This made me laugh out loud:
His Republican colleagues regard him warily. The White House barely speaks to him. He is reviled by his party’s conservative base.
Looks as though Sen. Chuck Hagel is on a roll.
Both parties have their Iraq war contrarians. For the Democrats, it is Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, whose steadfast support for President Bush nearly cost him his seat last year and forced him to run as an independent. The Republican version is Hagel, a career maverick from Nebraska and the only GOP senator to call for an end to the war.
Hagel’s sharp criticism of the war has placed him squarely in the mainstream of public opinion on Iraq and revived long-dormant speculation about his presidential ambitions. Hagel has been eclipsed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination who has vigorously endorsed the president’s war policies.
Chuck Hagel, if he ran, would not win one primary. Hell, he couldn’t even beat McCain in South Carolina, and the base hates McCain for a number of reasons (not to mention half of South Carolina still thinks he has a black baby).
One of the most amusing (depressing) aspects of the GOP’s descent into lunacy (I can say that now that I am officially a moonbat! Do I get a certificate in the mail, Misha?) the past few years has been listening to the rhetoric of the 28%er’s, who faced with the fact that their ideas (and that is a charitable name for the babble they spew) are rejected by the majority of the country and a sizable portion of the party, are now focussed on purges within the party. I was only half-joking yesterday when I wrote the silly pledge should actually read “Follow Bush over a cliff or we will make sure that we are a Southern regional religionist party with 12 seats in the Senate!” That is what some of them want. Enter Dean Barnett:
2) What is the purpose of the pledge?
It is not a loyalty oath. Nothing like it. The pledge rests on the premise that Republicans who are supporting the anti-surge resolution are doing so as a craven political play. The pledge is merely a way of showing them that it is an extremely poor political play. And since political advantage is the coin of their realm, we think it may serve to change their hearts and minds.
3) But isn’t it somehow unseemly to demand that these people sign a petition to show their loyalty to the White House?
Again, as is so often the case, you completely miss the point. We’re not asking the Senators to sign the pledge. We’re asking people who will move any Republican who votes for the resolution to the head of their s**t list to sign the petition. The pledge is merely a way for the grassroots to communicate their feelings to the Republican Party.
All well and good, but bullshit. The point of the pledge is to stop Senators from being Senators, and continue to be lackeys for this administration. The point is to stifle any dissent. What would Barnett do if they cut off funding from the troops? Aside from having an aneurysm, they would immediately fire up the stab-in-the back machine they have been warming up for months, and then work to get all these folks unelected anyway.
But cutting off funding for the troops would be irresponsible. We all know that. So what is one to do, as a Senator, if you deeply oppose this piddling surge because your recognize the futility and underwhelming nature of it, yet do not want to fully cut off the troops. Particularly when you are dealing with an extremely obstinate President and an administration in full-fledged spin mode? An administration who has screwed up EVERYTHING they have touched over the course of the past few years, and who listens to no one?
You do the only thing you can. You signal your displeasure with the current plan through a non-binding resolution. And EVEN that is too much for the authoritarians on the right, because any dissent from the Decider is not to be had. Hell, his choice of personnel was just unanimously confirmed, and even THAT pissed off the knuckledraggers:
General David Petraeus has been confirmed by the Senate. He received 81 votes. No, he didn’t get 19 ‘no’ votes. Senator Tim Johnson is in the hospital, still. But 18 others just did not bother to show up and vote.
The United States Senate cares so much about retreating from the battlefield that we’re going round and round over a negotiated non-binding surrender resolution. They care so little about prosecuting the war that 18 of them could not be bothered to show up and cast a vote for or against the general who will lead our soldiers in Iraq — for or against the general who said he needs more troops to get the job done.
Not only are they pissed that Petraeus didn’t get all 100 votes, but they are snippy because people had the unmitigated gall to vote for the non-binding resolution saying the current surge is a bad idea, but for Petraeus:
John Warner is reportedly authoring a resolution that essentially mirrors the recommendations of the bipartisanly disregarded Iraq Study Group report while disapproving of the ongoing increase of US troops in Iraq.
Yet during Petraeus’ confirmation hearing he was unabashedly in favor of the troop surge ordered by the President.
