Meet Chuck Hagel, the 2008 GOP Presidential Nominee

Meet Chuck Hagel, the 2008 GOP Presidential Nominee

I know it’s a bit early to call the GOP presidential primaries, especially in favor of someone who hasn’t officially announced, but Chuck Hagel’s the guy.

Here’s why: Hagel is the only candidate with both impeccable social reactionary credentials and a credible basis for supporting a withdrawal from Iraq by the time the actual presidential campaign begins. Although he supports the occupation, he’s been a harsh critic of the administration’s conduct of it; the other leading contenders have been falling all over themselves to support it and, for the moment, the president. He can win the primaries because he hasn’t done anything to alienate the base and because he’ll be seen as electable by Republican party heavyweights who recognize that as things now stand, Iraq will dominate the campaign. Take Iraq off the table, which a Hagel candidacy might do, and suddenly Democrats are confronted with a whole new landscape.

Read the rest at... http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1645.

Why not Hagel, GOP needs something new

Why not Hagel or Thompson, GOP needs something new
By E.J. Dionne Jr

WHY NOT Chuck Hagel? For that matter, why not Fred Thompson? For Republicans, 2008 promises to be a disconcerting if exciting year because for the first time since the 1964 Goldwater insurgency, the party is struggling over its philosophical direction.

The old conservatism is in crisis, Bush Republicanism (of the son's variety but not the father's) is a tainted brand, and no candidate has emerged as the Next New Thing that the party wants or needs.

That's why Hagel, the Nebraska senator and Iraq war critic, suggested Monday that he might seek the presidency.

Read the rest at... http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/16908022.htm

Wineke: Hagel would make the best president

Wineke: Hagel would make the best president
BILL WINEKE

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel may announce his candidacy for president today, and I hope he's successful.

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that Hagel is the best person to run this country for the next few years.

Read more at... http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/column/index.php?ntid=122930&ntpid=2.

Is Hagel The Credible Conservative Candidate?

Here is a GREAT article from the Cyclone Conservatives:
Is Hagel The Credible Conservative Candidate?

There seems to be a lot of media discussion lately claiming that the GOP has not yet found a top tier conservative candidate to rally around yet. Personally, I think that discussion would fold away if Newt Gingrich got into the race, but that is either unlikely to happen until this fall or not at all ever.

The candidate that everyone thought would have that mantle was George Allen from Virginia. But the now former Senator nearly completely killed his political career by making one major gaffe last summer.

Now, we've got Mayor Rudy Giuliani who seems to have a tough hawkish stance on foreign policy which many red blooded conservatives really like but he's got a plethora of social issue problems which red blooded conservatives really don't like.

John McCain actually has a pretty conservative record on social and fiscal issues, but it is his tendency towards being a maverick and his 'moderate' media created tag that has scared off many. Joining with Ted Kennedy on immigration, Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform, and leading judicially comprimising 'Gang of 14' has a lot of conservatives uneasy. However, he's also probably the toughest hawk on terrorism in the race and that is where he is gaining a lot of traction.

Mitt Romney could be the guy and then again many conservatives still don't know who he is and if the Mitt from the debate footage from 1994 and 2002 is still the Mitt of 2007. He claims that he was wrong then, but that hasn't settled a lot of fears and for right now, his campaign hasn't been picking up as much momentum as it could be as a result. Additionally, the Mormonism is likely to still be dogging him.

Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Sam Brownback of Kansas are still relatively unknown to a lot of people nationwide and therefore they just have not been getting the kind of media coverage that the others have been. Brownback tends to be one of the more conservative members of the United States Senate, though he has now become a lot more of a dove on foreign policy and that is causing him problems. Huckabee could by dynamic but he's got some immigration problems and there are plenty of questions about whether or not he'll be able to raise the kind of money it takes to win.

Tommy Thompson is perhaps as thorough of a campaigner as anybody but he just hasn't gotten that 'buzz' yet. There's no doubt that Thompson could be the most all around conservative candidate in the race but he, like Brownback and Huckabee, has not yet captured the national attention. I am convinced that Thompson is going to do well in Iowa because he's very folksy, looks like a common Iowan, and is extraordinarily intelligent. Thompson is still just 2nd tier for right now though he is moving up the ranks faster than anyone.

Tom Tancredo is definitely conservative but he has yet to fully introduce himself to Iowans and there are many who wonder if he is just getting into the race in order to force a more aggressive debate about our immigration policies.

Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul are both well respected members of Congress but are they just don't have the buzz nor have they been to Iowa much. For now, they are back in the pack a little bit.

