Jane Hamsher of firedoglake, reposting posting at RHRealityCheck.org says

There are rumors that Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel are seriously being considered for the Secretary of State gig, and Sam Stein reports that Lugar has the inside track (although Lugar has said he’s not interested).
One of the biggest challenges the new Secretary of State will face is dealing with whatever replaces the Kyoto agreement.  Hagel has a 9% 2008 rating from the League of Conservation Voters.  Lugar scores 18%.  (PDF) Are they really the best people for the job?

Further, the Bush Administration has been murderous in its policies regarding women’s health, choice and reproductive rights around the world.  Lugar and Hagel are both rabidly anti-choice.  

Women turned out big in this election — unmarried women in particular voted 70-29 for Obama.  I don’t imagine Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel and Larry Summers were exactly what they had in mind when they turned up at the voting booth.

Susan Rice and John Kerry are also in the mix, and the decision has evidently not yet been made.  If we really are intent on cleaning up our image around the world, please let’s send someone who represents our best and brightest in such a critical post.  Let’s not have some Republican relic who sends the wrong message about women’s rights.

I found it here.

Look, I completely get why after a transformational election it really is important to find places for able, relatively sympathetic opposition members left behind as their party burned it’s way out towards the margins. I really get that in a don’t-just-pay-lip-service way.

But seriously, this is an area where simple respect personal integrity that let genuine conservatives like Lugar or Hagel make it unseemly to ask them to compromise those principles on the job… and therefore make them unsuitable for those jobs.

Or to put more schematically, based their stated personal values they’ve supported policies against family planning and HIV/AIDS prevention that have directly led to the deaths of millions or tens of millions of women, men, children, and infants.

- If they have supported such policies then out of personal integrity they would be unable to execute the Progressive policies their President was elected to serve and of the branch of Congress that will vote to confirm them. Therefore they’d be inappropriate choices for the position.

- If instead they’d waive their reservations and agree to carry out those policies they have no integrity. (Nor would we if we overlooked millions or tens of millions of dead thanks to their insincerity.) Therefore they’d be inappropriate choices for the position.

QED.

Update: Even with Presidential Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, an ardently pro-choice and highly effective, um, disciplinarian manager riding herd on them.