Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Hagel Hagel, Good-Bye
From would-be anti-war presidential candidate to a guy who wants to spend more time with his family.
Chuck Hagel will announce Monday that he is retiring from the U.S. Senate and will not run for president next year, people close to the Nebraska Republican said Friday.
Hagel plans to announce that "he will not run for re-election and that he does not intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008," said one person, who asked not to be named.
Ironically, the man who'll most likely replace Hagel is both 1)a Democrat and 2)proudly pro-Iraq War: Bob "Ask Me about Vietnam" Kerrey.
norbizness|9.8.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Between him and John Warner, that should pretty much empty the GOP of all but the most craven war apologists.
|9.8.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Between him and John Warner, that should pretty much empty
the GOP of all but the most craven war apologists.
And of about half their true statesmen in the Senate.
Ray G|9.8.07 @ 2:18PM|#
Hagel who?
Really, the guy never had a chance and never will. He's trying to
keep whatever slight interest there might be in him as a candidate
alive in hopes of the renewed efforts in Iraq failing.
Then he'll hitch his wagon to the front running Dem and try to sell
himself as a VP that would garner the crossover vote.
Thus, just like the Democrats, his own personal success hinges on
the failure of America in Iraq.
Sweet.
|9.8.07 @ 2:27PM|#
Thus, just like the Democrats, his own personal success
hinges on the failure of America in Iraq.
Thus is ever the dilemma of the party out of power. Just like in
the 1990s the success of the Republicans was tied to the failure of
the American economy.
The party out of power always seems to love federalism too. Until
they get back in power, anyway.
Ray G|9.8.07 @ 2:50PM|#
Just like in the 1990s the success of the Republicans was
tied to the failure of the American economy.
Not at all. Great were the voices that pointed out Clinton's moving
to the center after the 1994 revolution. It was relatively
simple for the GOP and their pundits to point out the economic
success was due to the Clintons moving right of their natural
stance in order to appease the public. (And thus not raising taxes
more, not implementing Hillary's socialized health care schemes,
etc.)
It made many of the Left base loathe Clinton as a sell out, and of
course daily was the refrain that Clinton was simply legislating
according to the opinion polls.
Really, one has to have been asleep or absent in the 90s not to
remember this clearly.
|9.8.07 @ 2:53PM|#
My point was if the economy had been in recession in 1996 Dole
would have most likely won. I'm certainly not here to defend Bill
Clinton who is IMHO a crooked snake.
It made many of the Left base loathe Clinton as a sell out, and
of course daily was the refrain that Clinton was simply legislating
according to the opinion polls.
And thats the only redeeming quality he he had.
|9.8.07 @ 2:58PM|#
In any even the 1990s Republicans were light years ahead of their party today. Balanced budgets, controlling spending, welfare reform, opposition to nation building, keeping an eye out for civil liberties violations carried out by the executive branch, sounds good to me.
|9.8.07 @ 3:10PM|#
Thus, just like the Democrats, his own personal success
hinges on the failure of America in Iraq.
If that's the case, the bungling Bush administration is doing a lot
to help the Dems.
KYJurisDoctor|9.8.07 @ 3:41PM|#
I'm NOT surprised about the Senate race, but the Presidential
race kinda surprises me. I thought for sure he was going to attempt
a run. But I suspect, he may ed up as a Democrat's Veep
candidate.
BTW: I voted for Hagel in his first Senate race.
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/09/republican-u-s-senator-chuck-hagel-is.html#links
|9.8.07 @ 5:06PM|#
His support for illegal immigrant amnesty didn't help him either. Hagel's best bet as a GOP presidential candidate was to bear the standard of "realists" or paleos infuriated by the invasion of Iraq. This is also a constituency none too keen on mass immigration.
Fluffy|9.8.07 @ 5:16PM|#
"Not at all. Great were the voices that pointed out Clinton's
moving to the center after the 1994 revolution. It was relatively
simple for the GOP and their pundits to point out the economic
success was due to the Clintons moving right of their natural
stance in order to appease the public."
Too bad similar forces couldn't stop W from being big government
trash.
How did we move from a Democrat to a Republican President and get a
LESS conservative government?
|9.8.07 @ 6:25PM|#
Anti-war Republicans who entertain thoughts of being a GOP presidential nominee are dilusional and should probably be committed to the asylum. Hagel pulled back just in time to avoid the jacket, Paul might not be so lucky.
Ray G|9.8.07 @ 7:22PM|#
cesar:
the 1990s Republicans were light years ahead of their party
today.
You're right. Seems to be a simple function of human nature. We
tend to work hard, and stick to our guns when we're striving to
achieve, but often comromise and settle in to "acceptable" vices of
power once we make that achievement.
