Chuck Hagel - Republicans only hope in 2008

[fastpat]

Probably, certainly he's their best potential candidate, other than Rep. Ron Paul.

February 2, 2007
The Maverick - It’s Hagel
by Justin Raimondo

The Hagel boom continues. Of course, regular observers of this space know that it started here, and here, but it is really beginning to take off now that Peggy Noonan has weighed in:

Mickey Kaus snarked that Hagel was merely jumping on a bandwagon that had already been rolling, but Noonan's timeline is correct: Hagel was criticizing the war long before any on the other side of the aisle, aside from Russ Feingold, found their voices.

Hagel has seized the moment to dramatize, with his straight talk, what most Americans are now thinking and saying about this rotten, seemingly endless war. A most unpleasant term of approbation has been attached to his rising political fortunes: they're calling him "the new McCain." Now, the old McCain was bad enough, and still is, but one can't help noticing that the old one's stock is falling, along with his poll numbers, even as Hagel's rise. There's only room for one "maverick Republican" in the media's collective consciousness, and in the public mind: aside from that, however, it's all about the war.

McCain is falling in the polls, and his former supporters among independent voters are falling away, entirely due to his ultra-hawkish stance on the war. If McCain had his way, we'd have 100,000 more troops in Iraq – and we'd already be halfway to Tehran. He's always been a more-interventionist-than-thou kinda guy, but his media fan club pretended not to notice this back in his glory days because he was such good copy. However, go back through the history of U.S. interventions in the recent past, and check his stance: from Kosovo to Iraq, his solution to each and every foreign policy crisis has been "more boots on the ground." When it comes to Iran, and even Russia, McCain's default position is invariably belligerent. A more determined enemy of peace does not exist in the U.S. Senate, or in American politics.

McCain and Hagel, apart from their diametrically opposed stances on the war, have much in common. Both are Vietnam war veterans, much decorated, and are gruffly direct and unvarnished in their speech and mannerisms. The two are good friends, and Hagel supported McCain over Bush in the 2000 presidential primaries.Yet they seem to have taken away from their military experiences very different conceptions of America's role in the world.

McCain exudes the barking belligerence of a bully who goes ballistic with ease. There is about him the aura of a man who is continually engaged in a balancing act between the overwhelming demands of his enormous ego and a deep well of anger that suddenly turns his face crimson with rage. One wonders: is that steam coming out his ears?

The Senator from Nebraska, on the other hand, while emanating a gruff assurance, lacks the fanatic certainty of his Senate colleague, and, instead, seems genuinely baffled by American policy in Iraq. Rather than projecting his ego, he puts it aside, and, in place of pushing some preordained agenda, bluntly asks the questions that are on everyone's mind. In doing so, avers Noonan, Hagel has injected a fresh note into the congressional debate over the war:

In Imperial America, the Senate is increasingly irrelevant, at least when it comes to foreign policy, and yet this effort to bring to the Senate floor and pass a resolution criticizing our Iraq policy could be the beginning of a new and very welcome trend. The out of control Presidency of George W. Bush has arrogated to itself more power than any Roman emperor – including Nero and Caligula – ever dreamed of. This is a dangerous "weapon of mass destruction" that needs to be defused for the peace of the world, as well as Americans' well-being and safety. What Hagel is saying is that we're still a republic, in spite of everything, and it's not too late to change a course set for empire.

On the question of Hagel's presidential prospects, the Senator has been saying that he'll make a statement soon. There is also some intriguing news that he might be considering a third party run. An Iowa poll already has him one point below Mitt Romney, the establishment conservative candidate.

With his military background, red-state persona, and rock-ribbed conservatism, Hagel's antiwar stance is all the more credible and palatable. Good old David Boaz, over at the Cato Institute's blog, says all too many conservatives are still in thrall to big-government Bushism:

The Republican revolt in the House and Senate is gathering strength, and the war is being increasingly questioned in conservative circles. Back in the day, when neocon enforcer David Frum smeared right-wing opponents of the war as "Unpatriotic Conservatives," the idea was to end all discussion of the issue on the right. "We turn our backs on you," announced Frum, but he and his fellow neocons can't turn their backs on their responsibility for the disaster that has befallen the U.S. in Iraq. (Not to mention the catastrophe that has been visited on the GOP.) Their day of reckoning is coming, perhaps, in the form of an antiwar Republican presidential candidate with a credible shot at the nomination and an excellent chance of winning the general election.

