Chuck Hagel's Impressive Performance

Sen. Chuck Hagel was very impressive in his talk show-mode on ABC's "This Week" yesterday. In a 15-minute discussion, Hagel played up his maverick persona to the hilt - calling for Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez's resignation, mocking the Bush Administration's attempts to restrict Congressional investigation, and even celebrating the newfound Congressional oversight of the Iraq War - breaking with four years of Republican complicity that paved the way for this current international crisis of our own creation.

Of course, readers of this site know to take what Hagel says with a grain of salt because he so rarely backs it up with action. But, after watching Hagel's most recent Sunday morning performance, I think we could probably all use a little more sodium in our diets. Whatever his motivations, the man has a way of saying things that need to be said, and that's a rare commodity on Capitol Hill.

Omaha World-Herald and Internet headlines have focused on Hagel's brief mention of impeachment as Congress' ultimate recourse to a President who believes himself beyond accountability, but what he said was really no more than a reiteration of comments made to Esquire magazine in a profile earlier this month. Hagel has not and will not advocate impeachment - he's just willing to say "the I word" with a Republican President in office.

To be honest, I was more amused and more impressed by Hagel's telling the Bush Administration that they "should read the Constitution" before claiming Congress has no role overseeing the war in Iraq. Word that Hagel is working on a bipartisan plan for the war with Virginia Senator Jim Webb also seemed imminently more newsworthy - even if the details were not yet available.

When pressed, Hagel also touched on his infamous non-announcement of two weeks ago. On that front, he did a pretty good job of shifting the blame to the national press for overhyping what was supposed to be a simple statement to the people of Nebraska about his plans for 2008. Of course, I don't buy that story for a second, but it probably sounded like a plausible enough explanation to viewers at home who aren't aware of Hagel's addiction to the spotlight.

So, Chuck Hagel is still very good at being Chuck Hagel. He puts on a mean Sunday morning performance - speaking with forthrightness and clarity one really can't help but appreciate.

Does it serve his presidential ambitions? Does he back it up the other 6 days of the week? Am I sometimes forced to ask myself 'what the hell is this guy thinking?' All valid questions, but none of them change the fact that, even if Hagel is a total phoney, he's our phoney. And - on a certain level - his feigned independence and out-sized ego probably positions him as the quintessential Nebraska politician.

For whatever that's worth.

Go to full text...

Chuck Hagel's Credibility Gap

I have mostly recovered from my painful two-day-long realization that Sen. Chuck Hagel will never have the courage to truly back-up his tough talk on the Iraq War.

1. Chuck Hagel & Ben Nelson Do Nebraska Proud in Iraq Debate
2. Chuck Hagel's True Colors - Party Before Principle
3. Chuck Hagel: Shoe Salesman
4. Chuck Hagel Loses the War With Himself

I don't know if this is a symptom of his 30 years in Washington D.C. or if it's just the nature of the beast that is Republican politics, but the mix of Hagel's ambition with his ranking as the Senate's #1 supporter of President Bush's agenda have left him all but incapable of standing up to Bush when it really counts - even on this issue he's called the most important of our day.

Hagel now wants to reimagine his Monday vote to filibuster the Warner-Levin Resolution and to keep debate of Bush's Iraq policy off the Senate floor as nothing more than a procedural vote. He has to say that to avoid looking like the overhyped phony and hypocrite he continues to reveal himself as at every opportunity. But, as the leaders of both parties and as Hagel himself certainly understood, Monday's vote was a moment of definition and declaration, drawing the lines that will shape Congress' role in the Iraq War through the next election.

Less than two weeks prior, Hagel had insisted that it is time for all for all 100 Senators to be "on the line" and to take a stand on our nation's Iraq policy. Monday's vote put Hagel on that line - it demanded that he take a stand - and, when all was said and done, he stood with the President and his party rather than the American people and the supposed principles he's espoused.

This Republican filibuster had one primary intent - to kill the momentum building against Bush's "troop surge." By insulating Bush from criticism and by delaying the debate of his Iraq policy as long as possible, it becomes harder and harder for Congress to effectively challenge Bush's policy without taking extreme measures that would divide Congress and the American public along reactionary lines that may be the Republicans' only path to regaining power.

Hagel's vote enabled the Republican Party to continue playing games with American soldiers' lives for political purposes. Now, to save their skins in 2008 and to salvage some shred of credibility, Hagel and a tiny band of six non-Neocon Republicans have denounced the "stalemate" Hagel helped create.

They say they will force the debate by other means if they must, but it's TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. On Monday, Hagel had the opportunity to stand on principle to give the Iraq War the fair, open, and official debate it deserves - that owed to more than 3,100 dead and to untold scores of the physically and emotionally wounded who have been all but abandoned by Congress over the last four years.

As we all know, that isn't the choice Hagel made. Instead, he chose to play along with the Republicans' political games. And, when he's being criticized for such unprincipled hypocrisy, his answer is to play more games with procedure - as if two wrongs make a right. But, he's already had his chance to stand and be counted in defense of this long overdue debate. Hagel had that chance, and he chose not to take it. Whatever his justification, he can't hide or deny that choice - as shameful as it was.