Look to anything from the pattern of second and third generation to
wealth to tend to mover farther and farther away from their
ancestors' success, to religious movements that move from
persecuted to persecuting.
More to your example though your point is still valid, but Bob Dole
was a pretty weak candidate, and I personally don't think he could
have beaten Clinton with a stick.
|9.8.07 @ 8:25PM|#
"How did we move from a Democrat to a Republican President and
get a LESS conservative government?"
Fluffy,
We got this way because the Republicans had both the executive
branch and the legislative branch. thus, now that they had all the
power, they could shed their principles and let their big
government and big spending selves come out. democrats do this as
well- recall that welfare reform was more or less forced on clinton
by the republican controlled congress. the best possible scenario
for those who truly care about making government smaller in the
u.s. is one party in the white hous and the other in control of
congress. otherwise they engage in spending orgies.
Robert|9.8.07 @ 8:52PM|#
"How did we move from a Democrat to a Republican President and get a LESS conservative government?"
We got this way because the Republicans had both the executive branch and the legislative branch.
Not a sufficient explanation. It doesn't jibe with recent
experience in NJ or MA, for instance.
|9.8.07 @ 8:56PM|#
"The party out of power always seems to love federalism too.
Until they get back in power, anyway."
If that don't just hit the nail right on the head Ceasar!
|9.8.07 @ 8:59PM|#
Why when writing about Hagel's leaving doesn't anyone tell the
truth? The Atty General of Nebraska was running a primary against
him and was kicking him all over the place by a minimum of 10%. Not
a winning position for a well known incumbent. He was dead and took
the easy way out.
As for Kerrey, the New School where he is now President is the most
liberal school in the country. He moved to NYC to run it. If I am
the Nebraska Republican party I am looking forward to Bob
(Gothamite) Kerrey coming back to run in the most conservative
state in the Union. As a matter of fact, I have the commercials
made already.
If there are only two Republican statesmen left in the Senate in
'09 according to you liberal Dems, that is two more than the Dems
have (Lieberman is an independent remember). Perhaps when the final
Hsu falls and we see the extent of the Dem party sell out to
foreign powers we may see a few Dem 'states-people' in the
hoosegow. In a serious world they would be at the end of their
rope. Literally.
|9.8.07 @ 9:00PM|#
i love cesar calling warner and hagel statesmen.
hah.
when a gop votes with the dems he's a statesman.
when a dem votes with the gop he's a turncoat.
hagel wouldn't have won renomination; he knew it; he quit.
joe lieberman fought, lost and fought on - WINNING.
joe is a real man.
hagel a wimp who will not be missed.
oh and cesar:
nation building is what we did after ww2 and korea.
it works.
|9.8.07 @ 9:01PM|#
I'm a liberal dem? Really? Funny most liberals say I'm a
Republican shill!
I must be doing something right then.
|9.8.07 @ 9:02PM|#
nation building is what we did after ww2 and
korea.
Not really, but keep telling yourself that.
Korea was a dictatorship until 1990. German and Japan both had
strong democratic traditions. Go read a book, asshat.
|9.8.07 @ 9:05PM|#
In other words, as far as nation building goes look at it like this: Even Rembrandt needed decent paint!
|9.8.07 @ 9:07PM|#
kingrongo said::: The Atty General of Nebraska was running a
primary against him and was kicking him all over the place by a
minimum of 10%. Not a winning position for a well known
incumbent.
-- I am just a poor unfrozen caveman. How can a Republican who
appeared weekly on the liberal sunday shows bashing his party
leader, calling for surrender in Iraq, and who was extremely
popular with democrats like norbizness possibly have not been a
superstar in his own state?
I thought he always sounded like a genius, but then, I'm a
Neanderthal with an IQ of 15. If only all the Republicans were
closet Democrats - wouldn't it be great?
|9.8.07 @ 9:19PM|#
Germany had a strong democratic tradition?
That must have been a surprise to Ludwig von Mises, who wrote a bit
about why it didn't. Weimar does not make a tradition.
Japan had a weak Parliament for a few decades that was overshadowed
by the military, so did Iraq in the late 1940s. Nation-building
does has less to do with democracy than building the general
institutions of government. Something that was aided in Korea by
the US, where Syngman Rhee's government began as nothing but a week
house of cards in almost every respect.
