Hagel’s Pasture
Posted in Money Matters, Education, wordpress, Politics, Entertainment, Hagel on July 13th, 2009 by Stanford MatthewsHagel will teach undergraduate and graduate student courses in U.S. foreign policy in the fall.
“Senator Hagel brings great expertise on important foreign and domestic issues facing our nation,” said Georgetown President John J. DeGioia. “He is a great addition to our community of distinguished scholars, and I look forward to his contributions to Georgetown.”
In addition to his teaching commitments, Hagel also will conduct seminars and other educational activities for SFS students and the broader university community.
“I am honored to become part of this respected institution and look forward to contributing to the important efforts that Georgetown continues to make in educating our next generation of leaders,” said Hagel.
First elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996, Hagel served two consecutive terms. He also served as chair of both the Senate Global Climate Change Observer Group and the Senate Oversight Task Force and as co-chair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. Hagel has been a member of four Senate committees — the Committee on Foreign Relations; the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; the Select Committee on Intelligence; and the Committee on Rules and Administration.
“I am pleased to welcome Senator Hagel to the School of Foreign Service and know he will offer valuable insight and understanding on critical issues in foreign policy and on the policymaking process,” said SFS Dean Robert L. Gallucci.
Hagel has authored “America: Our Next Chapter: Tough Questions, Straight Answers” (Ecco 2008), in which he explores domestic issues — including the health care crisis, immigration and Social Security and Medicare reform. He also examines foreign policy problems, including China’s growing economy, India and Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities, and Iran’s aggressive political, ideological and nuclear stances.
Source: Blue & Gray (February 5, 2009)
If you want to know what happens to has been POLS after they leave the government, here’s an example. And no report was found of Hagel also working as a lobbyist but that would be no suprise.
Is Hagel being a ‘distinguished professor’ at Georgetown have any relationship to actually having credentials to teach or is this just a perk of being a former short term senator?
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
In the Senate No Amnesty Scorecard post series this is the fourth of six planned posts. The first post describes the best the Senate has to offer. Twenty-three senators including four Dems and an Independent voted consistently against amnesty. The first runners up list features seven Republicans and four Democrats who voted essentially to debate each bill but likely realized debate controlled by Sinister Harry Reid is no debate at all. Their no votes on the subsequent cloture for each bill defeated amnesty on both measures. The 2nd runners up have votes that assisted the defeat of both amnesty measures yet their intentions are still unclear. Now a quick review of the bills and on to the first list of dishonorable mention. While not the worst list, it is the first of three bad lists of Senators no one needs.
The first list of dishonorable mention features Sinister Harry Reid. You might expect him to be on the worst list but his votes earn him only the first dishonorable mention. He is accompanied by other senators prominent in the amnesty fight and they always end up on the wrong side of the argument. They are in no particular order, Senators Graham, Kyl and Specter. Specter was intent on amnesty last year while a GOP majority was in place. Kyl is credited with getting the first back room deal of this year going. And Senator Graham believes the American people are really stupid the way he continues to claim amnesty is good for us. Bayh and Lugar have been sited in articles and reports as the two Senators from Indiana who are ‘out of touch’. No kidding. With eight Dems out of 19 senators on this list and the actions of the GOP counterparts, it is obvious we’re talking RINOs here. So here’s the list.
There votes were either in favor of one amnesty bill or the other. They cannot claim they didn’t know this was amnesty. By choosing one amnesty bill or the other they only indicate a preference for one of two bad bills. Maybe they had ‘pet’ amendments connected to one or the other. They likewise cannot claim one bill was not amnesty while the other was for, of course, both bills featured amnesty. About all they can claim is in their dark pursuit for amnesty they were fussy about other details of the flawed bills and were greedy for more perks with amnesty. They should also be ashamed of their amnesty efforts beyond the floor activity on these two bills.
Often the target of public scrutiny and anger politicians have earned their lowest approval rating in a decade. Senator Harry Reid’s latest numbers for approval are at a paltry 19%. In contrast, for all the bad press, bad moves and just plain bad results, the President’s approval rating is nearly twice that. In the last month Congress’ overall approval rating also fell below the Presidential approval rating. We may be spending too much time looking at current members of Congress and a sitting President. What about the others? Those who have left public office but still have their fingers in the pie in a subtle way. At least subtle in terms of public scrutiny. The effects of their involvement and the ethics and legality may not be so subtle.
The almost cloak and dagger secrecy of former leaders and their association in questionable practices is just a continuation of what normally goes on in Washington. However, the impact of wheeling and dealing in business and political situations on a global scale may have sinister implications on the motives and end game pursued by these individuals and groups. There activities certainly would not exclude influence on current government leaders as indicated below. Perhaps the public should pay more attention. Which raises the question of whether the MSM is largely ignoring these stories or the public is simply not interested.