The problem for Hagel's presidential prospects is that he has very little cash on hand: rumors of his retirement from the Senate were due, in part, to the paucity of money raised for his reelection campaign. It will take a real grassroots movement to give him the momentum he needs to mount a serious effort. Whether or not he announces, what this episode reveals, so far, is that there is a tremendous vacuum where American leadership ought to be. The question is whether the American people will fill it with a man of substance, like Hagel, or a pretty face, like Obama or Edwards. Can authenticity win out over hype? Read the complete, linked article

[NICKG]

are you kidding me? Guiliani hands down...if he runs, he is the next president.

[hytem]

McCain is the only mainstream type with a chance to get the Republican nomination.
The only people left in the Republican party these days, except for the big business types, are pretty far to the right politically. McCain will have to get their support to get the nomination--which is costing him right now with the center.
The Republicans are in danger of becoming a minority party again, unless they can regain their appeal to the center. Backing more troops in Iraq is not the way to do it.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by NICKG
are you kidding me? Guiliani hands down...if he runs, he is the next president.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by hytem
McCain is the only mainstream type with a chance to get the Republican nomination.
The only people left in the Republican party these days, except for the big business types, are pretty far to the right politically. McCain will have to get their support to get the nomination--which is costing him right now with the center.
The Republicans are in danger of becoming a minority party again, unless they can regain their appeal to the center. Backing more troops in Iraq is not the way to do it.

John McCain is as squirrelly as the day is long, I'll go on record now as saying he'll self destruct long before the process is through, in fact his numbers are tanking now. He's a guy that never sees a foreign policy problem that can't be solved by "more boots on the ground", making him ridiculous.

[Jim Richards]

For my own part, I will not vote for McCain the Rep. primary. Nor Guiliani. And don't even mention Newt (salamander)!

[thrown_hammer]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
For my own part, I will not vote for McCain the Rep. primary. Nor Guiliani. And don't even mention Newt (salamander)!

Hillary told me she thinks you are cute.

[Jim Richards]

I am cute.

[Moneyguy1]

If you live in Az, and you pay attention, then you know the "real" McCain.

GUilani will have to overcome his (ahem) marital background in order to appeal to the base. His hope would be cross over voter independents and Dems.

[Rick Lee]

Real Republicans despise McCain. When I still ran in those GOP staff circles, there was not a single one who likes McCain. In fact, when I went to vote in the VA primary in 2000, half the people waiting in line to vote were Dems who wanted to vote for McCain to hurt Bush. At the polling station, they made everyone sign a pledge to only vote in one primary, as VA does not have party registration. When the guy made that announcement, half the people standing in line left and went home because the Dem primary was later and they wanted to vote in that one more. McCain has zero GOP base support and is only a media darling. His assault on the 1st Amendment with his campaign finance "reform" was unforgiveable and he should be retired from politics.

[Jim Richards]

Romney's now off my list.

[Rick Lee]

I wonder if Romney's brand of Mormonism subscribes to the theory that the Earth is only 8000 yrs. old.

[Jim Richards]

Dunno, but he's starting to sound like the fear-monger, war-monger Bush everytime his mouth opens. He's off my short list.

[fastpat]

This is Ron Paul's latest speech in congress.

Everybody Supports the Troops

by Ron Paul

Before the U.S. House of Representatives, January 18, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our armed forces. This is pure demagoguery, and it’s intellectually dishonest. The accusers play on emotions to gain support for controversial policies, implying that those who disagree are unpatriotic. But keeping our troops out of harm’s way, especially when war is unnecessary, is never unpatriotic. There’s no better way to support the troops.

Since we now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was not threatening anyone, we must come to terms with 3,000 American deaths and 23,000 American casualties. It’s disconcerting that those who never believed the justifications given for our invasion, and who now want the war ended, are still accused of not supporting the troops! This is strange indeed!

