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.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
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
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
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Leave us a comment
Leave a comment over on the side. If you're interested in helping me find posts or have a post of your own, let me know.
"The Case Against Chuck Hagel" and My Response
The italicized text is the article and the normal text is my response.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Hagel Cosponsors Bipartisan Resolution Putting Senate on Record Opposing Additional U.S. Troops to Iraq
The following is a press release from Senator Hagel's office:
Hagel Cosponsors Bipartisan Resolution Putting Senate on Record Opposing Additional U.S. Troops to Iraq
February 1st, 2007 - Hagel Cosponsors Bipartisan Resolution Putting Senate on Record Opposing Additional U.S. Troops to Iraq WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) released the following statement today regarding his support for the revised Warner Resolution: “After extensive hearings, negotiations, and debate, the Senate has taken an important step toward sending a clear bipartisan message against adding 21,500 new U.S. troops to Iraq. I have appreciated working with Senators Warner and Levin to meld our two different Congressional Resolutions into one bipartisan resolution. We approached Senator Warner several times to try and resolve the differences. Last night, we came together to produce this resolution. We have agreed to a responsible and constructive resolution that reflects America’s interests in Iraq and the Middle East. “Next week’s debate will be important to the American people and put the Senate on record as to America’s future course in Iraq. War is the most important and serious issue Congress and the American people will ever deal with.”
February 1st, 2007 - Hagel Cosponsors Bipartisan Resolution Putting Senate on Record Opposing Additional U.S. Troops to Iraq WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) released the following statement today regarding his support for the revised Warner Resolution: “After extensive hearings, negotiations, and debate, the Senate has taken an important step toward sending a clear bipartisan message against adding 21,500 new U.S. troops to Iraq. I have appreciated working with Senators Warner and Levin to meld our two different Congressional Resolutions into one bipartisan resolution. We approached Senator Warner several times to try and resolve the differences. Last night, we came together to produce this resolution. We have agreed to a responsible and constructive resolution that reflects America’s interests in Iraq and the Middle East. “Next week’s debate will be important to the American people and put the Senate on record as to America’s future course in Iraq. War is the most important and serious issue Congress and the American people will ever deal with.”
Columbia Spectator: "Queasy From Politics? Consider Chuck"
The following is Columbia Spectator's opinion article Queasy From Politics? Consider Chuck:
People say politics make them sick. Last December, I found myself bent double in a Schapiro bathroom, cursing the irony of that figure of speech-I was probably the first in a long line of political junkies following this marathon 2008 presidential race to actually start throwing up. I'd just been an unpaid guest at a fundraiser for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's possible run, and a simple thought process began floating through my head: 1. I hope Giuliani's as sick off of his hors d'oeuvres as I am. 2. He's the "frontrunner" of my party? God help us. 3. I should've at least taken advantage of that free alcohol and gotten really sick. 4. Is there no alternative?
Well, according to polls in various early primary states, Giuliani is indeed in the lead for the Republican Party's nomination. Why's that a bad thing? Long story short-Giuliani is a firm supporter of the war in Iraq because, in his own words, "We didn't start this war." Those words came from that December fundraiser, but he's elaborated on them before, saying, "Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center and said... 'They will hear from us.' They have heard from us! [...] They heard from us in Iraq, and we ended Saddam Hussein's reign of terror."
I watched the attendees of the crowded fundraiser shoot each other concerned looks. Oblivious, the former mayor waxed poetic about the "pillars of the global terrorism movement." Even the well-groomed Armani-clad Princeton grads in front of me looked uncharacteristically skittish. News flash, Rudy, they seemed to say-this is not a James Bond movie. There's no mysterious organization behind every single violent group, led by a cat-stroking Bin Laden that mysteriously pulls strings in the "Axis Of Evil," causing "Islamo-fascists" to magically pop up and hate us for our freedom. And there is positively no link-none, zilch-between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.
We Republicans lost the Senate and House in 2006 by trying to sell that moronic reductionist snake oil to a public that wanted actual solutions. Even more embarrassingly, we lost out to small-government Democrats like Jon Tester in places like Montana. The lesson seems clear-if we try running that stupid party line in 2008 when the death toll's even higher, we'll not only usher in the biggest Democratic sweep since Nixon's ouster, but we'll also cause more failures and chaos abroad in the name of hollow "victories" and more coffins at home. In the upcoming presidential election, we need to run a realist conservative who's willing to listen to reason, not another windbag who lacks any desire to talk about the realities of war.
Frontrunner Rudy isn't the only one barking up the wrong tree. John McCain, for example, has staked his fortune on this "troop surge" policy, even as he quietly seethed to The Today Show on Jan. 4 that it probably should be higher than 20,000, based on how peachy things are going at present. There's only one potential candidate I've seen from my party's field that's willing to discuss terror and foreign policy as real issues rather than empty talking points-and he's a staunch fiscal conservative with a record to appease the family values crowd, despite not caring if states allow civil unions for gay people.
Sounds too good to be true, right? Wrong. Consider Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. He's been speaking out against the administration's conduct in the Iraq war since it rolled into Baghdad, and he should be our next president. For a long time, he was a black sheep in the Republican Party, despite the fact that he was the senator that most stringently toed the White House's line on issues like tax cuts in 2006. He was ostracized by Dick Cheney and largely ignored by the media.