We all know that political matters can rarely be taken at face value. The saga developing over S. 1348, a so-called bipartisan compromise bill claimed to be immigration reform, is proving to be the evidence that the White House and Congress are incapable of abandoning special interest or ignoring election politics. This senate bill is more accurately characterized the amnesty bill as those referred to as the ‘architects’ (Kyl, Graham, Kennedy and McCain) all seem to favor amnesty.
Based on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s vote against funding the troops through September 2007 and her press release linked below it is clear that she supports ‘veterans and military retirees’ but not active duty personnel. Is it not the Democratic party who claimed they would not deny the troops funding to pursue their political agenda against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? To collect votes from the fringe left Democratic base, Hillary Rodham Clinton has refused to support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as all other active duty service members and tries to hide that fact by describing the easy choices for other related legislation.
The extreme peaceniks and others expressing less venomous opposition to the Iraq war often begin their arguments with reference to inherent characteristics of war as their central theme. Aside from the obvious death and destruction that accompanies armed conflict, they stress the loss of troops and civilians as their largest concern. But they will never accept the fact that this same expression of opposition has prolonged the war in Iraq by strengthening the determination of the enemy. In other words, opposition prolonging the war shares responsibility for the death toll that the anti-war crowd views with such disdain. How’s that for irony?
To a much less dramatic issue but with equal potential for serious injury to the United States is illegal immigration. The reason for addressing it at the same time as the Iraq war is the focus afforded these two issues will distract from attending to other matters until resolved. The sympathy argument for illegals is another ploy that compels politicians to seek political cover rather than face the reality that this is simply an economic or financial issue.
Romney has done well in both debates. He has silenced some critics and gained support from pro-life groups and the religious conservatives. Those who question his religion are frustrated in not finding any legitimate criticism of this candidate. His ability to raise money, attract endorsements and solidify the conservative base have been successful.
It may sound outragious to the casual observer or typical apathetic or bleeding heart version of American, but the laws against treason should have a section that addresses politicians who sell this country by accepting money from every special interest and who do their bidding regardless of the negative impact on this nation.
Four possible idiots in this short-lived story. Hagel, Bloomberg, CBS and/or AP, could be the idiot(s) here and not necessarily in any particular order. On May 13 on a Face the Nation Hagel chooses a great place to make a possible mistake by mentioning a possible third party run in 2008 with Michael Bloomberg. By the AP account on the following day, it appears he did not share that idea with Michael Bloomberg or neither of the two are on the same page.
Like there weren’t enough candidates in the field for 2008 already. So now a story about Chuck ‘I think I was a Republican in name only’ Hagel and Michael ‘running New York City sux’ Bloomberg. The only impressive thing about either candidate is they both made a wad of cash in business. Ok, and Hagel is a Viet Nam vet. That is something you can never take away from him. Which is why his and Murtha’s actions in Congress are somewhat perplexing since a guess doesn’t do it and there appears to be no rational explanation.
his campaign fund as well as Arthur Anderson and Enron. The quantity of energy interests listed on campaign finance disclosures for Senator Hagel are indicative of a biased slant in their favor. And Rep Jim Matheson is the owner of an energy consulting firm according to information at Project Vote Smart. Put this Republican Senator and Democratic Congressman together on this topic and you have definition of bipartisan politics and explanation why it is rarely a good thing.
If the previous post does not show you that Senator Harry Reid is a contradction then understand he said they would not cut and run in Iraq or raise taxes. Right at the moment the tax thing is secondary. He said they would not cut and run. Senator Reid would you kindly explain the report below if you are not planning on cut and run?
So how did the United States Congress do in the first month of the 110th session? You be the judge. First, a little review of the fact that posts here have sometimes asked why we get so focused on what Congress does. After all, they legislate. That’s it. They legislate. The can pass laws. Whatever the House passes must be passed in the Senate also. So both Houses of Congress must pass the same version of a bill before it can become law. Then it goes to the President. He can sign it into law. He can veto it and send it back to Congress. He can pocket-veto at the end of the session. Or he can pretty much ignore it and it becomes law. All you expert legal types out there, feel free to refute this if you must.
One law was passed to rename a park. And the other bills have many hurdles to cross before they can become law. Even if they become law there is no guarantee they will have any positive effects. No one, with any regularity, will follow up on them. So the Congress has done nothing for one month. They have solved nothing. There is only one item as law and it is not critical. 21 Senators are worried about 2008 due to re-election. Other Senators are worried about running for President. And the rest have passed one joint resolution and participated in renaming a park.