Hagel, under fire as possible nominee, says remarks on gays “do not reflect my views”

[Rockntractor]

By Peter Wallsten, Updated: Friday, December 21, 5:38 PM

President Obama’s leading choice to head the Pentagon, former senator Chuck Hagel, issued an apology Friday for “insensitive” comments he had made about gays, moving to shield his potential nomination from a growing chorus of criticism.

Hagel’s apology came a day after the country’s leading gay rights organization, the Human Rights Campaign, described the Nebraska Republican’s past statements and record as “unacceptable.”
Read More>http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...029_story.html

Well that is something but not good enough, I still don't like him.

[Odysseus]

By Peter Wallsten, Updated: Friday, December 21, 5:38 PM

President Obama’s leading choice to head the Pentagon, former senator Chuck Hagel, issued an apology Friday for “insensitive” comments he had made about gays, moving to shield his potential nomination from a growing chorus of criticism.

Hagel’s apology came a day after the country’s leading gay rights organization, the Human Rights Campaign, described the Nebraska Republican’s past statements and record as “unacceptable.”
Read More>http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...029_story.html

Well that is something but not good enough, I still don't like him.

It would be ironic if the anti-Semitism didn't sink him, but the anti-gay thing did.

[Novaheart]

It would be ironic if the anti-Semitism didn't sink him, but the anti-gay thing did.

I don't really have a problem either way. We all have our opinions. Only a fool would define objectivity as being without position. Objectivity doesn't require that one surrender the right to an opinion, merely that he execute his office without allowing his opinions to influence his decisions where those opinions are irrelevant.

[Starbuck]

I don't really have a problem either way. We all have our opinions. Only a fool would define objectivity as being without position. Objectivity doesn't require that one surrender the right to an opinion, merely that he execute his office without allowing his opinions to influence his decisions where those opinions are irrelevant.

Well, OK, but in this case his opinions are relevant to the position he would fill, and he must make judgement based upon his opinion. He would not interpreting law, he would be making policy and filling positions.

If you believe the position he stated in 1998 has been replaced by his new position that's fine. Actually, it looks like a lot of his "Old Hagel" opinions in '98 have been replaced with "New Hagel" for 2012.

[Odysseus]

I don't really have a problem either way. We all have our opinions. Only a fool would define objectivity as being without position. Objectivity doesn't require that one surrender the right to an opinion, merely that he execute his office without allowing his opinions to influence his decisions where those opinions are irrelevant.

It's a bit off topic, since the point is not that he has opinions, it's that the opinions render him suspect as an effective steward of the Department of Defense and the interests of the United States. His stated position that he believes that there is a Jewish lobby that intimidates members of the government puts him in the paranoid moonbat camp of foreign policy analysts, which isn't where I tend to go for my first choice in political appointments.

[Rockntractor]

It's a bit off topic, since the point is not that he has opinions, it's that the opinions render him suspect as an effective steward of the Department of Defense and the interests of the United States. His stated position that he believes that there is a Jewish lobby that intimidates members of the government puts him in the paranoid moonbat camp of foreign policy analysts, which isn't where I tend to go for my first choice in political appointments.

He is the type you would expect as a guest on Coast to Coast AM.