John Cox and Jim Gilmore are definitely very conservative guys but they are constantly surrounded by question marks as to whether they have the name recognition to win.

So, there is definitely no ideal candidate out there...YET.

And so that brings into the equation Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. If conservatives can be calmed about his dovish tendencies toward Iraq, then Hagel might be the most well-known conservative in the race.

Recently, the National Journal released their 2006 liberal/conservative scores for Senators and Congressmen. After taking into account votes based on economic, social, and foreign policy; a formula is created and the votes are plugged in.

The Result? Of the 2008 Presidential aspirants already in the race or names that are floated, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is the most conservative U.S. Senator. He just outflanks Brownback by a little bit.

Sure, Hagel bucks the President on foreign policy; but on most other issues, he totes the party line better than any of the other Senators in the race.

I, for one, would like to see Hagel get into the race. I've met Senator Hagel and heard him lecture at Iowa State in 2005. He's a very intelligent man who would bring a lot to the foreign policy debate and future of the party.

Back in December, I wrote about the Nebraska Senate Race should Hagel retire or run for President and I am confident that seat would be very safe for the GOP no matter who is running on the Republican ticket so that is not a worry for the Republicans.

I hope Hagel makes a decision soon because he quite possibly could be the credible credentialed conservative candidate to watch.
Publisher's Note: Check out those lists and see where members of the Iowa Delegation fall.

Hagel’s the only real right stuff
By Brett Arends
Boston Herald Business Columnist

Conservatives should stop complaining about their choices for president. They already have a serious candidate who is to the right of Ronald Reagan - and who could actually win a general election.

If they don’t want to nominate him, that’s their problem.

Read more...http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=185687

---

Long-Shot Hagel May Be Republicans' Best Bet: Margaret Carlson

I don't have a quote for this one, because this editorial has to be read as a whole. Please check it out at: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=aWwSN1OtsBh8

Great New York Times Article

Here's a really great New York Times article: Mavericks Both, but Different Iraq Paths

Another Miami Herald Article

The following is an opinion article in the Miami Herald

IRAQ
Hagel and Webb: Two profiles in courage
BY JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
jlgalloway@2cs.com
It probably was too much to hope that a Congress run by the Democrats would in a few weeks find the courage to begin living up to its constitutional responsibilities and start reining in an out-of-control administration and putting a damper on a lost war.

But after six years of a Congress controlled by Republicans and operated as a shameless kleptocracy and a gutless rubber-stamp for the White House, there's at least a glimmering of hope for change.

To date, only two senators, one from each party, have demonstrated both character and the courage of their convictions -- Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Jim Webb, D-Va.

Both Hagel and Webb are combat veterans of the Vietnam War. Hagel was an Army grunt who served with the 9th Division in the Mekong Delta. Webb was a Marine lieutenant, an Annapolis graduate who served in I Corps. Both were wounded in combat. Both have an intimate knowledge of what it's like to slog through rice paddies and jungles where death is ever present. Both know what it's like to soldier in a war that has been completely screwed up by civilian politicians.

Webb opposed President Bush's war in Iraq from its inception, while Hagel voted for the war powers resolution in 2003 and then drifted into opposition over time. The two of them now maintain their opposition as a point of principle, and both have raised their voices in this new Congress while all around them dither and quibble.

We even were treated to the spectacle of members of Congress asking the president's lawyer, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whether Congress has any right under the Constitution, which Gonzales and Bush have trampled underfoot, to halt a war that the legislature opposes.
Has none of them read our Constitution? Can none of them find a better lawyer or scholar to interpret it for them? Who goes hat-in-hand to the fox to interpret the rules that govern hens and henhouses?

We already have an overabundance of candidates of both parties applying for a four-year lease on the residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and all of them are dancing a minuet around the elephant in the room -- the Iraq War. They posture and preen and make speeches and issue statements as they tiptoe gingerly to avoid saying what most Americans want to hear: I know a way out of Iraq.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is a Vietnam veteran, too, although he fought from the cockpit of a Navy jet fighter until he was shot down and became a prisoner of war in the Hanoi Hilton. McCain has gone in the opposite direction from Hagel and Webb as he tries to woo the Republican base and convince right-wingers and evangelical Christians that he has forsaken his heretic ways. McCain wants not only a surge in Iraq but also a much larger escalation than Bush's 21,500 troops. McCain says that 100,000 more troops are more like it.

McCain has bet all his chips that the hawkish right will win him the presidency. He'll find out soon enough how wise a wager he has made. Meantime, Bush -- who got us stuck up to our Adam's apple in the quicksand of Iraq and won't lead us out -- is scaring the bejesus out of everyone by maneuvering and posturing and threatening Iran.