The dichotomy here is simply bonejarring. On the one hand a clear majority of this panel will vote that sending additional troops to Iraq is not in the national interest. This is an extremely strong statement, one that approaches alleging treason on the part of the president and which would clearly constitute an impeachable offense. On the other hand the panel voted unanimously to confirm as military commander in Iraq a man who supports the deployment of those troops to Iraq. In essence, the Senate Armed Services Committee confirmed to four-star rank and to the command of the most critical military effort of the United States a man who is openly not acting in the best interests of the nation.
Senators possessing even a modicum of integrity would have the moral obligation to vote against David Petraeus if for no other reason than to force the president to send a nominee who does not support the troop surge. It they are truly serious about their beliefs it is hard to see how they could act otherwise.
Make sure you read the comments in that last link. The commenters patiently tried, repeatedly, to explain to Streiff that it is possible to signal your displeasure with the current surge plan while still believing a President has a right to his personnel, but he was having none of it. Nuance, as we know, is for pussies.
And back we go to Chuck Hagel, who, as you see, has no chance at ever being President. He has committed the greatest sin- he thought for himself. Hugh Hewitt, Dean Barnett, and Red State will make sure he is punished.
zzyzx
You need to close your last blockquote ;)
zzyzx
…oh and it is odd that so many of the saner places I went to to read the view from the other side are now agreeing with me. I suppose that’s a good thing, but it’s weird to actually see the converts.
Don
The irony is that Chuck Hagel is the real conservative in this crowd. If you could bring back Barry Goldwater from the dead he would be agreeing with Hagel.
Modern day GOP is no longer a conservative party. It is a neocon/theocratic party.
Chuck Hagel should run for president to remind people what real conservatism stood for.
Bubblegum Tate
Welcome aboard, comrade! Please perform either an abortion (for pleasure, naturally) or a gay marriage within the next seven days to confirm your status.
Krista
You’re a “freshly-minted” moonbat no less! All nice and shiny and smelling pretty!
Gatchaman
Does it dawn on any of the knuckleheads that perhaps Hagle is simply listening to what the people of Nebraska say? Why does every Republican senator have to act as if their only obligation is to the president?
Do schools still teach civics?
jg
You got it easy John. I was ‘converted’ to moonbat when Bush still had a 85% approval rating.
Krista
If you peform both, with your membership you will receive this beautifully framed signed photograph of Michael Moore’s ass, upon which to practice kissing up to those Godless terrorist-sympathizers who would destroy our country.
jg
Haven’t you figured out yet that republican senators are supposed to serve the party not their constituents?
demimondian
Actually, I think he’s a freshly-scrod moonbat.
FAP
Is redstate.com really taken seriously in conservative circles or is it regarded more of as an amusing side show?
Andrew
I call spoof question.
Unfiltered G
As long as they are on message they are taken seriously in the conservative world.
srv
Conservative circles? No such animal exists anymore. It is all one giant FlufferSphere(tm) now.
Cyrus
I love that part from the article, and it can’t be stated often enough these days. Once in a while, it might start to look like Democrats are too incompetent, or a Broderlike “bipartisan for its own sake” stance might be acceptable in this one instance. Until, that is, I remember what Democrats are being told they should cooperate with.
This article could just as easily have led with “Number of Republicans responsive to electorate grows to five percent”.
Jake
Jeeze, can’t you get the moonbat pantheon straight? You must perform three gay marriages and two abortions as penance or surrender your MoonBadge(TM).
RSA
I am struck by the cluelessness of this comment:
“Force” the President to do something? Let me think about what’s happened in the past when Congress has rejected the President’s nominations for various posts. . . You know, I don’t think that’s really been effective in changing the President’s mind about anything.
Andrei
POTD. First official nominee for POTY.
ThymeZone
Yes, you are an Enemy of the State.
Finally.
Punchy
I want what YOU’RE smoking, Jonathon. This guy is getting more support everyday. He’s saying what SEVENTY PERCENT (read: a lot more than just Dems!) of America thinks and wants. Not only would he be wildly popular with mainstream (moderate) Republicans…hell, I’d vote for him for Pres long before Clinton or Obama.
Hagel is–simply–the ONLY Senator speaking the minds of most Americans. He’s in effect saying, “Fuck this non-binding shit. My co-workers are fucking pussies. Let’s take this shit outside and settle this like men”….