Now, I don't think nation building in Japan and Germany is a good
model, especially considering that they are two seperate models
(see the RAND report, "The American Role in Nation Building)...but
you're clearly not at all any more educated than the guy you're
trying to one-up. Your attempt to play the expert card comes off
rather pathetic.
|9.8.07 @ 9:19PM|#
@Cesar: You might want to read one yourself. Japan had NO
democratic traditions. The military dictatorship of pre-WW2 years
was an aberration to be true, but it was an abberation that evolved
from the Japanese trying to graft some democratic forms onto a
pretty straightforward Monarchy as part of their drive to catch up
with the Western World in technology, industry and forms.
Germany had democratic traditions only at the local level.
germany's prior experience with Democracy had for the most part
been the abject failure that was the Weimar Republic, prior to
that, Germany had been a Constitutional Monarchy with a reasonable
amount of direct rule since Bismark and Wilhelm I had managed to
put a nation called Germany together in the second half of the 19th
century, prior to that there was no 'Germany', merely a patchwork
of tiny states in the Germanies.
|9.8.07 @ 9:25PM|#
@Cesar: You might want to read one yourself. Japan had NO
democratic traditions
You might want to read up on the "Taishō Democracy" of 1910-1930.
Japan was well on its way to being a constitutional Monarchy before
the depression screwed things up. Also, even in the Meiji era the
parliament was elected by universal male suffrage, and had a good
deal control over the government--including the power of the
purse.
With respect to Germany, in the western and southern parts there
were numerous traditions of democracy. In Prussia, perhaps not so
much, but even in the days of Imperial Germany the Reichstag was
elected by universal male suffrage, and like Imperial Japan the
parliament there had control over the budget. By 1912 the Social
Democrats, a party positively despised by the ruling aristocrats
won a plurality in the Reichstag. Again, if it wasn't for World War
I, we would have seen a constitutional Monarchy a la Britain.
|9.8.07 @ 9:27PM|#
Also with respect to Germany, see the liberal revolutions of
1848. There was a desire for a more democratic society in that
country, particularly in the western part.
Von Mises was correct about a lack of democratic tradition in the
area he was from. That is, Austria and Prussia.
|9.8.07 @ 9:35PM|#
I defy you to find any tradition in Iraq even close to the equivalent of the 1848 revolution, German liberalism, the Weimar Republic, or "Taishō" Democracy.
Fluffy|9.8.07 @ 9:39PM|#
Once again, the notable thing about the Republicans who invaded
the board in response to this post is that they prove that their
party is down to a SINGLE issue - the war.
Hagel's overall conservative record is beyond dispute, but because
he doesn't support the least conservative President since Johnson
in his failed war, he's anathema to them now.
Every last word in the Republican Party platform that doesn't deal
with the war is a fucking lie. Every word every candidate other
than Paul says that doesn't revolve around Iraq is a fucking lie.
Exhibit A is the Bush Presidency, and Exhibit B is these douchebags
here. When they tell you that they care about small government and
taxation and the rest of it, ignore them as the liars they are.
They don't care about any of that. All they care is that you sign
on the dotted line as being willing to assume moral responsibility
for Bush's Middle East blunders. The rest of it doesn't count any
more.
|9.8.07 @ 9:54PM|#
I wouldnt be so quick to pronounce Bob Kerrey as the likely
winner of that seat next year.
Three Nebraska Republicans are considered likely to challenge
Kerrey: former congressman Hal Daub, who is also a former Mayor of
Omaha, US Ag. Secretary Mike Johanns a still-very popular two term
governor, and NebHuskers current wunderkind 35 year old state
Attorney General Jon Bruning, who is a Republican Chet Culver:
young, smart, well-connected and as ambitious as Lucifer
himself.
All three of those men would likely be considered favorites over
Kerrey in a general election matchup. Daub and Johanns in
particular would mop the floor with Kerrey.
Bruning might have a tougher time because he's never been tested in
a tough campaign and may have a glass jaw.
But Daub and Johanns are wily old vets who know how to win in one
of the reddest red states in the nation.
Nebraska already has one Democrat in the Senate in moderate Ben
Nelson, well-liked
and respected by both parties. Voters in the Husker state are
unliklely to send someone to DC who is to Nelson's left.
imho.
discuss.
|9.8.07 @ 10:00PM|#
If there are only two Republican statesmen left in the
Senate in '09 according to you liberal Dems, that is two more than
the Dems have (Lieberman is an independent remember).
Ouch, hitting us where it hurts. You know how much Reason
loves Democrats, especially Joe Lieberman!
|9.8.07 @ 10:38PM|#
"Statesman" seem to be defined as a person who agrees with
pieces of the agenda of Liberal D's.
I don't understand any of this:
Didn't our media suggest that our friends of the left were on the
rise, that they won in 2006 due to the war and were a lock in 2008
due to their anti-war position?
