-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 228 comments
A Further Perspective
Hypocrites for Hagel
Lack of principle is once again a big winner for Democrats.
(Page 2 of 3)
Yet Senator Bennet has been as shy as an Amish woman visiting Sturgis about whether he intends to support Hagel’s nomination.
Bennet’s hypocrisy, even if just through silence, regarding Hagel’s paranoid view of those Americans who support Israel pales in comparison to his hypocrisy on what should be, but unfortunately isn’t, a massive political problem for Hagel:
In 1998, during a debate over the nomination of James Hormel to be the U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg, Hagel suggested that Hormel could not be effective because Hormel was “openly, aggressively gay.”
One year later, Hagel opposed the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gays in the military, saying “The U.S. armed forces aren’t some social experiment.”
According to the New Yorker magazine, his U.S. Senate voting regard on gay rights issues “earned him a zero-per-cent rating (three times) from the Human Rights Campaign, the leading gay-rights lobby.”
Hagel has recently retracted these statements and more, but does anyone actually believe him?
Even the recently retired and openly (and perhaps sometimes aggressively) gay Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) said that Hagel’s “bigoted opposition” to Hormel was “not, as Senator Hagel now claims, an aberration.” He added, “I cannot think of any other minority group in the U.S. today where such a negative statement and action made in 1998 would not be an obstacle to a major Presidential appointment.” (More on the principled Mr. Frank in a moment.)
And yet Michael Bennet remains silent.
Why do I particularly mention the backbone-challenged Bennet on this issue? Because, living here in Colorado, I am painfully aware that Michael Bennet is Colorado’s junior senator only because his Republican challenger in 2010, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, fell headfirst into the mire of a David Gregory gotcha question on the subject of homosexuality on Meet the Press just prior to the election.
In a debate that should have been about out-of-control government spending and high unemployment, Gregory (like George Stephanopoulos, Bob Schieffer, and other such Democratic Party activists) was looking for any way to sidetrack the conversation. He asked Mr. Buck if he believed that homosexuality was a choice. Buck, who should have said “this election is about jobs and the economy, not my views on gays” answered yes, and went on to inartfully compare homosexuality to alcoholism (in terms of possible genetic predisposition). It played right into the Bennet campaign’s strategy of painting Mr. Buck as “extreme” and “outside the mainstream of views” (a phrase which David Gregory helpfully offered to Bennet during that interview).
Bennet had led in only three of the nearly thirty polls tracked by RealClearPolitics.com from June 2010 leading up to the election – and two of those were polls done by a Democratic-leaning polling organization (PPP). Through most of the campaign, few thought Bennet had a chance to win in a year characterized as a Tea Party tsunami. (Buck was the Tea Party choice over “establishment” candidate Jane Norton, whom I endorsed based on my view that they were nearly identical on the issues but that Democrats had a better chance of beating Buck by making him look “extreme.” Even I didn’t expect Mr. Buck, whom I like and respect, to do so much of their work for them.)
In the end, Bennet beat Buck by 1.7 percent of the vote, trouncing Buck among women by 16 percent and, critically, among unaffiliated voters by 11 percent despite the GOP winning nearly 60 percent of independent voters nationally that year.
Michael Bennet is a U.S. Senator because a Republican made controversial statements about homosexuality.
And yet on the subject of the openly, aggressively anti-gay Chuck Hagel, Bennet remains silent.
Of course, Bennet is not alone. Barney Frank seems to have forgotten the truth of his statement that Hagel-like bigotry would normally be a major obstacle to receiving or being confirmed in a key presidential appointment. In what passes for principle in the Democratic Party – again there are no principles, just desired outcomes – just one week later, and in nearly the same breath in which he said that he had hoped the president would not nominate Hagel, Frank said he now supports his confirmation because of Hagel’s likely impact on defense policy.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (33) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/12/hypocrites-for-hagel
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi| 2.12.13 @ 7:15AM
If Missy Graham, McNutts, and the Neoconservatives are against Hagel, he must be OK. Actually Hagel has grovelled to the Lobby and has the support of almost all Jewish senators. Hagel is as qualified as Rumsfeld or Gates. They have no reason to defeat him. I don't expect anything good to come out of the next four years but fighting Hagel is just stupid.
Stephie| 2.12.13 @ 7:24AM
Hagel is not fit for this position and is being used for political purposes. When he screws up royaly, obama can then blame the republicans.
Bob Grant| 2.12.13 @ 11:39AM
It's a cheap political ploy to nominate Hagel. Obama gets cover when a "republican" is the one who slashes the defense budget. It allows him to spread the false narrative that republicans are on board with his budget plans, and it's the "radical elements" of the republican party who are preventing progress.
Obama: "alas, if only more republicans were as responsible as Hagel...".