Rex
I actually first found this blog through Misha’s site–back when I still believed in Republicans. Words cannot describe how putrid my perception of Misha became over the years. He is one person that, based on his writings, has the wherewithal to kill Arab children with his bare hands. And if he couldn’t? He’s a pussy poseur who hides behind incendiary rhetoric.
Krista
Yay for me!
Zifnab
I think Tom DeLay still posts there. For all that’s worth.
I’m in Texas, so my vote doesn’t really count, but wtf why not. I’d vote for him in primary season. Man’s got balls. They dropped a bit late, but at least they’re hanging out there.
Douglas McElroy
Speaking of 28%ers, have you seen this from Kung Fu Monkey? It explains a lot. 28% may be a base level of support nowadays. I don’t know what it says about us now that Nixon went lower.
Tsulagi
If you check the list of those who didn’t show up to vote for Petraues confirmation, it comes down to 12 Republicans and 7 Democrats. Throw out Johnson who has a pretty good reason for not being present and you have twice as many Pubs as Dems who are the “they” in…
So why is it constantly proven Republicans hate our troops? Why do they abandon our country in overwhelming numbers? Jesus keeps on weeping.
Face
In addition to the above, Official Moonbat Status requires that he go on a date (and get to second base) with Cindy Sheehan, and brings home the panties as proof. If it all passes the sniff test, he’ll be getting his Moonban sew-on badge in 7-10 days.
Wilfred
yeah, that’s ripping him out a new one. I think would have signalled my own displeasure with the current plan by wiping my ass with it and pasting it on Lieberman’s forehead.
Caligula got everything he wanted. Again.
TenguPhule
Act now and get your first set of Troubleshooter Clone replacements free!
AkaDad
shrill – adjective
betraying some strong emotion or attitude in an exaggerated amount, as antagonism or defensiveness.
That hit a 9 on my irony meter
tBone
*reinforced hangers and mounting hardware sold separately. Please mount ONLY on load-bearing walls.
He would still have to navigate the feverswamp of Republican primaries. That’s the stumbling block, not popular support among the general (read: sane) populace.
Tsulagi
Funny thing about the Petraeus confirmation vote, among the majority Pubs who didn’t show up was Surger McCain himself. Guess he was still catching up on his sleep after the SOTU address.
tBone
I think that’s a little unfair. I disagree with Hagel on a lot of other issues, but he’s never been shy about sharing his opinion of the Iraq
clusterfuckPony Parade.RSA
My favorite benchmark for popularity (it was Cheney rather than Bush, but they’re close to being in the same boat these days) was identified, I think, by Tom Tomorrow, who pointed to a poll saying that 10% of the American public would eat a rat on reality TV. So there are varying levels: Bush is still 18 points above rat-eating craziness.
Bubblegum Tate
Yeah, exactly. The primaries are about hardcore, fire-spittin’ GOP-’til-I-die loyalists, not, you know, regular people. It’s one of the great bits of irony built into our current political system that a guy like Hagel could indeed draw some fairly widespread popular support, but his own party would never let him get the nomination.
BTW, it’s particularly funny to see what the wingers are saying regarding Hagel and compare it to what they said about Lieberman vs. the Democratic Party in Connecticut.
The Other Steve
Bizarre..
From what I’ve seen, I think Petraeus is a highly competent military commander. I don’t agree with the surge, but I am heartened that they’re getting rid of Casey.
I hope Patraeus drinks the same whiskey as US Grant, that’s all I can say.
Face
Send me a bumpersticker of this…quickly. This has GOT to be the new buzzphrase. Pure genius.
mw
Republicans better hope that Chuck Hagel runs for president and gets some traction in the party. As you point out, it is going to be tough road. The Republican right is now so out of step with the majority of Americans over the War in Iraq, that I cannot see how Republicans can nominate an electable candidate. Fortunately this ragged right is becoming marginalized (although over-represented in the blogosphere)and is now a small minority of the Republican party and and even smaller minority of American opinion overall.
Chuck is prominently featured in my most recent YouTube effort “It’s the war, stupid.” and recent blog post of the same name.
