Personally I'm disappointed in Obama. He seems to be opposed to nominating any qualified Democrats due to some fear that Democrats aren't qualified or something.
Both of the people who nominated who are Republicans appear to be qualified (Bob Gates and Chuck Hagel) but it just seems to be a fear of nominating someone for that position unless they are a lock for nomination (Panetta).
Unless it is some scheme to make the GOP attack on of their own because they are insistent on doing that, it makes no sense to me. Even then, I don't like it.
He's been in the dog house with his party for a while because he doesn't always toe the line especially on matters of foreign affairs. He's also a Vietnam vet who is fairly anti-war based on his personal experiences and has used his time in the government to voice this opinion. He's described as a free thinker and willing to give his honest opinion. Has also gotten in some hot water for occasionally being pro-Palestine. Don't know if his reputation is true to his actual character but if so, he seems like a smart pick.
So the POTUS puts up a Republican nominee for SOD, who is promptly 'disowned' by his own party, with much opposition promised at the confirmation hearings.
Is this just tradition that the Reps have to oppose anything whatsoever the POTUS suggests or does, or someone whom he nominates, on principle? Or is there more to this story than I am aware of?
I think he is considered tainted already since he has already worked with obama in the past. He also didn't go along with the majority in his own party during the iraq war which to his credit was the right thing.
The opposition to Chuck Hagel started to be audible from the right almost as soon as his name was floated as a possible candidate for Secretary of Defense, but many of those who are skeptical today offered ample praise for the former Senator from Nebraska not too long ago.
John McCain, who said Monday that he has “serious concerns about positions Senator Hagel has taken on a range of critical national security issues,” used to be one of Hagel’s biggest fans. In a 2006 interview he said, “I’d be honored to have Chuck with me in any capacity,” adding that he thought Hagel would “make a great secretary of state.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who so far is taking a “wait and see” approach on Hagel, used to be a big fan of his colleague. When Hagel announced his retirement from Congress in 2007, McConnell said, “Chuck Hagel is one of the few genuine foreign policy experts in the Senate and an independent, serious voice on many of the most challenging issues we face.” He also called him “one of the premier foreign policy voices… in the United States Senate.”
One of Hagel’s strongest opponents so far has been Senator Lindsey Graham, who was described as “close to Mr. Hagel” as recently as 2007, and who praised him for being “not worried about the political moment” after his decision to oppose the war in Iraq.
Prominent conservative columnist Bill Kristol expressed serious reservations about Hagel leading the Pentagon, but he once considered him an “impressive and attractive” potential pick for vice president. Kristol hasn’t explained how someone can be impressive and attractive as a VP pick but somehow unfit to run the nation’s military.
In all cases, today’s skeptics made their more positive comments about Hagel before he became an Obama supporter, albeit one unwilling to endorse either candidate in 2008.
Republican opposition to Obama’s preferred cabinet members is nothing new, but this may be the first time that so many former supporters of a candidate have suddenly changed their minds.
Ehh it happens all the time. I do think it's been accellerated recently since about Clinton. Clinton had some rough waters getting his nominations through. Bush really had a lot of opposition from the democrats, and the republicans no matter who you put are having opposition. I think Obama is choosing Republicans hoping they will get through quicker.
I'm perplexed by DB's saying he's upset with Obama for not nominating Democrats. He ran on bipartisanship. That's bipartisanship. He's following through on what he ran on in that regard. Nothing wrong with that in my book.