But, Hagel is right about something. This debate is going to happen - the Democratic Party will make sure of that. What we see here is just Hagel's usual attempt to take the credit for it and to position himself for media glory. But, on Monday, he showed his true colors. The New Nebraska Network has seen Hagel for who and what he is, and we won't be fooled again.

Go to full text...

Chuck Hagel Loses the War With Himself

Can’t we debate the most critical issue of our time, out front, in front of the American people?

-Sen. Chuck Hagel's opening statement to the Foreign Relations Committee, calling for debate of President Bush's policy in Iraq (01/24/2007)

Nay!

-Sen. Chuck Hagel's vote against cloture on the Warner-Levin Resolution, preventing debate of President Bush's policy in Iraq (02/05/2007)

You are welcome to give Hagel the benefit of the doubt and to believe whatever nonsense justification he makes for his vote in today's Omaha World-Herald. But, after four years of pulling this crap on vote after vote after vote, I'm through trying to sort out Hagel's inconsistencies on Iraq.

The vote speaks for itself. Though not a show boat or a glory hound, it is nice to have one Senator, Ben Nelson, who has maintained some semblance of clarity and credibility on this issue.

Having played a vital role in crafting the Warner-Levin Resolution and yesterday voting for it receiving a full debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Nelson's was the lone voice of reason in our Congressional delegation:

It seems that even when it comes to the lives of our troops, partisanship prevails.

Here we are after weeks of negotiations, after weeks of public proclamations, after weeks of consideration, we're about to witness the minority choose politics over progress....

The time has come. If not now, when? If not now, do we wait for [more] troops to die before we oppose the president's plan? If not now, do we wait for more violence, more unrest, more danger for our troops before we act?

Politics over progress - that's precisely the choice Hagel has made. When is enough enough?

To be honest, so far as Hagel is concerned, I'm not sure I even care about his answer because what he says doesn't seem to mean a damn thing.

Talk is cheap. It appears Chuck Hagel's integrity is even cheaper.

Go to full text...

Chuck Hagel: Shoe Salesman

"I think, all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes.“

-Sen. Chuck Hagel

As promised by his party leaders and predicted this morning by the New Nebraska Network, Sen. Chuck Hagel today voted AGAINST the cloture that would have allowed floor debate on the Warner-Levin Resolution. A bipartisan expression of the Senate and the American public's "disappoval" of President Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq with anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 additional troops and personnel, Republican efforts to forestall this black eye to Bush's failed stay-the-course policy have succeeded....temporarily.

Both Hagel and Sen. Warner (VA), who introduced the resolution, voted with their party not to move it to floor debate. Republicans needed 40 votes to filibuster and - with Hagel and Warner's voters - they had 46. The actual roll call lists 47 votes because Democratic majority leader Harry Reid changed votes for procedural reasons. And, in a pinch, the Republicans' efforts to censor the American people could probably claim 48 supporters - including Senators John McCain (AZ) and Mel Martinez (FL), who abstained from the vote.

Still, it's worth noting that the Republican leadership was not able to deliver on its guarantees of 100% party unity, with Senators Susan Collins (ME) and Norm Coleman (MN) both voting for cloture. No surprise, both are up for re-election in 2008. Their votes put Hagel's hypocrisy in full view, and it's my hope that the Democratic leadership will continue bringing this cloture vote to the floor, forcing the likes of Hagel and Warner to go on record as the puppets that they are each and every time.

Eventually, this debate is going to happen. Eventually, Hagel, Warner, and all those Republican Senators who hope to be re-elected in 2008 will have to break and allow the American people to be heard on the Senate floor.

They have no choice. The truth will have its day. And, when it does, there are going to be lots of Republicans seeking new lines of work. Forget running for President. With this vote, Hagel's spoken loud and clear as to his chosen profession.

Finally, a job he's cut out for, where a man who's full of BS might finally be appreciated.

***This post's title is written with compliments to an anonymous comment below and to the UNO College Democrats, who beat me to the punch.

Go to full text...

Chuck Hagel's True Colors - Party Before Principle

Last week, Senator Chuck Hagel insisted that it was time all 100 U.S. Senators take a stand on President George W. Bush's plans for a "troop surge"/escalation of our military operations in Iraq. Yesterday, he faced down Sen. John McCain on ABC's "This Week," repeating his insistence that the U.S. Senate should take action to oppose Bush's plan - at least, in principle.

Well, it looks like Hagel's All Talk Express might have reached new levels of ridiculousness and hypocrisy, as Senate Republicans are counting on his vote to forestall and filibuster the Senate's even debating the resolutions opposing Bush's plan.

CNN reports:

A Senate showdown on Iraq loomed Monday as Republicans said they would block a measure stating opposition to President Bush's plan to send additional troops into the nearly four-year-old war.

Attempts to reach a deal to allow voting Monday as scheduled have failed, Democratic and Republican leadership aides said Sunday night. But talks were slated to continue on Monday, they said.

Democrats need 60 votes to cut off debate and move forward with the resolution of opposition.

"It's an important first step, but if you can't get past a procedural motion to debate it, it's obstructionism," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, told CNN. "And I would really urge the Republicans to reconsider. I think it's a terrible mistake to prevent this debate."

