Hagel is hardly a Republican, you here of the term "RINO"?
his picture is under that dictionary definition

Good job you are explaining the whys and wherefores and not just giving us cheap tribal namecalling, Tom. It really helps...

Would you hire an employee that had an interview similar to Hagel's, Danivon?

Congress as a whole, but republicans in Congress especially, are near single figures in approval ratings. If the members had to depend upon winning their next primary on a broad based electorate, rather than the fanatics who vote in primaries they wouldn't take such extreme positions. But they have to pander to the extreme view of fanatics.

Hagel enjoys great bi-partisan support amongst the professionals in his area of expertise. In the business world, we hire experts and delegate to them. If one wanted to hire an amateur to run a technical job, your bosses would fire. But amateurs on Senate committees regularly make judgements about filling positions based upon little. Most of their "question time" is usually political statements. Certainly Hagels hearing consisted of McCain still fighting the Iraq war....

From US news and world report:

Hagel recalls himself telling the new president: "We are at a time where there is a new world order. We don't control it. You must question everything, every assumption, everything they"—the military and diplomats—"tell you. Any assumption 10 years old is out of date. You need to question our role. You need to question the military. You need to question what are we using the military for."

The extent to which the United States can control the international order, and unilaterally shape it to our ends, has been in some ways the disagreement underlying the politics of foreign policy for at least eight years now. President Obama won two national elections with the argument—and the second time, with four years of evidence—that trading unilateralism and efforts at control for (still muscular) engagement and influence could provide for U.S. security as well and in fact are better than the failed efforts at "control" that had been on display in Iraq and the Middle East

.

You learn more from Hagel;s associates who wrote letters of support and pushed for his conformation, and from Hagels own writings, then what passes for an "interview" in a Senate hearing...

"cheap Tribal name calling"?
It was not me who asked why Republicans were against the man since he was on of their own. I simply pointed out that was hardly the case, he indeed is Republican in name only, that's not name calling, it's simple fact.

freeman2 wrote:It is hard to believe that in the 21st century in the most powerful country on earth that opposition to the selection of a defense secretary is being driven by catering to the beliefs of evangelical Christians who support Israel because Israelii control of the Holy Land is a necessary step toward the end times.

Meh.

The vast majority of evangelical Christians are pro-Israel. However, many of us, including me, don't view "Israeli control of the Holy Land (as) a necessary step toward the end times."

God will end things when He is ready. He doesn't need help.

Hagel is being denied a vote because the self-proclaimed "most transparent Administration in history" has been stonewalling on Benghazi. If/when they answer a few questions, he'll get his vote.

Now, many Republicans will vote "no." That is their right. It's not like Hagel gave a full accounting of his speeches or was forthcoming on other matters.

Republicans don't think he's qualified. He is inarguably not popular among Republicans. Obama loves him.

There it is.

Sassenach wrote:I'm interested to hear your views on why the Republicans are behaving this way. Hagel is after all one of their own, so it's rather surprising they'd choose to go after him so aggressively. Is it just an attempt to punish anybody from their camp who might be willing to work with Obama ? I realise they didn't try the same with Gates, but that wouldn't have been very plausible since he was continuing in a post they'd already confirmed him in once.

Perhaps it is because he is not sufficiently qualified? Republicans also had Bush 43 withdraw his selection of Harriet Myers to the S. C. Was that about ideology or about qualifications?

Ricky:

Hagel enjoys great bi-partisan support amongst the professionals in his area of expertise.

Source?

bbauska wrote:Would you hire an employee that had an interview similar to Hagel's, Danivon?

I wouldn't run an interview like that.

GMTom wrote:It was not me who asked why Republicans were against the man since he was on of their own. I simply pointed out that was hardly the case, he indeed is Republican in name only, that's not name calling, it's simple fact.

No, it's an opinion, as far as I can tell. Either way, would you care to explain how he is a 'RINO'?

And why calling someone a 'RINO' is not 'namecalling', or tribal?

Doctor Fate wrote:Hagel is being denied a vote because the self-proclaimed "most transparent Administration in history" has been stonewalling on Benghazi. If/when they answer a few questions, he'll get his vote.

What does Hagel have to do with Benghazi? Is he involved in any way, or is this just a bargaining chip?

I see a lot of 'reasons' on here, so what is it? Is he just not qualified, is it about Iran, is it about bashing the administration on Benghazi, or simply that he's a 'RINO'? Or all of the above?

I'm not really at the point of caring about Hagel's nomination, but it's interesting all the different rationalisations for the way that the GOP are handling this. If he's actually successful, what does that do to these rationalisations?

Danivon:

I'm not really at the point of caring about Hagel's nomination, but it's interesting all the different rationalisations for the way that the GOP are handling this. If he's actually successful, what does that do to these rationalisations?

Are they all rationalizations, or are at least some of them reasons?

All look pretty similar to me. I didn't realise, for example, that Hagel's role meant he had to have a fixed policy on Iran. Personally I would be more worried if he were an open hawk, as it would suggest fewer diplomatic options. I know some want to flex military muscles, but that's not a diplomat's only path, and is rarely the best.

My thought is that he's a proxy for the Kerry nomination they didn't stop.

and competence?

I know you wouldn't have run an interview like that. (nice sidestep)

Would you hire a prospect based upon what answers he gave and incompetence you are aware of now?

Hagel enjoys great bi-partisan support amongst the professionals in his area of expertise.


Source?

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/wor ... agels-side