website statistics

Archive for the 'Chuck Hagel' Category

The Lieberman-Hagel Pact

Published by William Beutler on May 21, 2008 in Chuck Hagel, Lamont v. Lieberman, Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere, Memeorandum, White House '08 and William Beutler. 3 Comments

Lieberman and Hagel, mirror oppositesA little over a year ago, I raised the possibility that Chuck Hagel could be primaried by the right in 2008 the same as the left did to Joe Lieberman in 2006. We’ll never know for sure how that would have played, because Hagel opted to retire and not stand for re-election. But the two senators’ fates appear tied nonetheless, as the top of Memeorandum at noon today indicates (see below left, image is also clickable).

Lieberman has already endorsed McCain, and in fact did so long before it was apparent that McCain would land the GOP nomination. In the Wall Street Journal article featured, Lieberman continues to make the case for his longtime colleague. Hagel has not yet endorsed Barack Obama, but it seems increasingly likely, as the Huffington Post article by Sam Stein just below suggests.

Lieberman and Hagel atop MemeorandumOne more thing: Out of the blogs listed as following the two stories, a non-trivial majority are liberal or non-partisan reporter blogs. And there’s another imbalance: I see conservative bloggers supporting the Lieberman op-ed, and liberal bloggers criticizing it. Meanwhile, there are plenty of liberal bloggers supporting the article about Hagel, but no right-leaning bloggers weighing in on the same. I’ll grant that this is a very small sample, but I mention it because it’s a pattern I recognize: the leftosphere is more active than the rightosphere in contesting the opposing side’s storylines.

Then again, the left has had no small amount of practice going after Lieberman, while the right has ignored Hagel for awhile. Which may itself be part of the problem, and something to correct sooner rather than later.

Cold Wind in August

Published by William Beutler on August 31, 2007 in Chuck Hagel, National Politics, Republicans, Scandal, Senate Control and The New Republic. 4 Comments

It rained some in the District during August, but it was cold at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Among the Republican politicians and officials announcing resignations or retirements in the past thirty days:

Chuck Hagel could have a similar announcement within weeks. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, survivor (of John Thune and a kind-of stroke) Tim Johnson alone in the Senate remains a question mark. Heck, Lautenberg sounds like he’ll stick around to beat Strom Thurmond’s record.

Who am I missing?

P.S. That said, I think the editors at TNR Online are going about this all wrong:

John Judis on the 2008 Senate election

Judis’ actual piece is pretty much straight analysis, not at all implausible, and definitely not gloating like the long headline. And what’s with the short headline? Dear Editor, for the analogy to work, isn’t Judis arguing this will be a Blue Dawn? Remember, the Reds were the enemies.

The Next Lieberman?

Published by William Beutler on March 28, 2007 in Chuck Hagel, Internecine Battles, Lamont v. Lieberman, Primary fights and Republicans. 4 Comments

Nobody would confuse Sen. Chuck Hagel with a loyal Republican. It’s not that he’s a “maverick” like John McCain. It’s worse — he’s a turncoat. What’s more, Hagel has broken with his own party on the same issue as his mirror image in the Senate, the Iraq war’s number one fan, Joe Lieberman.

His ruminations on impeaching President Bush this weekend and decision last night to cross party lines and vote with the Democrats to set a timeline for an American troop withdrawal from Iraq only underscores this perception, and could hasten a process that Swing State Project’s DaveSund envisioned earlier this week:

Like Lieberman, he’s a staple on the Sunday morning talk shows, advocating a war strategy that is diametrically opposed to his own party. But if you lined them up side-by-side, I doubt that you’d find many issues which they’d agree on. Their similarities begin and end with how they are reviled by the rank-and-file of their own party. … So, just kind of picture this: Nebraska Republicans, increasingly upset at Hagel’s continued criticisms of Bush, line up behind Bruning. Not elected Republicans, of course. The Nebraska Republican establishment will be firmly behind Hagel. [Attorney General Jon] Bruning, surprised by the enthusiasm of his supporters, preempts Hagel’s late summer announcement by announcing that he will, indeed, run for Senate regardless of Hagel’s intentions. Hagel decides to run, setting up a showdown in May of 2008.

A lot has to break just right for this scenario to play out. First, Hagel has to decline a presidential bid — it’s hard to see how he could run as a Republican, more plausible but no less quixotic to assume the (still theoretical) mantle of Unity08. Lieberman is Hagel is LiebermanThen he would have to decide to run for re-election, which is not guaranteed. Then Bruning would have to renege on his promise not to challenge Hagel for the GOP nod. And finally, the Nebraska GOP establishment would have to stand by their incumbent. But it sounds like it could happen, even if only because it’s happened before.

Now, I don’t think Hagel is disliked by conservatives as much as Lieberman is disliked by Democrats. For one, conservatives have had their way on the war — except for everything after the invasion, of course — and Hagel has been an irrelevant nag. Until now, of course. Conservatives may be unhappy with the direction of the war, but it’s very unlikely a significant number of them will move in Hagel’s direction, and less likely still they would reward Hagel for being right, even if he is.

Right or wrong, Hagel is a prime target for Republican ire not just in his own state but nationwide: he sold out the party and sold out on the war. If he gets primaried, Bruning could be the next Ned Lamont. Well, almost:

There is one key difference, of course: if Hagel loses the Republican nomination, he can’t run in the “Nebraska for Hagel” party. Nebraska law expressly forbids running for the same office after losing the primary.

If anything, this makes a primary challenge only more likely. If the intraparty fight could extend from May to November, Bruning and other Republicans may decline to prolong the split as the party aims to unify and focus on the presidential election. Assured that no matter what, it would be over well before the national conventions, what’s the downside?