A second U.S. carrier battle group is on its way to the Persian Gulf. There's talk of sending a third carrier group. The Navy already has dispatched additional minesweepers to those troubled waters. The Pentagon and the president have assigned a Navy fighter pilot admiral as the new commander of U.S. Central Command, which makes no sense at all unless you anticipate naval and air action against Iran.

While most politicians dance and dither and the president grasps at straws in Iraq and red-hot pokers just across the border, the grinding down of our Army and Marine Corps accelerates and the sacrifices of our troops and their families grow heavier and more painful.

Chuck Hagel and Jim Webb need to speak even louder and much more often. Who knows? By year's end a Hagel-Webb ticket might just be what America needs.

Joseph L. Galloway is former senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers.

The Miami Herald: Meet the new John McCain -- and the new Bob Dole

The following is from the Miami Herald:

Meet the new John McCain -- and the new Bob Dole
BY JAMES P. PINKERTON
www.newsday.com
It's official: Chuck Hagel is the new John McCain, getting the glowing treatment from glam publications such as GQ. And John McCain is the new Bob Dole -- and we know what kind of press Dole got. Perhaps I should explain.

Once upon a time -- say, five years ago -- the liberal media were infatuated with McCain. Yes, the Republican senator from Arizona was a hard-line conservative on most matters, but he was sufficiently unorthodox on a few issues (campaign finance, global warming, tax cuts) to be newsworthy. In addition, McCain was enough of a George W. Bush basher to keep reporters interested in what he might say next.

But the Mainstream Media's affection for the senator has come to an end, for two reasons: First, McCain, now seeking to inherit the Bush political legacy -- at least until he nails down the 2008 Republican presidential nomination -- is now posing as Bush's best buddy, and the media aren't going to buddy up to that. Second, the Iraq War. The media, and most of the country, have reached a negative judgment on the war, and so the McCain campaign plank ''If you like Bush's foreign policy, you'll love my foreign policy'' is understandably playing poorly in Manhattan and Los Angeles.

So say goodbye to the media's portrayal of ''St. John'' McCain, the flinty, brave maverick. And say hello, instead, to a new ''Bob Dole-ized'' McCain. Like the Kansas Republican, who, as a 70-something, was portrayed during the 1996 presidential campaign mostly as a cranky and ranting old man, the 70-year-old Arizonan is being portrayed that way now.

Republicans eager to hold the White House in 2008 might factor that media reality into their nomination calculations. McCain might have ''earned'' the GOP nod in `08 through deference to the incumbent president, but the electorate as a whole might see such loyalty in a hostile light.
But of course, just as the media take away, the media also give. And the recipient of media blessings these days is Chuck Hagel, senator from Nebraska. As a Republican critical of the Bush policy in Iraq, Hagel is infinitely more valuable to the anti-war cause than a mere Democrat. After all, nobody is surprised anymore when a Democrat opposes the war, but it's notable when a Republican breaks ranks with his own party's president -- especially when he uses such punchy language, referring to the Iraq surge as the ``most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.''

Such hot talk has earned Hagel a place of honor in the pages of GQ magazine's January issue, under the headline ''The Angry One.'' And the object of much of Hagel's anger, of course -- to the media's obvious delight -- is Bush and his neoconservative coterie.

So the liberal-media beat goes on, especially in the wake of Hagel's vote -- played prominently on all the broadcast news channels last week -- alongside the Democrats on an anti-surge resolution.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann declared last Friday night that Hagel's position on the war was ''breathtaking,'' then heaped more praise on the Cornhusker: ''He sounds like me on civil liberties,'' Olbermann pronounced admiringly.

That's the media sweet spot that McCain once occupied -- till the pressies soured on him.
So what does it mean for the future of national politics if Hagel is the new McCain? Two conclusions:

• First, the Nebraskan is now viewed with deep suspicion among many rank-and-file Republicans -- the folks who control the GOP nomination process.

• Second, as his stock goes down among Republicans, it goes up among independents. Even liberals might conclude that it will take a certified war hero -- Hagel won two Purple Hearts in Vietnam -- to make a credible exit from Iraq.

All of which means there's a chance for Hagel to follow in the footsteps of Teddy Roosevelt in 1912: He could bolt the GOP and run a credible independent bid for the White House. He might even win.

©2007 Newsday

"The Case Against Chuck Hagel" and My Response

The italicized text is the article and the normal text is my response.