Taking orders from the White House, the media will run with this narrative and the lie becomes the New Truth.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.12.13 @ 7:26AM
I am not sure that the Left has no principles. I am fairly sure that they have an overwhelming principle, which is that power is something that only they deserve to wield. All other principles on the Left are subordinate to the one which instructs its practitioners to do whatever they have to do to get and retain power.
Once that principle is established, everything else that must be done to maintain it becomes principled. When you are out of power, making films, books or comments about the moderate in power is, at worst, a combination of art and the patriotism of dissent. When your radical is in power, to question the wisdom of his policy is treasonous, or (to use the hydrogen bomb in the nuclear arsenal of leftist invective) racist.
Ross Kaminsky| 2.12.13 @ 9:25AM
Albert,
I understand your point but would still suggest that the will to power is as much a desired outcome for them as what most people would consider a "principle."
TLP| 2.12.13 @ 11:11AM
I'm with Albert on this one. (anyone surprised?)
Power IS their Principle. It's their Religion. It's their Oxygen, and it's their sole reason for living.
Their "Principles" are based upon such profundities as: The Ends, justifies the Means. Do whatever it Takes. Lie, Cheat, Steal, Kill Your Mother, if it'll get you ONE MORE VOTE than the other guy.
Why do they do these things? It's because of their Principles. And, paramount in all of this, is their Principle of HAVING NO PRINCIPLES.
At least, none that are redeeming.
Principle: A fundamental truth (real or imagined) that serves as a foundation for a system of belief or behaviour, or for a chain of reason.
That's a Mouthfull, even for Purp.
They have a Power Principle. It's a Mental disorder that's the end result of a lifetime of doing nothing, whilst believing that you can do everything better than everybody else. It is always accompanied by a Narccissism that always breeds a Paranoia, that always leads down a Path of Wreck and Ruin, for everyone involved.
It's a big part of the Cliff Notes of the 20th Century.
Now, if you'll be so kind as to excuse me?
I gotta poop, again.
It must be something I read.
Pecos Pete| 2.12.13 @ 7:46AM
Hagel will be a "joy" to watch at the defense department. The past 2 years we've watched the DoD become a a social laboratory. Under Hagel, we have the opportunity to watch the military be defunded, demilitarized, demoraled, and depopulated.
On the other hand, as many patriots now in the military are returned to civilian life the ranks of Conservatives in local and state politics will grow. As the saying goes, beware of unintended consequences.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.12.13 @ 7:54AM
...which probably has everything to do with the intelligence bulletin Janet Napolitano's DHS put out a few years back, warning of the danger posed by returning veterans...
CJW| 2.12.13 @ 9:12AM
It does not matter who he picks because O makes the decisions carried out by clerks such as Hagel and Kerry. The Reps should concentrate on blocking any Supreme Court appointments, and try to block Brennan and others only to force the release of information about Benghazi. This is how the Dems played it. Use the hearings to embarass O and force him to disclose information.
Mike W| 2.12.13 @ 8:50AM
Poor Hagel. Doesn't he realize that anything less than complete and total dedication to Israel is not only anti-American but anti-semitic. Essentially, any opposition to Israel's policies or the acknowlegement of the obvious connections to American lobbies, is akin to the desire to have another holocaust.
How can Hagel argue against that logic.
Ross Kaminsky| 2.12.13 @ 9:27AM
Hagel's big problem was not really that he's not an aggressive supporter of Israel, but that he basically said that the US Senate is pushed around to do things they otherwise wouldn't do by the "Jewish lobby." It was nearly paranoid.
Ross Kaminsky| 2.12.13 @ 9:29AM
To their credit, the Washington Post came out against Hagel -- because of the subject of Iran. But even they didn't mention his incredible retractions of years of positions and statements.
TLP| 2.12.13 @ 11:21AM
My Favourite, was the Democrat Scuzzbag who said that it was UNPRECIDENTED for a President's Sec Def Nominee to be treated so badly by the other Party.
Obviously, what happened to John Tower, has already been erased from every Scroll, Pilon, and Obelisk in the Kingdom.
As well as the names of Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada, Samuel Alito, as well as every Minority Court of Appeals Nimoniee that PRESIDNET Bush sent up for Comfirmation, and the TRAITOR - John Roberts - may he Rot in Hell.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.12.13 @ 12:06PM
Not everyone recalls that in 1989, Cheney was not GHWB's first choice for SecDef, and that John Tower, former Senator, was ravaged by the former chamber in which he had served.
TLP| 2.12.13 @ 2:03PM
I really need to Proof Read better.
Drunken Sailor| 2.12.13 @ 4:22PM
Try reading proof instead. You typing won't get any better but you won't care as much.
CJW| 2.12.13 @ 12:29PM
The Wash Post and NY Times criticizing Hagel is an empty meaningless gesture. Obama knew about Hagel's record before he nominated him. He nominated Hagel because of his record. The Post and Times both love O and endorsed him.