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Friday that "as a matter of fairness," all 49 GOP senators would oppose a procedural vote that would let the chamber take up a bipartisan but nonbinding statement of opposition to Bush's "new way forward" -- a plan to send 21,500 more American troops to Baghdad and western Iraq....

McConnell, R-Kentucky, said senators should be allowed to vote on alternatives that would express support for Bush's strategy and one that would pledge the Senate to keep funding the U.S. presence. A GOP leadership aide said the chamber's Democratic leader, Majority Leader Harry Reid, has not yet agreed to set votes on those measures and require a 60-vote threshold to pass.....

If Republicans hang together, they could force Democratic leaders to pull the proposal from the floor until an agreement can be reached. But Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, said GOP leaders and the White House are trying to keep their members from embarrassing the president with a vote against his plan.

"Any suggestion that Democrats are standing in the way of a full debate is simply not credible," Manley said. "Senate Republicans have rejected three compromises that would have permitted the Senate to vote on the president's plan and other Republican proposals."

Meanwhile, NBC News' "First Read" has taken direct note of Hagel's nonsensical positioning, putting party before principle and party before his own integrity:

The highly anticipated vote on a non-binding resolution opposing a troop increase is on the verge of not happening at all, unless a deal is reached quickly between Senate leaders Harry Reid (D) and Mitch McConnell (R), NBC's Ken Strickland reports. Reid has scheduled a 5:30 pm procedural vote that would allow the process to begin. But McConnell announced late Friday that all 49 Senate Republicans, including those who are chief sponsors and supporters of the resolution, will vote against the "motion to proceed," thereby keeping Democrats from obtaining the 60 votes needed to move forward toward a vote.

Democrats contend that Republicans, at the White House's direction, are trying to avoid a vote that is likely to demonstrate a bipartisan majority opposing Bush's plan. McConnell says his conference is "using procedure to ensure a fair process." Even so, it's striking that McConnell managed to get all Senate Republicans to agree to vote against the motion -- including John Warner, the resolution's chief sponsor, and Chuck Hagel, the GOP conference's most vocal opponent of a troop increase.

Could it be that Hagel really doesn't want an open debate and an honest vote on the floor of the Senate? Could it be that he's scared of the consequences of actually following through on his big talk...scared of finally backing it up with action?

On "This Week" yesterday, Hagel seemed genuinely rattled when asked to respond to the likes of Rush Limbaugh declaring him "Senator Betray-us." For fear of offending Rush and the radical hordes of the Republican Right, Hagel did not even make an attempt to defend himself.

And now, Hagel shows signs of making the same cowardly choice in deference to his party's bosses, falling in line with them rather than staying true to the issue that defines him in the public's imagination.

I would like to imagine that some encouraging words would do Hagel some good - a bit of "to thine own self be true" from Hamlet, perhaps - but those of us who are familiar with Hagel's record know all too well that for Chuck Hagel being true to himself means being true to his ambitions.

That's what this is all about. Not the principles. Not the troops. Not the millions of Americans so desperate for a leader who speaks with courage and clarity. No, this is about Chuck Hagel - nothing more and certainly nothing less.

Go to full text...

More Hagel Hypocrisy (or, "Chuck Hagel: Obstructionist")

Sen. Chuck Hagel just voted along with 42 other Republican Senators to filibuster the Democratic-led, people-approved efforts to gradually raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour.

The bill passed with a strong bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives, as many Republican Congressmen (not Nebraska's) recognized this was an issue on which they could no longer defy the American public. As is, the minimum wage stands at its lowest real value in half a century, having remained fixed for almost a decade - a period during which members of Congress saw a pay raise of more than $30,000.

None of that holds any water with Hagel, who here reveals just what lies behind his bold talk on Iraq and his otherwise false pretensions of independence and bipartisanship.

It is at least great to see the Nebraska Democratic Party taking immediate action denouncing Hagel's vote. NDP Executive Director Matt Connealy stated in a press release, “It is deeply disappointing that Senator Hagel ignored the will of the American people and even President Bush’s own call for bipartisanship last night by rejecting a minimum wage hike for thousands of Nebraskans.”

Disappointing, indeed...but not surprising to those of us who have followed Hagel's record beyond the Sunday morning talk show circuit.

Not to defend the mistake I made this morning in reporting Hagel's vote on last summer's proposed "Gay Marriage Ban" Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but even here we see another example of the full extent of Hagel's hypocrisy. I'd originally reported that Hagel gave the Amendment a "Yes" vote, although Hagel did not actually participate in the vote and claimed his declaration of support only went so far as cloture and giving the measure a full vote before the Senate.

As the Lincoln Journal-Star reported at the time:

[Hagel] said he would have voted for cloture on the legislation, because he prefers moving most debates to an up-or-down vote.

Well, lookie here. When it's the farthest reaches of the Right-Wing demanding the opportunity to use the Constitution to target and discriminate against gay families, Hagel thinks THEY deserve an up-or-down vote.

Now, when it's America's poor and working-class demanding the chance at a better life and fairer wages, Hagel's decided they don't deserve that same right. Five Republican Senators showed some common sense and common decency in voting for cloture on the vote to raise the minimum wage, but NOT CHUCK HAGEL!