Chuck Hagel is a rock solid conservative in the Goldwater tradition. He is more conservative than McCain, Giuliani, Romney, and certainly more conservative than Bush. He has been on the right side of this war since 2002 and that makes him the only electable Republican in the field. It’ll be too bad if he can’t make it through the gauntlet of Republicans who have redefined being a Republican with a single litmus test of blind support of the President’s policies on Iraq. You don’t have to be a fiscal conservative to get their support. You don’t have to be a social conservative to get their support. You just have to put on your blinders and march lockstep on a flawed war strategy. If Republicans like these carry the day, it will be the end of the Republican Party as a relevant political force for a generation.
Pixie
I have to disagree that Hagel is the ONLY one that speaks his mind, he was a lock-step bushbot during the first oh, 5 years or so. Russ Feingold remains the only senator that calls a spade a spade.
Zifnab
I wish THAT man was running for President.
Bubblegum Tate
I completely agree. If we’d had him in charge instead of that lickspittle Tommy Franks, Iraq wouldn’t be such a catastrofuck. It certainly wouldn’t be a Pony Parade (a term I will now be using on a regular basis because of its awesomeness), but it wouldn’t be the tragicomedy of errors it has been to this point.
Jake
And a recent poll showed 25% of Americans think Jesus will return in the next year or so.
Coincidence?
tBone
Uh, what? Hagel has never been a “lock-step Bushbot.” He’s been a fierce critic of the Iraq policy almost from the beginning, and he’s never been scared to call out the administration on their bullshit.
His voting record is certainly fair game for criticism, but it’s ridiculous to lump him in with the Kool-Aid guzzlers.
Grrr
The commenters patiently tried, repeatedly, to explain to Streiff that it is possible to signal your displeasure with the current surge plan while still believing a President has a right to his personnel, but he was having none of it. Nuance, as we know, is for pussies.
Hewitt and his buttboys like streiff and Riehl are increasingly reminding of me of Jack Black as Roger Davis in Bob Roberts.
I’m not so sure these guys are kidding anymore about long knives, ropes and lampposts.
It’s a shame really. There won’t be anyone left to keep us America-hating Socialists from redistributing every last dollar from the rich to the poor and welcoming our new Caliphate overlords.
mrmobi
I think Hagel is a principled guy, but remember that he was one of the senators who voted, this week, against increasing the minimum wage. He stood with his Republican colleagues so that the law would not be passed. Although all the Senators in opposition said they wanted to “amend” the bill to make it “fair,” it’s not about amendments. The Republicans in the Senate are being obstructionist because they can. What do they care about low-wage working people?
There is a great video over at Crooks and Liars of Ted Kennedy going off on his fellow-senators about not being able to pass the minimum wage increase without another giveaway to big business.
I agree with others that Hagel has no chance in the modern Republican party to get the nomination. It’s going to require a genuine political collapse (Big majorities in both houses of congress and the Presidency to Democrats) for the hold of the neo-cons to be destroyed. With any kind of luck, that collapse will come in 2008-09.
I look forward to the day when decent, principled conservatives have control of the grand old party. We will all be better for it.
pharniel
A riot…..is an ugly thing…..
Seriously. Somone shoudl have edited that scene and put ‘war’ instead of ‘riot’ and sat teh decider down infront of it…maybe then he’d have understood due caution, proper planning etc…
But i think it’s about damn time we had one!
and this is what america should be thinking about the right wing nut job spin machine. seriously, if you think the big jc is coming to save your ass from your mistakes in the next year, please line up and certified trained professionals in texas will send you to him without the wait.
TenguPhule
Out with the old lickspittle, in with the new lickspittle!
Anyone who agrees with Lieberman that opposition ‘provides comfort to the enemy’ is a castrated asswiper who doesn’t deserve their general stars.
Zifnab
So he was just Spectering? Please.
That hardly warms my heart.
salvage
ONE OF US! ONE OF US! ONE OF US! ONE OF US! ONE OF US!
Pixie
Riiiight. As Zif says above, the guy was Spectering. Sure he may make a fuss every now and again, but in the end he always caves to the white house.
And yes, Feingold would make an EXCELLENT president.
TenguPhule
Agreed. The best people for the job are the ones who don’t want it.