Instead of questioning who has the best interests of our troops at heart, we should be debating which policy is best for our country. Defensive wars to preserve our liberties, fought only with proper congressional declarations, are legitimate. Casualties under such circumstances still are heartbreaking, but they are understandable. Casualties that occur in undeclared, unnecessary wars, however, are bewildering. Why must so many Americans be killed or hurt in Iraq when our security and our liberty were not threatened?

Clichés about supporting the troops are designed to distract us from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war. Anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.

Many now agree that we must change our policy and extricate ourselves from the mess in Iraq. They cite a mandate from the American people for a new direction. This opinion is now more popular, and thus now more widely held by politicians in Washington. But there’s always a qualifier: We can’t simply stop funding the war, because we must support the troops. I find this conclusion bizarre. It means one either believes the “support the troops” propaganda put out by the original promoters of the war, or that one actually is for the war after all, despite the public protestations.

In reality, support for the status quo (and the president’s troop surge) in Iraq means expanding the war to include Syria and Iran. The naval build-up in the region, and the proxy war we just fought to take over Somalia, demonstrate the administration’s intentions to escalate our current war into something larger.

There’s just no legitimacy to the argument that voting against funding the war somehow harms our troops. Perpetuating and escalating the war only serve those whose egos are attached to some claimed victory in Iraq, and those with a determination to engineer regime change in Iran.

Don’t believe for a minute that additional congressional funding is needed so our troops can defend themselves or extricate themselves from the war zone. That’s nonsense. The DOD has hundreds of billions of dollars in the pipeline available to move troops anywhere on earth – including home.

We shouldn’t forget that the administration took $600 million from the war in Afghanistan and used it in Iraq, before any direct appropriations were made for the invasion of Iraq. Funds are always available to put our troops into harms way; they are always available for leaving a war zone.

Those in Congress who claim they want the war ended, yet feel compelled to keep funding it, are badly misguided. They either are wrong in their assessment that cutting funds would hurt the troops, or they need to be more honest about supporting a policy destined to dramatically increase the size and scope of this misadventure in the Middle East. Rest assured one can be patriotic and truly support the troops by denying funds to perpetuate and spread this ill-advised war.

The sooner we come to this realization, the better it will be for all of us.

February 2, 2007

Would a Hagel/Paul ticket be the deal?

[vanwyk4257]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
For my own part, I will not vote for McCain the Rep. primary. Nor Guiliani. And don't even mention Newt (salamander)!

Agreed, McCain is a crook (Keating Five), Guiliani has too much baggage and isn't really a conservative.

Chuck Hagel makes me want to vomit, I can't stand him either.

Basically, Sam Brownback seems to be the only conservative on the Republican side thus far other than the candidate from California who's name is escaping me at the moment.

It certainly isn't looking good for the Republicans right now, too many "party establishment" candidates and not enough true conservatives.

I'm about ready to tell the Republican Party to F*&K off and vote Libertarian!

[Jim Richards]

[MRM]

You guys are too funny. Hegel, Paul and Guiliani won't break double digits consistently, all together. Throw Newt into the mix and you get a big whopping . . . nothing.

The divisions in the Republican party bode well for McCain. No one has his money, organization or name recognition. So he's going to receive the most money, support and reccognition. Sure he's going down in the polls now, but that reflects nothing more than his falling out of favor with the media. Media darling is Hegel's job now. McCain is paying a short term price for moving right to make himslef more palatable to the Republican primary voter.

Remember the differences in how Republicans and Democrats nominate their presidential candidates. Republicans like to annoint the person whose turn has come. Think Nixon, Goldwater, Nixon again, Ford beating Reagan in the primary to be followed by Ford, Bush I beating Dole to be followed by Dole, to be followed by Bush II to make up for the Dole fiasco.