Here, we can clearly see Hagel for who he is. Not a moderate. Not a maverick. Certainly not anything remotely resembling an independent.

Instead, he's standing in the way of such a long-overdue reform as raising the minimum wage for purely partisan reasons on behalf of the corporations, lobbyists, and special interests he truly represents.

I suspect we'll be seeing more of this hypocrisy as Hagel and his Republican colleagues attempt to silence the voice of the American people and make this Congress every bit as incompetent and ineffective as what we'd seen under the last 12 years of Republican domination. I just hope the voters of Nebraska and across the nation see those efforts for what they are and direct their righteous anger at those who should be held accountable.

Go to full text...

Chuck Hagel Goes GQ & Almost Gets Away With It

(**Update/Correction with Sincerest Apologies - This article has been corrected because it incorrectly stated that Chuck Hagel had voted for the June 2006 Gay Marriage Amendment. Hagel did not participate in that vote, but had announced he would have voted in support of cloture.)

The people at Sen. Chuck Hagel's political action committee were happy enough with the new interview with Hagel in GQ magazine to send it out to supporters via e-mail. But, despite its high-profile, one has to question whether this is really the type of publicity Hagel wants as he attempts to keep his options open for 2008.

For starters, the headline of the article labels Hagel as "The Angry One," a name that suggests doom and gloom far more than the hope and optimism that have traditionally fueled most successful presidential campaigns (foolhardy as they might be). The article is also accompanied by the not particularly flattering picture at right with an introduction that describes Hagel's voice as "reminiscent of sandpaper on rough oak."

Again, not very flattering.

Still, the interview is definitely worth checking out, and it gives Hagel the opportunity to go for broke on a couple of issues, especially the war in Iraq, to add a little more meat to his claim as the true straight-talking maverick about whom independents, moderates, and the growing ranks of Republicans who think Iraq was a mistake should be getting excited.

Judge for yourself:

Do you wish you’d voted differently in October of 2002, when Congress had a chance to authorize or not authorize the invasion?

Have you read that resolution?

I have.

It’s not quite the way it’s been framed by a lot of people, as a resolution to go to war. That’s not quite what the resolution said.

It said, “to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.”

In the event that all other options failed. So it’s not as simple as “I voted for the war.” That wasn’t the resolution.

But there was a decision whether to grant the president that authority or not.

Exactly right. And if you recall, the White House had announced that they didn’t need that authority from Congress.

Which they seem to say about a lot of things.

That’s right. Mr. [Alberto] Gonzales was the president’s counsel at that time, and he wrote a memo to the president saying, “You have all the powers that you need”....

[F]inally, begrudgingly, they sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.

It wasn’t specific to Iraq?

Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. I mean, is Central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything they wanted. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.

They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere they wanted in the Middle East?

Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up, and put our language in it.

But that should also have triggered alarm bells about what they really wanted to do.

Well, it did. I’m not defending our votes; I’m just giving a little history of how this happened. You have to remember the context of when that resolution was passed. This was about a year after September 11. The country was still truly off balance. So the president comes out talking about “weapons of mass destruction” that this “madman dictator” Saddam Hussein has, and “our intelligence shows he’s got it,” and “he’s capable of weaponizing,” and so on.

And producing a National Intelligence Estimate that turned out to be doctored.

Oh yeah. All this stuff was doctored. Absolutely. But that’s what we were presented with. And I’m not dismissing our responsibility to look into the thing, because there were senators who said, “I don’t believe them.” But I was told by the president—we all were—that he would exhaust every diplomatic effort.....

But the more I look back on this, the more I think that the administration knew there was some real hard question whether he really had any WMD. In January of 2003, if you recall, the inspectors at the IAEA, who knew more about what Saddam had than anybody, said, “Give us two more months before you go to war, because we don’t think there’s anything in there.” They were the only ones in Iraq. We hadn’t been in there. We didn’t know what the hell was in there. And the president wouldn’t do it! So to answer your question—Do I regret that vote? Yes, I do regret that vote.

And you feel like you were misled?

I asked tough questions of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld before the war: How are you going to govern? Who’s going to govern? Where is the money coming from? What are you going to do with their army? How will you secure their borders? And I was assured every time I asked, “Senator, don’t worry, we’ve got task forces on that, they’ve been working, they’re coordinated,” and so on.

Do you think they knew that was false?

Oh, I eventually was sure they knew. Even before we actually invaded, I had a pretty clear sense of it—that this administration was hell-bent on going to war in Iraq.

Even if it meant deceiving Congress?

That’s right.....

Definitely some interesting stuff. Right off the bat, Hagel does as good a job as I've seen deflecting criticism of his vote in favor of the 2002 Iraq Resolution. If John Kerry could have communicated that same message in 2004 rather than being crucified by the media for being a flip-flopper, we probably would have just watched his third State of the Union Address last night.

Nevermind that it's taken four years and Hagel's at one point declaring the U.S. had "achieved victory" in Iraq to discover this clarity. With that sort of double-standard, Hillary Clinton and any Democratic Presidential candidate who voted on the Iraq Resolution should be prepared for the worst. On the other hand, you have to give credit to Hagel as a politician when he can say with a straight face that he's "not defending" his vote when, of course, that's precisely what he's doing.