Dave Williams| 2.12.13 @ 12:14PM
Your swastika is showing, Mikey.
Israel is not and should not be above criticism, but let's not forget that -- to take just one example among many -- the Palestinians celebrate when one of their own murders Israeli children in bed. In that rough neighborhood, civilization ends at the bayonet point of the furthest-advanced Israeli soldier.
Occam's Tool| 2.13.13 @ 12:39AM
Mike, you might want to review SecDef Johnson and the Korean war. Has nothing to do with Israel; everything to do with Hagel.
The guy will gut our defense and leave us vulnrable. I know that doesn't bother "patriots" like Cheesehead Jack and William the Rogue.
But I have a problem with WMDs going off on American soil. Even if the likely 1st target is LA or SF.
Anthony| 2.12.13 @ 10:44AM
Hegal will win senate approval because Rs like McLame have no guts and no principles.
McLame was loud and nasty in what has become disgusting strutting senate peacock hearings, but that was it.
Once these peacocks had their few moments in the spot light, their tasks were done. How pathetic the questioners were. These morons have lost the ability to ask simple, pointed and direct questions. It's all show for these clowns.
No fillibuster for McLame, he saves those antics for Republican presidents.
G*d how I despise these Washington hacks that are killing America.
Job| 2.12.13 @ 11:07AM
Loyalty often trumps talent.
Bob Grant| 2.12.13 @ 11:50AM
Speaking of Liberal Hypocrisy, the most recent egregious example would be Vice President (and Global Warming Prophet) Al Gore's sale of Current TV to oil-funded Al Jazeera.
The lack of principles and integrity is staggering.
What's the takeaway from this? ....a "fair media" trumps the future of the planet?
TLP| 2.12.13 @ 2:04PM
20 Comments?
Ouch.
George True| 2.12.13 @ 2:46PM
Relatively few comments for two reasons, Tim. First, Mr Kaminsky has pretty much said everything worth saying, making comments almost superfluous.
Second, the breathtaking hypocrisy on the part of Democrats (read: socialists and Marxists) is so pervasive and limitless that it just leaves one speechless. It defies words just to know where to begin describing and categorizing their stunningly obvious hypocrisy at all levels of their nefarious criminal organization referred to as a political party.
Ross: A small nit to pick. It is the Democrat party, not the Democratic party. There is nothing democratic about them or anything they say or do. Even small differences between words have meaning.
Ross Kaminsky| 2.12.13 @ 5:11PM
Hey George,
The Democrats' official web site (democrats.org) calls it the Democratic Party.
I know many writers use terms like Democrat Senator Joe Blow, etc. to annoy the Dems.
As much as I like annoying them, though, I think that as a columnist I should use the official name.
TLP| 2.12.13 @ 5:33PM
It's Democrat Party.
You need to Grow a Pair.
Still Best Buddies?
loulou| 2.12.13 @ 7:38PM
It's the Democrat Party.
And the Republican Party. Not the Republicanic Party.
KennesawJack| 2.12.13 @ 2:54PM
Ross, Jews need to get some sort of excommunication thing going on. At least the Catholics have a vehicle for kicking someone out of the Church (rarely used, but available nonetheless). What is the issue with all the American Jews supporting this guy? Shumer I can understand. He's as lightweight as they come but why aren't the rest of the Jews in Congress railing against this guy? Seriously, I don't get it.
Drunken Sailor| 2.12.13 @ 4:24PM
Apparently it's a case of Liberal beliefs superceding religous beliefs. Sad but quite evident.
Ross Kaminsky| 2.12.13 @ 5:12PM
Jack,
For most American Jews, their real religion is liberalism, unfortunately.
RGK
TLP| 2.12.13 @ 5:36PM
Thank you.
Do me a favour, and go to the Story on the Pope, and see what I wrote about Jews in America.
I would appreciate your opinion.
TLP| 2.12.13 @ 5:37PM
You're a very handsome man, by the way.
I hope your Wife appreciates your good looks.
William R| 2.12.13 @ 8:55PM
Kaminsky writes :"In a 2006 interview with author Aaron David Miller, then Senator Hagel made his famous comment that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people around here.” It is no wonder that an Iranian news agency recently described Hagel as “anti-Israel.” When questioned by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Hagel could name neither any person who has been intimidated nor any policy that the Senate “has been goaded into doing” because of such lobbying."
I can't believe you're actually this dumb Kaminsky. Fugggging hilarious.
Lets see what the man who gave President Reagan and Vice President Bush their daily CIA briefing says about the power of the Jewish Lobby.
So Who's Afraid of the Israel Lobby? Virtually everyone: Republican, Democrat—Conservative, Liberal. The fear factor is non-partisan, you might say, and palpable.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/100507a.html