The Case Against Chuck Hagel
After making the case for a presidential bid by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) on Wednesday, we promised you the case against on Thursday. But events intervened, as The Fix was traveling and wasn't able to find a reliable connection to the Internet.

The list of obstacles to a Hagel '08 campaign for the GOP nomination is very long. (Bloomberg Photo)
So, today we provide the promised case against a Hagel candidacy:

Mavericks Never Win

Primaries -- especially presidential primaries -- are about appealing to base voters. For Republicans, that means emphasizing a strong national defense, cutting taxes and saying all the right things about hot-button social issues like abortion and gay marriage. Hagel is far from the perfect fit for this sort of voter.

I disagree here. Although the Senator is what some Republicans would call "mediocre" on the issue of national defense, he is stronly in favor of cutting taxes. In addition, he is stronly against abortion and gay marriage, while the Big 3 are not.

On the war in Iraq, he has been highly critical of President Bush -- more often finding agreement with the Democrats on the issue than with his own party. Regardless of where the nation as a whole is in regards to the war, the base of the Republican Party remains largely supportive of Bush's effort and views any call for a withdrawal as a recipe for a loss.

There are a decent amount of Republicans against the war. Remember, the President's approval rating is only 33%. In addition, the election is a long way off, and many things could change in Iraq.

Hagel would almost certainly appeal to the segment of Republican voters that wants a change of course in Iraq and is ready to elect someone who represents a wide divergence from the current president. But it seems unlikely that Hagel would find a big enough niche as the anti-Bush candidate to make a real impact in the GOP primaries.

I think that many Republicans will realize that a pro-Iraq War candidate will not get elected, and will sacrifice their views on one issue for the sake of keeping a Republican in office.

Need evidence of the difficulty as running as the anti-establishment candidate? Go back to 2000 when Sen. John McCain ran a campaign centered on his willingness to buck the party establishment. McCain's overall Senate record was quite conservative, but he chose to emphasize the fact that he was willing to speak truth to power -- regardless of who held power at the time.
Many voters (especially independents, Democrats and moderate-minded Republicans) flocked to that message, but McCain was not able to overcome the resistance of the conservative wing of his party. That bloc of voters played a crucial role in stunting McCain's momentum in the South Carolina primary. Hagel faces a similar scenario, even if he can gain real traction in the early primary states.

Senator McCain abandoned the religious voters of the Republican party - which is completely different than what Senator Hagel has done. The two scenarios are not comparable.

The other major problem he has is that McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are already well on their way to raising tens of millions of dollars and building the state and national networks necessary to sustain a presidential bid. Hagel, in contrast, has done little to convince party insiders he is serious about a run for national office. He has hired no staff of note in early states and has not concentrated on raising money either through his Senate campaign committee ($141,000 on hand at the end of 2006) or PAC ($39,000). He appears visibly uncertain about whether he should run for president, reelection to the Senate or not all in 2008.

Yet he's leading over Romney in several polls. For someone who hasn't declared his candidacy, he's doing VERY well.

Donors don't like uncertainty in a candidate, so it's not hard to understand why Hagel has yet to generate any significant buzz in the financial world of the Republican Party. That lack of intensity is made worse by the fact that Nebraska is not anything close to a lucrative financial center where he could extract the seed money ($5 to $10 million) he would need to get a presidential bid off the ground.

He can get money from his Senatorial reelection campaign which some have donated to.

Hagel's lack of financial resources -- and his dim prospects for a huge boost in the near future -- means that he would likely be hamstrung during the primary season against better-financed rivals. Even if Hagel's message if truly compelling, many people in early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire may never get to hear it.

As The Fix argued on Wednesday, Hagel's best bet is to try and make an impact in Iowa. He could pour his entire budget into the state in hopes of finishing in the top three and scoring a bounce into New Hampshire -- a state that has rewarded renegade Republicans before (e.g. McCain in 2000).
But Hagel faces stiff competition from other candidates who also need to make a big statement in Iowa: McCain, who skipped the state in 2000, knows he must do well there in 2008; Sen. Sam Brownback (Kans.) and former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Ark.) are also pointing to the state as their first and best chance to grasp the mantle of conservative alternative in the race.
Not a good playing field for the Nebraska senator.

And the biggest mistake over all: it's a year away. A LOT can happen - and most of the time, the "front runner" doesn't win.

Newsweek: McCain vs. Hagel

There is an excellent piece from Newsweek about the differing views on the war between two close friends in the Senate: John McCain and Chuck Hagel. These are two men who are both thinking about running for President in 2008 and are two of the few combat veterans in Congress. They have long been close friends, but are nearly polar opposites on Iraq.
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."
Read the full article here.