Beyond that, Hagel's admitting the National Intelligence Estimate was doctored ("Absolutely") while asserting that the "hell-bent" Administration intentionally deceived Congress are all statements that should earn Hagel the headlines and public attention he seeks.

During the rest of the interview, Hagel continues to speak boldly. On the Administration's use of secret military prisons, he calls for shutting down Guantánamo and any such secret facilities without hesitation. Good for him. Good for America. But, on a related issue, we see another instance of Hagel's newfound clarity not matching his muddled record:

What about civil liberties? Does it concern you that the administration has been searching bank records and personal mail, and listening to international phone calls, without warrants?

Very much. We have always been able to protect national security without sacrificing the liberties of the individual. Once you lose those rights, it’s very hard to get them back. There have been arguments made that if we just give up a few rights, it will be easier to preserve our national security. That should never, ever happen. When you take office, you take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That is your first responsibility.

While I couldn't agree more with the rhetoric, Hagel doesn't have the record to back it up, and it's a shame the media doesn't call him on that fact. From his seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, it was just last March that he chose to capitulate to the Administration's undemocratic demands on domestic spying rather than defend the Constitution as duty and conscience required.

I will welcome the day and owe Hagel respect when he finally comes clean and apologizes for these failures - not just on Iraq but in response to the entire "War on Terror." Sadly, that day will never come when the media refuses to do some simple research and hold Hagel to the standards and principles he espouses.

I'm also appalled that GQ and its interviewer let Hagel get away with the following:

How conservative are you really? Tell me the truth: You don’t care whether or not gay people get married, do you?

No. Personally, I think marriage is between a man and a woman, but that’s because I see it as a religious union. As a legal contract, marriage should be up to the states. If a state wants to change the rules, that’s up to them.

Although it's nice to see Hagel returning to the federalist philosophy that would not turn the U.S. Constitution into a weapon against gay families in the name of conservative Christians' culture wars, it's a sin against truth and good journalism not to point out Hagel's hypocritical flip-flop on this issue since just last summer.

(**corrected - see above) In June 2006, Hagel went back on his previous position and ended up supporting cloture FOR the politically-motivated constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He actually did not partake in that losing vote, but his willingness to see it take one step further as law in our most sacred governing document raises significant questions. This is particularly the case because the amendment had no chance of overcoming a Democratic filibuster and because seven other Republican Senators actually showed the courage Hagel lacked to stand up to their party's unprincipled pandering to its extremist wing.

Accountability, folks - it's a bitch. And, it's about damn time Hagel be introduced and get his ass kicked a little bit. It may not make his path to the presidency any easier, but - ultimately - it would make him a better, more honest candidate and make ours a stronger democracy.

Go to full text...

More Jostling for Hagel's Senate Seat

It's an interesting if inevitable phenomenon: the more presidential Chuck Hagel sounds, the less senatorial his would-be successors seem.

In the wake of the Bush Administration's enormously unpopular decision to increase troop strength in Iraq, Hagel has assumed the role of soundbite king. And what soundbites they are! Hagel, who even in his personal life is reportedly obsessed with Iraq and its parallels to his own experience in Vietnam, deserves credit for couching his criticisms in plain but powerful moral language that should make any Democratic presidential hopeful envious. Though Senator Hagel deserves his "mock maverick" moniker, his introduction last week of a formal if non-binding resolution opposing a troop surge at least demonstrates that his "All Talk Express" is no longer limited to running circles around the Sunday morning talk shows.

Whether Hagel will take this message to the endless rounds of debates and forums that will define this presidential primary season remains to be seen (although recent reports that he's considering an independent run appear doubtful), but happily Omaha businessman David Sokol has seen fit to give us Nebraska political junkies a sneak peek at what a Hagel-less Senate race might look like. Shockingly, the results show none other than Sokol's good friend Attorney General Jon Bruning leading all comers for the 2008 Republican nomination.

Bruning -who easily breaks 50% in head-to-head match-ups with Senate losers Hal Daub and Pete Ricketts- has sought to solidify his lead by championing a bill which would make it a crime to send any e-mail that "uses or transmits any indecent, lewd, lascivious, or obscene language". Meanwhile, Bruning's most competitive opponents, Congressmen Lee Terry and Jeff Fortenberry (curiously, former Governor Mike Johanns was not polled) have been busy voting against raising the minimum wage, funding stem cell research and allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices (although, to be fair, they really, really wanted to support these measures).

You and I know that Senator Hagel is not the great maverick and savior of his party that the national media sometimes portrays him to be. He's a very conservative and rather loyal Republican. But he's also a thoughtful public servant who's demonstrated a willingness to step outside of his party's "message box", to speak the truth of his own internal convictions. The history of Nebraska politics is rife with individuals possessing these rare and admirable qualities; the Nebraska Republican Party is not.

The challenge remains for the Democratic Party to prove that they have the right man for the job.

Go to full text...

Chuck Hagel Highlighted in NEWSWEEK's Presidential Hypothesis

The Washington Post has been very good to Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel over the years, from its editorial pages giving him a national platform, to long-time columnist David Broder's consistent praise, and even in its regular coverage, where a certain affinity for Hagel and his brand of conservatism has often crept into the Post's reporting.