And in that spirit I propose that anyone who runs for public office should automatically be disqualified from it.
jenniebee
Oh noes! You only write like this to get links from random Kos diaries? /cry
Keith
Even more mind-numbing was Brit Hume yesterday trying to make it seem like some kind of contradiction or hypocracy that the ASC would unanimously send Petraus to the floor for a confirmation vote even though some of them would vote against the surge.
Mike
I personally hope they nominate Brownback, or preferably, Tancredo.
tBone
A politician who usually votes with his party. Inconceivable!
If you want to bag on spineless Nebraska senators, Ben Nelson is the place to start.
Rick Taylor
I’ve gotta say, after putting up with “centrists” carping against those of us in the Democratic party who opposed the war and criticized senators like Liebermann that supported it as moonbats applying a litmus test and stifling diversity in a way that would inevitably fracture the party or lead it to defeat, it sure is satisfying seeing what the base of the right wing is capable of. As far as I know, no one on Daily Kos has seriously considered publishing a pledge not to support any Democrat who doesn’t call for an and to the war in Iraq.
–Rick Taylor
James F. Elliott
It’s even more simple than that: It is entirely logical and principled to believe the surge is a bad idea and still want to make sure that, if it is implemented, the best leader is available for the job in order to give it any kind of a shot.
Dave
I third that.
gus
There’s no pledge, Rick, but Leiberman was persona non grata among Democrats (for good reason).
Granny Miller
“Chuck Hagel, if he ran, would not win one primary. ”
Don’t bet on it :-)
People like me took care of Rick Santorum and people like me will put Senator Hagel in the White House.
I left the Republican party last year and Chuck Hagel could bring me back.
Granny Miller
http://www.nelsonrun.blogspot.com
lard lad
Props to TOS for his knowledge of American historical arcana.
Mark
Past few years? I would argue that this administration has screwed up everything it’s touched for the last 5 years, at least.
MC
The sad shame of it is, when you read RedState, it’s pretty clear that Streiff is a well-read guy. Same with Thomas. They’re probably very intelligent guys but just awful thinkers. It’s a testament to the cult-like nature of the last 28% that otherwise bright people are just so absorbed in nonsensical contortions of thought all to defend every single action of Bush.
TenguPhule
A turd is a turd, no matter which party tries to put a pretty dress on it and call it a bill.
tBone
Better.
AlanDownunder
from Avedon at The Sideshow: http://sideshow.me.uk/sjan07.htm#01260222
I like “Specterizing”, but what about “Hageling”, along with Senator Haggle?
If a guy wants to keep on signing on, he should keep on explaining why – not why not.
Pb
Well, I for one am glad Hagel is not just speaking out about this, but also voting about it. But really, he’s been speaking out about it for years–in 2006, in 2005, in 2004–and now I think he’s just had enough, and sees an opportunity here for some real change now that the Democrats are in charge of Congress. Of course he’s no Democrat, but I don’t think he’s being some sort of Johnny-come-lately opportunist here, and he’s not a crazy person either–which is why there’s hardly any room left for him in today’s Republican party. I mean, check this out:
What a freakin’ concept. That was Chuck Hagel back in 2004–and yes, they were speculating that he might run for President or Vice President back then as well. I don’t see it happening, but I’d go for a Chuck Hagel over a Joe Lieberman any day of the week.
Beej
I’m not going to vote for Hagel (or any other Repub) for Pres, but I have to say the man does have some guts. The public opinion columns and local TV station blogs here in Senator Hagel’s and my home state of Nebraska are smoking from the fiery outrage of Repub voters who see Hagel as a traitor who has stepped on the face of all those who voted for him. Forget about getting elected President, he’s going to have a lot of trouble being re-elected to his Senate seat.
Richard 23
Maybe Hagel shouldn’t have relinquished control of ES&S (Election Systems & Software):
Darrell
This is a classic example of John Cole’s evolution to moonbat. You see, all opposition to the war, principled or unprincipled, is evidence of “independent” thought. Whereas anyone who agrees with anything the Bush administration does, is nothing but a Bushbot dittohead. It’s really quite simple.