Didn't our media suggest that the smart Republicans were opposed to
the war were the pols to watch?
30 years ago when there was only one voice such delusions had
power, but in a more open and free world they are exposed for
daydreams that they are.
|9.8.07 @ 10:40PM|#
Every last word in the Republican Party platform that doesn't
deal with the war is a fucking lie. Every word every candidate
other than Paul says that doesn't revolve around Iraq is a fucking
lie.
---I am only an ignorant caveman and do not know your modern
liberal ways, but even I can see that you have very poor persuasive
skills and a very tenuous grasp on reality. You will lose political
arguements and future elections because of this cognitive
deficit.
|9.8.07 @ 10:45PM|#
Yes red, everyone here is a flaming liberal who kisses Hillary
Clinton's ass.
Not really, but nice try!
|9.8.07 @ 10:47PM|#
Peter-
John Warner and Chuck Hagel had impeccable conservative
credentials. Well, at least in the pre-9/11 world. I guess 9/11
changed that, too!
If Tom Coburn (who I also think is a statesman and a real fiscal
conservative) disagreed with the "not one step back" school in
Iraq, I'm sure you guys would be calling him a "liberal" too.
|9.8.07 @ 10:54PM|#
I read the comments here because they're usually intelligent and
largely devoid of pointless, mind-numbing partisan bickering.
This thread seems to be an exception. Poor showing, all of you.
Fluffy|9.8.07 @ 10:59PM|#
Fuck you red, you stupid cunt.
Do you even know what motherfucking website you're on? And you
think the people here are liberals? What an absolute
moron.
The actual right wing hated the idiot President you can't stop
fellating a long time before the Democrat Party did, cunt.
Personally I've been hoping he'd choke on a pretzel and take an
express train to fucking oblivion since he signed McCain-Feingold
into law.
Here's the Bush record, leaving the war completely to one
side:
1. Signed McCain-Feingold.
2. Expanded Medicare with the biggest new entitlement since the
Johnson Administration.
3. Rather than get rid of the Department of Education as the Reagan
platform called for, expanded it and gave it vast new powers.
4. Grew federal spending faster than any President since
Johnson.
This record means that if any of the rest of what the Republican
Party stands for mattered to you, the FIRST thing you would demand
of a candidate would be a complete denunciation of Bush and
repudiation of Bush. But because none of that stuff matters and the
only thing that matters is the war, no one talks about this at all,
and every candidate other than Paul is fighting with you for the
chance to suck Bush's cock.
Ray G|9.8.07 @ 11:57PM|#
Hey, back off of Joe, he's da man.
Not really, he's still a squishy Leftist on domestic issues, but I
do think it'd be great to have Lieberman as president if the Dems
didn't also have control of the Congress.
He's strong on national defense, and if we had a reasonably
conservative Congress, they could perhaps provoke each other to get
as little legislation accomplished as possible.
Meanwhile he'd still be strong on defense, and then of course the
pure satisfaction of having a Jew as the most powerful man in the
world would be sweet. Ahmawackajob would have an aneurism and maybe
solve our nuclear Iran problem right there.
peter jackson|9.9.07 @ 12:56AM|#
The Republicans have been rudderless since Newt and Dick Armey
left. If it hadn't been for 9/11 Bush's presidency would have been
the same uninspired, forgettable bore his tenure as Texas governor
was, and no one outside of the US nomenklatura would have ever even
heard of Karl Rove.
Luckily for Republicans, it's the Democrats who put all of
their eggs in the anti-war basket, and it's only now
starting to dawn on them that going all in for American defeat in
Iraq may have been a mortal mistake.
Still, the Republicans won't have a leader to guide them out of the
wilderness and will continue to flounder around bashing queers and
Mexicans until Bobby Jindal runs for President in 2016.
yours/
peter.
|9.9.07 @ 4:18AM|#
NOTICE TO DUMBSHITS:
This is NOT a Democratic or left-liberal site.
Kindly remove your blindfolds before you stumble into the room,
dumbshits.
|9.9.07 @ 5:06AM|#
Back OT:
Perhaps the real reason he's leaving the race is because the
Republicans and Democrats have already synthesized and the election
just isn't dialectic enough.
Oh wait, that's Hegel. Nevermind.
mw|9.9.07 @ 8:42AM|#
Very disappointing. The only way to
avoid single party Democratic control of the federal government
in 2009 (which will be every bit as bad as the last six years of
single party Republican control), will be to elect a Republican
president in 2008.
Hard to be enthusiastic not puke my guts out
thinking about voting for any in this bunch with the exception of
Ron Paul, who has no chance of getting the nomination.