One can assume that Hagel has been good to the Washington Post as well. A politician has plenty of ways to build relationships with a newspaper and its reporters, whether by providing choice quotes, easy access, or even the occasional leak. Considering that Hagel lived in the Washington D.C. area for nearly two decades, working on Capitol Hill and building connections in political circles and the private sector, it's entirely possible the intelligent and ambitious Hagel's ties to the Washington Post go back even before being elected a U.S. Senator in 1996.

So, it doesn't surprise that Hagel's supposedly waning Presidential ambitions are being trumpeted in this week's NEWSWEEK, my personal favorite of the news-weeklies and probably the farthest reaching outlet in the Washington Post's media empire. Not only is there a featured article that contrasts Hagel with Sen. John McCain on the Iraq war but also a column by Jonathan Alter specifically making the case that Hagel is the more attractive - perhaps most attractive - candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

First, McCain vs. Hagel on the war:

McCain, a Republican from Arizona, was a Navy bomber pilot, shot down and imprisoned by the North Vietnamese for five and a half years. He has, he sometimes says, "more scars than Frankenstein." Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, was an Army grunt in Vietnam who won two Purple Hearts and still has shrapnel in his chest. Both men have seen the face of war up close. But on the question of the Iraq war, they are almost mirror opposites.

Hagel is "obsessed" with the war in Iraq, says his brother Tom, who served with him in Vietnam. "You can't have a conversation with him without this coming up." During Christmas, Hagel looked "markedly older and grayer than when I saw him this summer down at the beach," says Tom. In an interview with NEWSWEEK last week, Hagel teared up when he began talking about a Purple Heart ceremony he had attended in August in Lincoln, Neb. "You're sitting there thinking, Was this a waste?" said Hagel, who voted for the original congressional resolution backing the war despite raising serious doubts about whether the invasion made sense. He added, somewhat uncomfortably, that at times he wonders whether he has done enough to try to stop the war.

Hagel is not pushing for "Out Now." But he is almost angrily dismissive of the idea of sending an additional 10,000 to 20,000 troops to Iraq. "Are we going to pacify Baghdad?" he asks. "Are we going to break the militia's stronghold? Are we going to use these troops to propel or force a settlement between the Shias and the Sunnis? What's the objective of it? I will guarantee that there's going to be a lot more American casualties. And there's going to be a lot more animosity by the Iraqis." The idea that the Iraqis will respond only to more troops, he says, is "complete folly, unless you're going to kill all the Iraqis"....

Hagel and McCain are likely to be increasingly prominent spokesmen for their opposing views on Iraq. McCain is almost surely running for the Republican nomination for president, and Hagel has often been mentioned as a candidate, though he says he has yet to decide if he is running. Both men will be heard from early and often as the debate on Iraq moves to Capitol Hill this winter....

The president seems determined to defy his detractors, not to mention popular opinion. This week Bush is expected to announce a "New Way Forward" on Iraq that will call for more troops to try to bring order and political stability to Baghdad...To Bush's many critics, like Hagel, the new Iraq strategy adds up to a waste of more American lives. To Bush's smaller and dwindling band of supporters, like McCain, failure in Iraq is unthinkable. And if duty requires more sacrifice, then so be it....

The differences between Hagel and McCain transcend their war experiences. Hagel is the classic citizen-soldier, in a tradition that goes back to George Washington and to ancient times. The ideal is the Roman general Cincinnatus, who left his prosperous farm to rescue the Roman republic—but then returned to domestic life when the fighting was done....

Hagel has a long, sad face, one side of which was seared by the flash of an exploding enemy mine almost four decades ago. But he is almost gleeful when he talks about the coming debate on Iraq. He thinks Congress will awaken from its passivity and begin questioning how Bush is spending blood and treasure on Iraq. "The administration is going to be forced to come up and explain, 'Where is the money going?' " says Hagel.

He rejects the notion that the newly Democratic-controlled Congress will shy away from cutting off at least some of the funding for the war. (The somewhat cynical view on Capitol Hill is that the Democrats will let Bush have the money—and also the responsibility for a failed policy.) He foresees Congress's agreeing to pay for existing force levels—but not to send more troops. The White House, he says, can no longer bully Republican members into submission. "The Republican Party has to go through an election next year, the president doesn't," says Hagel. "There are a lot of Republicans in this conference that are very scared."

McCain, needless to say, is not one of them. He plans to push back...Both McCain and Hagel are clearly girding for battle. For these two men, the fighting is never really over.

The entire article is worth a read. Although Hagel doesn't get a cool nickname like McCain (the "American samurai"), a man couldn't buy this of sort of press, especially its likening him to George Washington and a near-mythic hero of the Roman Republic. If suddenly finding himself Senator Cincinnatus isn't enough ego-stroking to push Hagel into the presidential race, he might live up to that legend after all.

Sweetening the pot, though, is Alter's column, which Hagel's Political Action Committee has jumped on - sending it via e-mail to supporters and splashing it across its webpage - in what seems a strong indicator that Hagel will be running for President. Here's the gist of McCain vs. Hagel for President:

Let's try an elementary thought experiment for Republican Primary voters....