Ignored until now, that is. He's put his foot down on this half-hearted and ill-planned "troop surge," going so far as to say, "I don't think we've ever had a coherent strategy [in Iraq.]" For those cowardly rhetoricians who'd rather cling to talking points on either side of the aisle than develop a cohesive solution, he has a pretty simple message: "Why are you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes." He's looking for actual debate on alternatives, instead of bleating on about "victory or defeat," like Joe Lieberman or Rudy Giuliani.
Chuck Hagel is not the "perfect" candidate for everyone. But he's willing to talk with others even as this supposedly proactive Democratic Congress drags its feet and holds empty oversight meetings. It's only fitting to close with a quote from John F. Kennedy, across the political aisle: "Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer." Chuck Hagel's seeking that answer, and we, regardless of political affiliation, need to work to put him in the White House. These brain-dead blowhards in nice suits talking about "pillars of global terrorism" make me sick-figuratively, in this case. Real problems call for real solutions, and Chuck Hagel can finally provide those when we need them most.
People say politics make them sick. Last December, I found myself bent double in a Schapiro bathroom, cursing the irony of that figure of speech-I was probably the first in a long line of political junkies following this marathon 2008 presidential race to actually start throwing up. I'd just been an unpaid guest at a fundraiser for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's possible run, and a simple thought process began floating through my head: 1. I hope Giuliani's as sick off of his hors d'oeuvres as I am. 2. He's the "frontrunner" of my party? God help us. 3. I should've at least taken advantage of that free alcohol and gotten really sick. 4. Is there no alternative?
Well, according to polls in various early primary states, Giuliani is indeed in the lead for the Republican Party's nomination. Why's that a bad thing? Long story short-Giuliani is a firm supporter of the war in Iraq because, in his own words, "We didn't start this war." Those words came from that December fundraiser, but he's elaborated on them before, saying, "Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center and said... 'They will hear from us.' They have heard from us! [...] They heard from us in Iraq, and we ended Saddam Hussein's reign of terror."
I watched the attendees of the crowded fundraiser shoot each other concerned looks. Oblivious, the former mayor waxed poetic about the "pillars of the global terrorism movement." Even the well-groomed Armani-clad Princeton grads in front of me looked uncharacteristically skittish. News flash, Rudy, they seemed to say-this is not a James Bond movie. There's no mysterious organization behind every single violent group, led by a cat-stroking Bin Laden that mysteriously pulls strings in the "Axis Of Evil," causing "Islamo-fascists" to magically pop up and hate us for our freedom. And there is positively no link-none, zilch-between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.
We Republicans lost the Senate and House in 2006 by trying to sell that moronic reductionist snake oil to a public that wanted actual solutions. Even more embarrassingly, we lost out to small-government Democrats like Jon Tester in places like Montana. The lesson seems clear-if we try running that stupid party line in 2008 when the death toll's even higher, we'll not only usher in the biggest Democratic sweep since Nixon's ouster, but we'll also cause more failures and chaos abroad in the name of hollow "victories" and more coffins at home. In the upcoming presidential election, we need to run a realist conservative who's willing to listen to reason, not another windbag who lacks any desire to talk about the realities of war.
Frontrunner Rudy isn't the only one barking up the wrong tree. John McCain, for example, has staked his fortune on this "troop surge" policy, even as he quietly seethed to The Today Show on Jan. 4 that it probably should be higher than 20,000, based on how peachy things are going at present. There's only one potential candidate I've seen from my party's field that's willing to discuss terror and foreign policy as real issues rather than empty talking points-and he's a staunch fiscal conservative with a record to appease the family values crowd, despite not caring if states allow civil unions for gay people.
Sounds too good to be true, right? Wrong. Consider Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. He's been speaking out against the administration's conduct in the Iraq war since it rolled into Baghdad, and he should be our next president. For a long time, he was a black sheep in the Republican Party, despite the fact that he was the senator that most stringently toed the White House's line on issues like tax cuts in 2006. He was ostracized by Dick Cheney and largely ignored by the media.
Ignored until now, that is. He's put his foot down on this half-hearted and ill-planned "troop surge," going so far as to say, "I don't think we've ever had a coherent strategy [in Iraq.]" For those cowardly rhetoricians who'd rather cling to talking points on either side of the aisle than develop a cohesive solution, he has a pretty simple message: "Why are you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes." He's looking for actual debate on alternatives, instead of bleating on about "victory or defeat," like Joe Lieberman or Rudy Giuliani.
Chuck Hagel is not the "perfect" candidate for everyone. But he's willing to talk with others even as this supposedly proactive Democratic Congress drags its feet and holds empty oversight meetings. It's only fitting to close with a quote from John F. Kennedy, across the political aisle: "Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer." Chuck Hagel's seeking that answer, and we, regardless of political affiliation, need to work to put him in the White House. These brain-dead blowhards in nice suits talking about "pillars of global terrorism" make me sick-figuratively, in this case. Real problems call for real solutions, and Chuck Hagel can finally provide those when we need them most.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Hagel Documentary: "Echos of War"
I received the following e-mail from a fellow Hagel supporter:
Hey Nathan....
Great blog on Hagel! I haven't seen on any of the "draft" blogs a reference to a really great documentary about Hagel that gives some really interesting insights into his anti-war sentiments. It was put out by Nebraska Public Television... pre Iraq. A crew was with him and his brother when they returned to Vietnam for the first time. It's really cheap... like $10 ... and is a great discussion starter about the guy. Thought you might like to check it out. I found it on the Nebraska public TV web site. It's called "Echos of War."
http://secure.netnebraskastore.org/ProductView.aspx?pid=6e98d0e7-5545-4fbe-87c8-ec04a941df5d
Good luck with the quest!
bk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