I think I have a pretty good feel for the Republican mind set. Guiliani can't make it because he's pro abortion, announced his divorce in a press conference where he admitted his paramour was on the city's payroll. Hegel is going against the president to pull out of Iraq. While many Republicans may agree with him, they will never forgive a guy who goes against the party's president. He may be a bad president, but he's our bad president. Romney's recent conversion on abortion and gay rights (was for them, now against both) is both convenient and unconvincing. He's an eastern governor with western roots, but he hasn't paid his dues yet. It's not his turn. Newt wore out his welcome years ago. He's this year's Dan Quail: the guy whose resume says he should have a chance but doesn't because most people think he's an idiot. In Newt's defense, he is not an idiot; he is actually incredibly intelligent, he just acts like an idiot and talks like it too much. OK, you want examples? Acting like an idiot: having an oral sex only affair with an aid (contemporaiously with BC's similar affair) so he can deny an affair, but getting divorced when it comes to light after all. Talking like an idiot: praising Hillary for the last three years in a row, working for her health care initiatives.

OK, who's left? Paul? He's the Republican David Kucinich. No one knows who he is, even if the other candidates steal his ideas. Huckabee is kind of goofy with his "I lost a hundred pounds and can be your president" schtick.

I just don't see anyone gaining enough traction to overcome McCain's built in advantages. McCain will have about half the support in the early going with the other half divided more or less equally. One of the others will emerge as the anti-McCain candidate, and the primaries will go to the end with everyone who oposes McCain behind that candidate (fate will decide who it is) on one side and all of the people who either like McCain or are just willing to bet he's the Republican's best bet on the other.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by MRM
You guys are too funny. Hegel, Paul and Guiliani won't break double digits consistently, all together. Throw Newt into the mix and you get a big whopping . . . nothing.

The divisions in the Republican party bode well for McCain. No one has his money, organization or name recognition. So he's going to receive the most money, support and reccognition. Sure he's going down in the polls now, but that reflects nothing more than his falling out of favor with the media. Media darling is Hegel's job now. McCain is paying a short term price for moving right to make himslef more palatable to the Republican primary voter.

Remember the differences in how Republicans and Democrats nominate their presidential candidates. Republicans like to annoint the person whose turn has come. Think Nixon, Goldwater, Nixon again, Ford beating Reagan in the primary to be followed by Ford, Bush I beating Dole to be followed by Dole, to be followed by Bush II to make up for the Dole fiasco.

I think I have a pretty good feel for the Republican mind set. Guiliani can't make it because he's pro abortion, announced his divorce in a press conference where he admitted his paramour was on the city's payroll. Hegel is going against the president to pull out of Iraq. While many Republicans may agree with him, they will never forgive a guy who goes against the party's president. He may be a bad president, but he's our bad president. Romney's recent conversion on abortion and gay rights (was for them, now against both) is both convenient and unconvincing. He's an eastern governor with western roots, but he hasn't paid his dues yet. It's not his turn. Newt wore out his welcome years ago. He's this year's Dan Quail: the guy whose resume says he should have a chance but doesn't because most people think he's an idiot. In Newt's defense, he is not an idiot; he is actually incredibly intelligent, he just acts like an idiot and talks like it too much. OK, you want examples? Acting like an idiot: having an oral sex only affair with an aid (contemporaiously with BC's similar affair) so he can deny an affair, but getting divorced when it comes to light after all. Talking like an idiot: praising Hillary for the last three years in a row, working for her health care initiatives.

OK, who's left? Paul? He's the Republican David Kucinich. No one knows who he is, even if the other candidates steal his ideas. Huckabee is kind of goofy with his "I lost a hundred pounds and can be your president" schtick.

I just don't see anyone gaining enough traction to overcome McCain's built in advantages. McCain will have about half the support in the early going with the other half divided more or less equally. One of the others will emerge as the anti-McCain candidate, and the primaries will go to the end with everyone who oposes McCain behind that candidate (fate will decide who it is) on one side and all of the people who either like McCain or are just willing to bet he's the Republican's best bet on the other.

Good analysis, and you may be correct about McCain's candidacy. If you are, the Republican's can kiss the oval office goodbye.

[fintstone]

I would vote for Hillary before Hagel.

[Jim Richards]

Whoa...fint is on the Hillary bandwagon!