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.

Comments

[norbizness]

Between him and John Warner, that should pretty much empty the GOP of all but the most craven war apologists.

[Cesar]

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.

[crimethink]

Well, they still have Larry Craig and David Vitter, so not all is lost.

[Ray G]

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.

[Cesar]

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.

[Nigel Watt]

Maybe he got arrested somewhere a few months ago.

[Ray G]

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.

[Cesar]

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.

[Cesar]

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.

[crimethink]

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]

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

[Max]

You won't have Hagel to kick around any more.

[Mac M]

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]

"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?

[Steve]

The ranks of respectable Republicans are getting really thin.

[James Ard]

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]

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.

[swede]

"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]

"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.

[will]

"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!

[kingronjo]

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.

[reliapundit]

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.

[Cesar]

I'm a liberal dem? Really? Funny most liberals say I'm a Republican shill!

I must be doing something right then.

[Cesar]

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.

[Cesar]

In other words, as far as nation building goes look at it like this: Even Rembrandt needed decent paint!

[red]

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?

[MlR]

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.

[Adam]

@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.

[Cesar]

@Cesar: You might want to read one yourself. Japan had NO democratic traditions

You might want to read up on the "Taish? 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.

[Cesar]

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.

[Cesar]

I defy you to find any tradition in Iraq even close to the equivalent of the 1848 revolution, German liberalism, the Weimar Republic, or "Taish?" Democracy.

[Fluffy]

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.

[mike d]

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.

[crimethink]

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!

[Peter]

"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.

[red]

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.

[Cesar]

Yes red, everyone here is a flaming liberal who kisses Hillary Clinton's ass.

Not really, but nice try!

[Cesar]

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.

[Eli_Cash]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Stevo Darkly]

NOTICE TO DUMBSHITS:

This is NOT a Democratic or left-liberal site.

Kindly remove your blindfolds before you stumble into the room, dumbshits.

[BakedPenguin]

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]

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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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]

"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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

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]

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.

[Aresen]

ATOMIC FRUITBAT WILL HAVE TEAMED UP WITH THUNDERCHICKEN

That's McCain and Lieberman respectively, right?

[Cesar]

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.

[Morat20]

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]

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.

[bour3]

Mother always said, "Choose friends carefully."

*runs*

[joe]

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.

[The Atomic Fruitbat]

ATOMIC FRUITBAT WILL HAVE TEAMED UP WITH THUNDERCHICKEN

That's McCain and Lieberman respectively, right?

That's just hurtful.