Darrell
What I’d like to know, is why independent maverick thinker Chuck Hagel wanted a non-binding resolution opposing the escalation rather than stand up for a binding resolution? And why didn’t the courageous independent thinker Hagel vote against the confirmation of Petreus? Wouldn’t that have been the principled thing to do if he truly believed sending more troops was such a useless march into the “meatgrinder” as he put it?
spk
Chuck Hagel is presenting the best foreign policy vision of all the announced or potential presidential candidates, thusfar. And I write this as a liberal Democrat. See his Senate web site for a copy of an excellent speech given at SAIS in mid-December. I, too, dislike that he voted against raising the minuimum wage, but he doesn’t believe we should have a federal minimum wage at all. I think it a horrible idea, but he voted for another resolution that would have eliminated the federal minimum wage in favor of allowing states to deal with the issue.
Richard 23
I’ll bite, Darrell. Keep in mind this is only my opinion. I don’t speak for Hagel or the “wackjob left.”
1) One builds support for a binding resolution by starting with a non-binding resolution with which to gauge support for the idea. It also allows the President a chance to save face. He can make the right decision once he realizes that unconditional support is no longer there without the humiliation of a “binding” resolution.
2) The President gets to choose his own people. And Petreus is a competant general. If the surge is going to happen anyway, why not allow Bush his choice to give it the best chance to work? Surge critics by no means hope for “defeat,” do they? And if it does fail to produce results in say six or nine months, it wouldn’t be the fault of surge critics.
3) No. Are you asking rhetorical questions for some reason?
Hope that helps.
Paddy O'Shea
7 more of our military people killed in Iraq today.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16839573/
Richard 23
Celebrating casualties, Paddy? How ‘reality based’ of you. Clap louder.
Darrell
But if he honestly believes that sending more troops is nothing but a useless march into a “meatgrinder”, then doesn’t he have a moral obligation to do everything he can to stop it? We’re not talking about consensus on a trade agreement, we’re talking about lives of American soldiers.
Far more likely, Hagel is a gutless coward who wants to have it both ways. If the surge works, he can claim he didn’t do anything to stop it (‘non-binding’ resolution, didn’t vote against Petreus). If it goes bad, he can say “I tried to stop it” with the resolution. Sure it’s unprincipled, but he’s a politician with Presidential aspirations. I don’t buy for one minute that Hagel was just trying to ‘build consensus’.
mrmobi
Just when I think you can’t sink lower, Gruppenfuhrer, you pull me back in.
I don’t agree with Chuck Hagel about most things, but he seems to grasp the reality of the situation in Iraq pretty well.
All you can do, knowing that the vast majority of America thinks that the ruling shitheads are the biggest bunch of fuckups they’ve ever seen, is call a decorated Viet Nam vet a “gutless coward.”
You Nazi turd.
Richard 23
Well I agree with Darrell. Hagel needs to be booted. We need purity in the Republican Party. If we don’t have unity, we’re as bad as the Democrat party.
Rick Taylor
Gus Said:
There’s no pledge, Rick, but Leiberman was persona non grata among Democrats (for good reason).
That’s exactly my point, Gus. Activists were vilified as left wing loonies that would destroy the Democratic party because they supported an opposition candidate to a Senator who’d been outspoken in smearing and undercutting people who thought maybe we needed a change of strategy for this war, and then argued he should be supported as the Democratic candidate when he won the primary. I don’t remember anyone saying they wouldn’t vote for him if he’d won the primary. I certainly don’t recall anyone threatening to boycott the DLC if they didn’t cut off funding to Senators for not opposing the war.
Pb
spk,
It’s a shame that Hagel’s site doesn’t have more of his floor speeches–I had to dig through the Congressional record (Page: S10175, or just search for Hagel) to find his floor speech on the Iraq AUMF of 2002.
In short–even though he did vote for it, foolishly trusting his party’s President to listen to the Senate and do the right thing, he did have his reservations, and he saw what could happen if things went south, if they didn’t listen, if they didn’t work with the UN, if they didn’t take seriously the other growing threats around the world. And Hagel was right about all of that, the only thing he was wrong about was in giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. Here’s to him not making the same mistake again now.
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: What do you mean you came inside me?! I told you to pull out!
Let’s all have a good laugh at the idea that Darrell think Bush actually cares about moral obligations.
demimondian
Why, yes, he does.
This has been another edition of SATOB.
Misha I
In the mail? What, John, am I MADE of money?
Nah, I’d be happy to present it to you in person, however, over a beer or two. I still owe you one (or more).
dreggas
I just threw up in my mouth a little…