The Blue Board

Granted, he may be slightly less hardline than the GOP hardliners. But come on... the Republicans just got drubbed in the election and yet they managed to get one of their own nominated to a high cabinet post, and he's highly qualified for the job. They should happily take what they can get and not demand the "perfect" candidate.

Dang. Mind if I ask why you think that?

In a my perfect scenario he appoints himself SOS and let's someone else run this country

I agree with you, he doesn't agree with the entire party on the Middle East because he doesn't want to go to war with Iran, Syria, Palestine, etc. He recognizes that war is a terrible thing and should be a last resort. Ever since Reagan began his Central America blitz in the 80s which ultimately ended with the Iran-Contra scandal, every executive (yes, including Clinton and Obama) has had far too much military power. War is supposed to be a difficult thing, and, therefore, difficult to get our troops involved in. Ever since the 80s, all it takes is the decision of one man and his closest friends/advisors. I for one am happy with a defense team being picked that understand war and the terrible costs it imposes, and isn't full of freaking extremist hardliners going around in a pissing contest with each other over who will bomb Iran first.

I also agree that there is no advantage to the GOP for Hagel being picked, but his confirmation process is not a matter of how he's viewed by Republicans, imo. I think it's because he is a Republican in the first place, and everyone in the beltway knows it. The right has created this image of Obama that he refuses to compromise, negotiate, or be reasonable on anything. It's not true, but that is the fantasy world the GOP lives in. If Obama nominates a Republican, this destroys the fantasy. So, how do you keep your world intact? You try to convince everyone the Republican that was nominated isn't really a Republican. And you can't just say it, because then no one will believe you. So the GOP will take hard positions with Hagel, try to make it seem like they are questioning a 12 year old that can't win a game of Risk, but at the end of the day he'll be confirmed because he is qualified. He's qualified because he has been to war, he has been to the Senate as a Republican, and he understands foreign policy and the price of war (he did, after all, oppose Iraq from the very beginning, something he was completely correct about).

In the past 2 years in dealing with deficit reduction issues (which whether or not that is a real concern in beside the point), Obama has offered both increases in Medicare age qualifications (done in 2011 as part of the Budget Control Act, but ultimately was not included in the final bill) and a new measure of CPI increases (which will reduce future benefits). After Obama put the CPI index on the table during the fiscal cliff talks, how did Boehner and the GOP react? He immediately cut off negotiations and went to his Plan B fiasco. Rubio even tweeted that the GOP doesn't support putting social security on the table, but Obama does.

Obamacare itself is a compromise; that is why he took the idea originally developed by the Heritage Foundation and implemented by a Republican governor in MA. There was no single payer proposal and the public option was ultimately left out.

And the deal with the border security isn't so much that it shouldn't be accomplished, the question is how much more can be accomplished short of having National Guard troops posted 25 feet apart along the entire border. Since 2007, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on border security. A senate bill from 2007 wanted to achieve 20,000 border patrol agents, we now have over 21,000. The bill sought 370 miles of new fencing, we have completed over 600 miles. The question is how many more resources are we going to pour into this one aspect of immigration reform while ignoring the others. And given the insistence on the House GOP to cut spending anywhere and everywhere (except of course defense contracts which should go up because ???), it will be interesting to see how much more money they are willing to spend.

We would be better served putting more resources into worker eligibility verification and a streamlined process where undocumented workers pay taxes/fines to obtain citizenship. I'm not saying ignore the border, but I do believe that not dealing with other issues only until we control the border is a bit absurb. Unless we are willing to throw incredible amounts of money at the problem, we will never totally control the border. Congress estimates we have effective control over about 57% of the border right now. We can work to increase that percentage, while we also do these other things. I don't think getting that to 100% should be a pre-requisite to doing these other things. This is also my understanding of Obama's position. I didn't see his whole speech and I could be wrong about his position; I will be more than happy to admit it if I am.

And regarding the politics of the current senate framework; i suspect it won't be Obama who has to make the decision to accept it or not. That will be left to House Republicans. If they accept it, Obama most certainly will because he will be not only the President who moved toward universal healthcare coverage, but also who moved us closer to immigration reform. If the House GOP rejects the proposal, Obama will simply offer his own, which the House GOP will surely reject, and then leave House Republicans explaining to the Latinos at the polls in 2014 (and pretty much for the next decade) why they couldn't vote for a bi-partisan bill.

Ultimately, the fact you recognize he would agree to a proposal he doesn't agree with 100% shows he is willing to compromise. Of course he wouldn't come out at the very beginning and say he supports it 100% when he doesn't, that isn't how negotiating works. This is why in the fiscal cliff talks, he kept moving close to Boehner's position after he made his first and second offer (it was after the 3rd when Boehner walked away). This is why Obamacare started with a public option but it got left out. This is why in the Budget Control Act in 2011 he accepted smaller revenues and smaller stimulus than he originally wanted.

Obama could have picked John Rambo and USMCAG would still say it was a bad move.

I like the choice. Maybe he is in a position to stop our military from doing they things he claimed they did in vietnam.

"They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.”

Also, he urged that no one prejudge the Muslim Brotherhood. He was very wise on that one, as they apparently are much worse than we would have pre judged.

Lol. If we would have done all that we would have won the war down there.

I agree with your second paragraph, and so does Obama. He just wants to do it now and not wait until after we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on border security, when both things can be done simultaneously.

I agree with the concept behind the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, and so does Obama. Again, he wants to do reforms simultaneously and not have one be a pre-condition for the other.

We can agree to disagree; I am fine with that. I disagree with most of your statements about Obamacare, but we can let it go.

I think Mattis would be a good wartime SOS, but given that no rational person in the US wants another war anytime soon, he's a bit too militaristic for my tastes.

There's no question that he's a true leader and he's got a lot of support, but Hagel is an infinitely better diplomat, and when we're not trying to invade other countries or defend the homeland, we need a diplomatic SOS.

After all, Mattis is the guy who said "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people." While the people he was referring to were the Taliban, it should never be "fun" to shoot someone, and I don't want an SOS who brings that attitude in. Military intervention should be an absolute last resort in any situation, and I think that's why Chuck Hagel is the right choice - he understands both sides of the aisle, the diplomatic and the military approach.

I don't know much about Mattis being "forced out" though - who is "they" in this scenario?

Moreover, if you're for reduction of deficit and debt, why appoint someone who will undoubtedly appeal for war after war?

Diplomacy is an inherently left-wing endeavor. I mean... talking INSTEAD of fighting?