Hagel was the last best chance for the Republicans to salvage any
semblance of relevance in the next decade.
For a traditional limited government conservative against the war
and hoping to retain divided government, Mitt Romney may be the
only remaining practical choice. With Romney we know we can safely
ignore anything he says to secure the support of the Republican
rabid right, as he can be trusted to blow with the wind in the
general election and once in office. Romney will not be tone deaf
to the 70% wanting us out of Iraq.
|9.9.07 @ 9:25AM|#
As one of the few liberaltarians here at H&R I find it hilarious for these LGF posters to call fluffy, Cesar, etc., liberals. It really proves fluffy's point that the GOP has come to define conservatism as "support for the war." Well, that and puritanism.
mw|9.9.07 @ 9:26AM|#
"Thus, just like the Democrats, his own personal success
hinges on the failure of America in Iraq." ray
Yes, to Ray G and Cesars point: After the Democrats install single
party control and a superplurality in the Senate in November 2008 -
The Republican's only hope for relevance in a generation will hinge
on the failure of the American economy and a botched withdrawal
from Iraq.
|9.9.07 @ 9:28AM|#
Since I disagree with a lot of what many posters here I probably should not say this, but I disagree with mw: Romney is the biggest tool in the field and would be a disaster for any ideological group. He's worse than Hillary Clinton for pandering, and panderers make for some awful government programs..."What, you're upset? OK I'll pass law x immediately and without careful prudent deliberation".
Minion of URKOBOLD|9.9.07 @ 10:10AM|#
THIS BICKERING IS POINTLESS.
NOW, BY MORNING, THE ATOMIC FRUITBAT WILL HAVE TEAMED UP WITH
THUNDERCHICKEN AND THEY WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH THE
INFORMATION.
UNTIL THEN, BEHAVE, OR WE'LL BE FORCED TO TELL YOUR GROUP HOME
WORKER TO WATCH WHO USES THE INTERNETS.
|9.9.07 @ 11:46AM|#
ATOMIC FRUITBAT WILL HAVE TEAMED UP WITH
THUNDERCHICKEN
That's McCain and Lieberman respectively, right?
|9.9.07 @ 12:07PM|#
Joe Lieberman is probably the politician which I have to most
animosity for, being an avid fan of violent video games. I've hated
him ever since he opened his big mouth about Night Trap
for the Sega CD. Aside from first amendment issues, he managed to
take an extremely mediocre game and turn it into a best
seller.
Hes the biggest nanny stater around. He manages to combine the
worst Democratic and Republican policies into one disgusting
brew.
|9.9.07 @ 12:35PM|#
Cesar: Finally something we agree on. Lieberman DOES combine the
worst aspects of Republicans and Democrats.
I suspect that's one reason he's despised so much by the
"net-friendly" liberals. They're far more likely to play
videogames, believe that the internet shouldn't be regulated, and
in generally be fairly libertarian when it comes to the internet
and computer technologies. (People hate regulation most when it's a
topic they're familiar with, and constricting their
behavior).
Lieberman's (and to a lesser extent Hillary's) "Think of the
Children" video-game crap is the modern version of those godawful
Tipper Gore Metal hearings of the 80s. It's the worst of
nanny-state liberalism, and it's an excess a lot (at least the
liberals I know, which may or may not be representative as they're
younger, net-savvy, etc) want gone from the party.
His sins that are more republican in nature -- the cloying
religiousity, the burning desire to see his religious morals set
into law, and the blind hawkishness on Iraq are probably just as
grating to Republicans who'd like to put Iraq behind us and put the
religious whackjobs back into the pulpits rather than the
legislature.
mw|9.9.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
PLEEEEZ don't ask me to defend Romney. Truth is - we agree. Of
course he's a tool. I am going to have vote for one of these
Republicans to try and preserve divided government - just grasping
at straws with Mitt.
Regarding legislative prudence, keep in mind he'll have a
Democratic Congress, only question being whether Dems get to a 60
vote majority in the Senate.
Honestly, at this point I really don't care which "tool" the
Republicans pull out of the tool box, I don't see much hope for
them as long as they remain the "War and Puritanism" Party.
|9.10.07 @ 9:38AM|#
Damn, wingnuts out in force on this thread.
And, like the bratty fat kid who bellyflopped off the high board
after yelling "Look at me! Look at me!" for ten minutes, their
effort to save face consists of growling "Oh, sure, I bet you're
reall happy I did that!" to the audience.
|9.10.07 @ 10:11AM|#
ATOMIC FRUITBAT WILL HAVE TEAMED UP WITH THUNDERCHICKEN
That's McCain and Lieberman respectively, right?
That's just hurtful.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245