One Republican — we'll call him "Candidate A" — has among the highest support levels for President George W. Bush's conservative agenda in the Senate. He championed the president's 2001 tax cut, which many Republicans believe is the litmus test of today's GOP. After initially voting to give Bush the authority to go to war, he became an early and outspoken critic of the Iraq policy, a view now endorsed not just by the American public and Democrats but by Republicans as well.

Republican "Candidate B" has the inverse position. He opposed Bush's big tax cuts, one of only two Republicans in the Senate to do so (the other being Lincoln Chafee). And on Iraq he is one of the main advocates of the "surge," a plan to "win" the war with a modest influx of troops, though even many military experts say the idea won't work.

You would think that Candidate A would be a strong favorite for the nomination and Candidate B destined for political oblivion. But no. Candidate A, Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, is seen as damaged goods, with little chance to be nominated. Candidate B, Arizona Sen. John McCain, is now the front runner.

The explanation is the GOP tradition of primogeniture. Since the 1950s, Republicans, unlike Democrats, have given the nomination to their firstborn son — the guy whose "turn" it is. That's McCain....

Hagel, by contrast, seems lost. After John Kerry favorably mentioned Hagel's skepticism about the Iraq war in one of his 2004 debates with Bush, he became persona non grata in his party. As recently as six months ago, any Republican lawmaker who didn't back the president on the war was in deep trouble.

But that was then. Supporting Bush on Iraq today is a liability, not an asset...Six months from now, any Republican who opposed the tax cuts but champions Bush's disastrous Iraq policy is going to have some explaining to do in early debates. When Rush Limbaugh says after the midterms that he is sick and tired of "carrying water" for Bush, Chuck Hagel is not going to be run out of the party for refusing to carry water.

For ordinary Republicans, tax cuts are an article of faith. Backing a president in a failed war is not. And Hagel's doubts about the war have more weight because of his heroic combat experience in Vietnam. In a GOP debate, McCain would not be able to use his military experience as a trump card on Hagel. But Hagel and the others would score heavily on McCain for opposing the tax cuts — even though McCain was brave and right to have done so.

The most stunning thing about the Republican campaign so far is the vacuum on the right. While McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney (a moderate Republican until five minutes ago) battle over the centrists in the party, the conservative base that actually determines the nomination remains forlorn....

[G]overnors, who normally make the strongest presidential candidates, seem a little irrelevant this time around. They aren't likely to sound as credible as senators on the nuances of Pakistani politics or the readiness of the Third Infantry Division. There's more conventional wisdom that's in danger of cracking, too. Pooh-bahs in both parties have convinced the candidates that they have to raise $100 million this year to be competitive. This is nonsense in the Internet age, peddled by consultants who need that booty for their own pockets...In presidential politics, money is an effect — it follows quickly the momentum that's generated in the rough and tumble of the "free media" campaign.

Chuck Hagel might not run. But if he does, Candidate A would be formidable. It's the issues, stupid.

There's definitely some truth to Alter's reading of the Republican field. Giuliani doesn't have a prayer for the nomination and McCain's gamble on the Iraq war - where the stakes are soldiers' lives - could just as easily be the death of his campaign as it could have its intended effect of locking-up his presumed front-runner status. Other than that, the field is wide open, and Hagel would bring some intriguing possibilities to the race.

No doubt about it, Hagel's experience on both the Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees, not to mention his service in Vietnam, would be incredible assets on the campaign trail. And, addressing Hagel's lack of financial resources, money does have a way of following hype in presidential politics, with the latter quickly taking care of the former but the former not necessarily translating into the latter.

The one hiccup for Hagel by this equation is that he might have to actively combat the ill will of Republicans who only know him (and resent him) for his outspokeness against Bush's Iraq policy. That takes more money than a lowly governor starting from scratch with the general public...although free media like this and the continued deterioration of the situation in Iraq could go a long way in leveling the playing field or even putting Hagel at an advantage.

Of course, Alter fails to take into account the fact that Hagel's being the most ardent supporter of the Bush Agenda (including Bush's tax cuts) in the U.S. Senate is not much of an asset when Bush has an approval rating of about 30%. Imagining this is all a symptom of the Iraq war is utter nonsense, even if such would be ideal for Hagel's purposes because it's one of the few issues on which he's staked an independent identity.

On Iraq, Hagel can make a consistent and powerful emotional appeal even if his voting record does somewhat strain its intellectual credibility. That still leaves eight years of Bush's unpopular and failed agenda for which Hagel can be held liable in the general election. But, in true referendum style, that's going to be the case for whomever the Republicans nominate - including McCain, who's most sheltered from Bush's full agenda as a 2000 challenger even as he's become the most exposed on Bush's Iraq policy.

It's hard to say whether Hagel is a legitimate contender in his own right or whether he's just convenient for illustrating McCain's weaknesses. The problem for Hagel is much the same as that faced by former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey in 1992. Although a very intriguing candidate on paper - a perfect "Candidate A" for political columnists to wax philosophically about and to dream up hypothetical campaigns - there's a political reality that isn't so neat and easy . . . or, at least, hasn't been in the past.

