Obama nominates GOP congressman as Army secretary

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2009 5:06 PM GMT
    "Rep. John McHugh is ranking Republican on Armed Services Committee"

    Unless Obama's strategy is to have a Republican as Sec. of the Army to act as a cover and shill when Obama proposes to repeal DADT, it doesnt warm my heart to have a Repub. in this position.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/02/army.secretary/index.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2009 8:15 PM GMT
    Yet again, a bi partisan act as he said he would do. And the secretary of the Army, while still powerful and influential, still has to adhere to the orders of his boss-the Commander in Chief. And it is congress who has the power to repeal DADT. Obama has power to put a stop to it, but he can not repeal it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2009 8:21 PM GMT
    and he's sorta hot as well icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2009 8:24 PM GMT
    Blackguy4you saidand he's sorta hot as well icon_razz.gif


    Haha...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2009 8:26 PM GMT
    ErikTaurean said
    Blackguy4you saidand he's sorta hot as well icon_razz.gif


    Haha...


    hey you laugh- but that should be one of the criteria for holding office.

    I would do him icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2009 8:27 PM GMT
    I will say again, DADT is not the issue, despite the popular myth in the press. What makes homosexuality illegal in the US military is the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), enacted by Congress and President Eisenhower in the early 1950s. It is the governing legal document for US military law.

    All DADT does is say that the military will not actively inquire about sexual orientation. But if homosexuality is revealed, the UCMJ requires that military person must go. Only Congress and the President can jointly rewrite that portion of the UCMJ.

    So that President Obama, and indeed no President, can unilaterally allow gays to serve openly in the US military. Why this fundamental legal fact is not understood escapes me.

    DADT was only a legal trick to avoid the UCMJ. Remove it, and gays would have no protection against prosecution. The correct solution is to amend the UCMJ, which Republicans in Congress passionately oppose, and can likely block.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jun 02, 2009 8:32 PM GMT
    First of all, why not Wesley Clark?

    Second of all, why is it that the term bi-partisan is only connected with offices or issues involving defense matters with Obama? This gives credence to Republican claims that they are the tough ones on defense, yet he doesn't give a Democrat a chance to prove Republicans wrong.

    I ask again, why not Wesley Clark?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2009 8:34 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidFirst of all, why not Wesley Clark?

    Second of all, why is it that the term bi-partisan is only connected with offices or issues involving defense matters with Obama? This gives credence to Republican claims that they are the tough ones on defense, yet he doesn't give a Democrat a chance to prove Republicans wrong.

    I ask again, why not Wesley Clark?

    Because Wesley Clark is a treacherous weasel, who will backstab Obama at the first opportunity. I wouldn't trust him to take out the garbage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2009 8:35 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidFirst of all, why not Wesley Clark?

    Second of all, why is it that the term bi-partisan is only connected with offices or issues involving defense matters with Obama? This gives credence to Republican claims that they are the tough ones on defense, yet he doesn't give a Democrat a chance to prove Republicans wrong.

    I ask again, why not Wesley Clark?


    oh wesley clark - mmmmmmmm yummy - him i would do too. don't care for the wesley, but he's hoticon_razz.gif
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jun 02, 2009 8:40 PM GMT
    Shinsheki?


    Shalikashvili? I like that one, even as a gay friendly Republican.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2009 12:57 AM GMT
    Blackguy4you saidoh wesley clark - mmmmmmmm yummy - him i would do too. don't care for the wesley, but he's hoticon_razz.gif

    I never looked at politics this way... icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2009 12:58 AM GMT
    coolarmydude saidSecond of all, why is it that the term bi-partisan is only connected with offices or issues involving defense matters with Obama? This gives credence to Republican claims that they are the tough ones on defense, yet he doesn't give a Democrat a chance to prove Republicans wrong.

    Good point!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2009 1:15 AM GMT
    Caslon11000 said
    Blackguy4you saidoh wesley clark - mmmmmmmm yummy - him i would do too. don't care for the wesley, but he's hoticon_razz.gif

    I never looked at politics this way... icon_eek.gif


    surely you don't think there's any other way to look at it icon_razz.gif

  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Jun 03, 2009 1:16 AM GMT
    $10 this turns out to be another Gregg...
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Jun 03, 2009 1:19 AM GMT
    coolarmydude saidFirst of all, why not Wesley Clark?

    Second of all, why is it that the term bi-partisan is only connected with offices or issues involving defense matters with Obama? This gives credence to Republican claims that they are the tough ones on defense, yet he doesn't give a Democrat a chance to prove Republicans wrong.

    I ask again, why not Wesley Clark?


    Yeah. I agree. I love Wesley Clark.

    I thought he was the perfect candidate in 2004, and I was hoping for a Clinton-Clark ticket earlier this year. But hey, what can you do?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 06, 2009 6:34 AM GMT
    Not to be too cynical, but it could be that by this nomination he not only gets a moderate Republican and the credit for appointing a Republican, but he also opens up a congressional seat held by a moderate Pepublican that may end up with a Democrat seatholder?

    Obama is not stupid. Two birds with one stone? Just asking?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 06, 2009 6:49 AM GMT
    News sites and my local paper picked up on the "two birds with one stone" scenario. Seems a slightly big deal from what I've read and seen.