWISH – oops! “Israel” – LOBBY, CAN WE?? No, no, no, anything but that.
The way things are going, it would not surprise me at all if Israel re-aligned with China at the expense of the U.S. Who could blame them? And if that happens, that will be a MASSIVE blow to U.S. interests at many levels. But at least we sure showed them Joos, didn’t we? Atta boy, Obama! Atta boy, Chuckie!
SO, let’s stop blathering about the “Israel lobby”, shall we? How about we talk about the ARAB LOBBY – or even the Iranian lobby – for which Hagel (along with Obama and most of the rest of his sorry administration) is practically a poster child.
To answer the question of, “why isn’t treating gays just ‘like everybody else’ gay bashing?” The answer is simply this: “everybody else” does not include white, male, hetrosexuals.
Incoherence or incontinence? They’re just pissing on the concept of America.
It’s coherent in it’s Anti-European-Christendom.
That has always been the game devised by the Critical Theory Cultural Marxists. As David Horowitz said, “The “issue” is never the issue.” The real agenda is the deconstruction of the Old Order of Western Civilization, and the Homosexual Rights issue cuts to the heart of the bedrock institutions of European Christendom , which is why it is so popular on the Left. These Leftists not only didnt give a crap about homosexuals being lobotamized in Castro’s Cuba, but actively dismissed it, deflected, and denied it. The “issue” is never the issue.
“The “issue” is never the issue”
Damn straight.
Its always about the consolidation of power.
Leftism is like a cult.
There are various layers of “truth” dependent upon how far into the cult you get.
Some low-level street believers actually buy into the “issues” but the next layer up are the “canvassers” who look for/preach to potential “new converts” and have a different, sinister perspective.
These are working to get to the NEXT layer, the Career Posts with Tenure and Respectability, Access and Funding. They will spout/follow whatever talking points are required to prove allegiances to their bosses as they sign up as many newbies as they can. They care not for the disconnected fodder on their forged lists, only for the APPEARANCE of Loyalty and Diligence to a cause they KNOW is A Sham.
They’ll even volunteer for “suicide missions” (Sandra Fluke anyone?) and gladly face the inevitable ridicule for vocally supporting the most outrageously indefensible aspects of “cult theocracy”, because they know their false “martyrdom” will be celebrated by Rabid Mobs of Leftist Reporters (co-conspirators bused in on command?) dancing in the streets in “spontaneous” outrage, carrying “the coffin” of the murdered “innocent”. The one they (wink, nod) knew all along was “the plant”.
The Issue is never “the issue” indeed. Its all a cynical form of Social Theatre, a hoax and a fraud presented as the ‘spontaneously self revealing gospel of the masses” instead of what it really is:
…a complex web of lies, and lies ABOUT the lies, as they Consolidate Power.
And Other Peoples money…
Power is ALWAYS about getting your hands on THAT.
There are no gay republicans. There are however liberals who have been allowed to infiltrate and pull the republican party away from it’s very clear platform of fiscal AND social conservatism.
The republican party has moved so far away from the presidence of morality, dignity and common sense that it was established on, it is now almost completely unrecognizable.
Our only hope to continue with a constitutionally based America is to form a body politic that adheres, no only to the constitution’s manadates, but the Godly foundation they were built upon.
I hope people will excuse my presumption that someone who writes “liberalism’s incoherence” instead of “the incoherence of liberalism” is not worth reading. What did the English language ever do to you?