Hagel, like Kerrey before him, offers some great repackaging of a tired product that seems like it should be easy to market. But, there's "New Coke" quality to this sort of thought exercise - this "seems like" - whereby a great idea on paper that appeals to an elite class who are trying their best to figure out what appeals to the masses should immediately be distrusted.

One day, though, hype and political chatter might be enough to pave the way for victory. With the rise of blogs, the culture of celebrity, and so many forms of instantaneous communication, who knows, it might just be today. If so, Hagel certainly has a shot in 2008 and - to be honest - I think he'd be a fool not to take it.

Go to full text...

The Paper Tiger Makes the Papers

"The Mock Maverick," from the Journal-Star website's frontpage

Following up on yesterday's article about Sen. Chuck Hagel being the most ardent supporter of President Bush's agenda of all 2008 presidential aspirants, both the Lincoln Journal-Star and the Omaha World-Herald today report on the fuller numbers from Congressional Quarterly that actually rank Hagel as Bush's biggest supporter in the entire U.S. Senate in 2006.

The LJS reports:

Despite sharp differences with President Bush on Iraq and foreign policy, Sen. Chuck Hagel was the leading supporter of the president’s agenda in the Senate in 2006....

Hagel supported Bush’s position 95.5 percent of the time, even more often than Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who finished fourth at 92.8 percent.

With Hagel on the verge of a decision whether to pursue the presidency or seek a third Senate term next year, his strong legislative support for Bush prompted words of praise from GOP State Chairman Mark Quandahl.

“Once again, Senator Hagel has demonstrated to Americans and Nebraskans alike that he is truly committed to President Bush and his policies,” Quandahl said.

“While Senator Hagel’s bold leadership has inspired serious and thoughtful policy discussions all across our country, this rating underscores his devout allegiance to the common-sense, conservative principles of the Republican Party and our commander-in-chief.”

Quandahl pretty much said what needed to be said, except he fails to recognize that Bush's agenda does not have the support of the American people or the voters of Nebraska.

The most recent SurveyUSA tracking poll from November gave Bush only a 46% approval rating in Nebraska - pathetically, still his sixth highest in the nation. Hagel's "devout allegiance" to principles and a record like that hardly speak in his favor even if it might better his lowly standing with the Republican base.

Go to full text...

Chuck Hagel: The Paper Tiger on Paper

2006 Votes Suggest Nebraska Senator the True Heir of Bush's Blunders

Good blogging probably requires picking one name and sticking with it to highlight the huge gulf between Chuck Hagel's public perception and his actual record. The Mock Maverick. Talk Show Hagel. Weekend Hagel. Conductor of the ALL-TALK Express. Paper Tiger.

Whatever his title, the facts pretty much speak for themselves. While Hagel has offered a voice of dissent in the disastrously ill-conceived and mismananged Iraq War, that voice has lacked even an echo of action forcing accountability and protecting our servicemen.

And, while Hagel has cast a few ideologically-sound votes against the Bush Administration's most extravagant expansions of the federal government (and its defecit), his record is one of almost unrivaled complicity in the failed agenda that has earned Bush an approval rating just slightly above 30% in national polling.

As the perfect illustration of this complicity, take a look at the numbers compiled by Congressional Quarterly (and reported by MyDD) comparing the 2006 voting records of Congressional Republicans who might seek the presidency. Contrary to his public perception, Hagel actually supported Bush more frequently in 2006 than any of the others seen as potential Republican nominees.

Name / Pres. Support Score (%) / Party Unity Score (%)
Sen. George Allen (VA) / 91 / 96
Sen. Sam Brownback (KS) / 92 / 83
Sen. Bill Frist (TN) / 93 / 94
Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE) / 96 / 84
Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA) / 92 / 94
Sen. John McCain (AZ) / 89 / 76
Sen. Rick Santorum (PA) / 86 / 92

What's most ironic is that Hagel has drawn the ire of so many Republicans with his public statements that their opinions of him, even here in Nebraska, often border on hatred. In this way, Hagel might just be one of the worst victims of his own hype and ambition in American politics. Not only would a long-shot bid for the presidency require millions of dollars he doesn't have, but Hagel would also have to overcome the perception that he's undermined the President and betrayed the Republican Party.

Being from a small, Midwestern state with little political clout, those are two very tall orders. What's funny is that any efforts to undermine Hagel's credibility with progressives and liberals - pointing out his record as a "Mock Maverick" and "Paper Tiger" - probably work to Hagel's favor, especially in heavily-Republican Nebraska.

Of course, there's a certain appeal to the idea that Hagel might actually have a chance at the Republican nomination if the voters knew his record. But, such assumptions are rather lazy intellectually and questionable in the extreme.

It's true that, under scrutiny, Hagel is not what he seems. What he is, however, is probably even worse: a man who speaks out of one side of his mouth and votes out of the other. Not to mention, a man who's enabled President Bush and Bush's disastrous, unpopular agenda every step along the way.

With Bush's approval rating as low as it is and has been for the last year, Hagel's actual record is as much of a liability as his false, media-created persona. And, in the 2008 Presidential race, these twin liabilities would prove costly in both the primary and the general election.

Paper tiger, indeed. Meow.

Go to full text...