Can Chuck Hagel upset McCain, and...

[John_Mace]

… Save the Republican Party in the Process?

Sorry, I didn’t think the whole title would fit. And, yeah, it’s a bit of an exageration, but here’s my thinking:

Hegel is a solid conservative, which is what the base wants, but he’s not an idealogue and he’s vocally anti-Bush. The Republican base seems to mistrust McCain, but they don’t really have anywhere else to go right now. Romney is trying to fill the void, but his new-found social conservatism seems rather “expedient”, to put it politely. Enter Hagel. He’s a Vietnam vet, very well spoken, plenty of experience in the Senate, able to work with boths sides of the aisle, and wanting to end the war in Iraq. And the fact that he looks like an older Tom Berringer can’t hurt him.

Here’s the wikipedia article on Hagel, and a link to a Newseek article I found there that, oddly enough, touches on this very subject. From that article:

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is close to both men (but sides with McCain on the war), lays out the basic differences between them. “Chuck believes the war in Iraq has deflected from the war on terror, that it was a war of choice,” says Graham. “John sees Iraq more like Bush, in that he sees it as the central front on the war on terror, and it was unavoidable.”

Right now, the Republican party is weakend by a fractious 8 years of the Bush presidency, a country tired of partisan bickering, and a war that is increasingly unpopular. Is Hagel the guy to pull the Pubbies up out of the mud? He seems like a stratight talking guy (take that, McCain), and as long as he doesn’t cozy up too close to the Religious Right, I think he could do the job. The press seems to really like him, an he’s becoming their go-to guy in the Senate when they want a Republican to talk to. I’m starting to see him more than McCain on the nightly news. Thoughts?

[BrainGlutton]

By “save the party” do you mean, as a presidential candidate in 2008? You seem to imply that but it’s not clear.

[John_Mace]

Yes, this is about Hagel jumoing into the primary and as a potential presidential candidate in '08.

[Squink]

Much as I’d like to see Hagel in the race, he’s only polling 1% among republicans. (Gallup Jan 14-17, 2007).
There are rumors that Hagel may simply quit the senate:

Senator Chuck Hagel is on the verge of an announcement that he will reportedly make some time during the next two weeks – perhaps sooner rather than later – in which he will indicate whether he will run for President of the United States and whether he will run again to keep his seat as Senator from Nebraska.

That’d be a shame, the country could use more republicans like him, not fewer.

[Debaser]

I like Hagel, but I admit I don’t have much to base it on as far as his actual policy positions go. The two articles in the OP don’t mention anything about where he stands on the basics. When you say he’s a solid conservative, do you mean fiscally or socially or both?

The fact that he’s a critic of Bush would be helpful for him running.

[John_Mace]

@Squink

Much as I’d like to see Hagel in the race, [URL=http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08rep.htm]he’s only polling 1% among republicans.

So, he has nowhere to go but up.

He’s going to become more of a household name over the next year, especially if he does announce that he’ll run. It’s still early, and the more the war drags on, the more even the staunches Republicans are going to want us out. I’m beginning to think that McCains support for the war is going ot be his undoing, and I just don’t see Giuliani or Romney getting the nomination. There’s a big void for a credibly conservative, anti-war candidate in the Republican party. Someone is going to fill that void-- if not Hagel, someone like him.

[Debaser]

@Squink

he’s only polling 1% among republicans.

Yeah. But, nobody had even heard of Bill Clinton a few years before he was president!

There. It’s done.

The mandatory “Nobody had heard of Bill Clinton before he swept the country off it’s feet” comment has been made. We can now return to our regularly scheduled election predicting thread.

[John_Mace]

@Debaser

I like Hagel, but I admit I don’t have much to base it on as far as his actual policy positions go. The two articles in the OP don’t mention anything about where he stands on the basics. When you say he’s a solid conservative, do you mean fiscally or socially or both?

The fact that he’s a critic of Bush would be helpful for him running.

I don’t think he’s all that different from McCain on fiscal or social issues, but for some reason McCain gets branded as “not a real conservative”. Hagel wasn’t part of the gang of 14 (that’s a minus from my standpoint, but a plust from the Repulbican base). Here’s his website and a link to the blog Hagel for President.

According On the Issues he’s rated 92% by Cato, and 0% by NARAL.

[Malodorous]

@Debaser

I like Hagel, but I admit I don’t have much to base it on as far as his actual policy positions go. The two articles in the OP don’t mention anything about where he stands on the basics. When you say he’s a solid conservative, do you mean fiscally or socially or both?

Both. From here: his voting record is rated by the relavant groups as 0% pro-choice, 92% “pro-family” (whatever that means), 8% pro-union, 92% pro-trade, 0% on the enviornment.

I wouldn’t vote for him, but agree that he’d be a good candidate to win the Republican primary.

[John_Mace]

@Malodorous

…92% “pro-family” (whatever that means)…

Why so cynical? Pro-family = good. Right?

[What_Exit]

@Malodorous

Both. From here: his voting record is rated by the relavant groups as 0% pro-choice, 92% “pro-family” (whatever that means), 8% pro-union, 92% pro-trade, 0% on the enviornment.

I wouldn’t vote for him, but agree that he’d be a good candidate to win the Republican primary.

Sounds like a weak candidate to win over moderates and independents. If he did take the primary, could he get elected? I would probably vote for Clinton or Obama before someone who is 0% pro-choice & 0% on the environment.

I think McCain has greater appeal outside the party than Hagel or Romney.

Jim

[Malodorous]

@John Mace

Pro-family = good. Right?

Oh yea deffinately. I’m just wondering why that jerk Hagel voted to destroy families 8% of the time

@What exit

I would probably vote for Clinton or Obama before someone who is 0% pro-choice & 0% on the environment.

I think McCain has greater appeal outside the party than Hagel or Romney.

McCain also is rated at 0% pro-choice, though better on the environment (53%).

[John_Mace]

@Malodorous

Oh yea deffinately. I’m just wondering why that jerk Hagel voted to destroy families 8% of the time

Yeah, a lot of people were puzzled by his “yes” vote on the 2005 Destruction of Families Act.

[RTFirefly]

Hagel? No. Brownback or Huckabee, maybe.

Remember the two key GOP constituencies. One is the people with the money. The other is the Religious Right. That what made George Allen the most likely alternative to McCain, until he committed Macacacide: both of those constituencies loved him.

There are few remotely possible GOP candidates that wouldn’t be at least acceptable to the moneymen, of course. But McCain isn’t exactly trusted by the religious wingers (Dobson, the most influential of that crowd, outright hates him), despite his pandering to them for the past year or so, and I don’t see Hagel being in any better shape with them.

Hagel’s 92% score with Cato is probably a negative, rather than a positive, with that crowd.

If (generic ‘you’) you’re a Republican (or GOP-leaning independent/libertarian/whatever) who isn’t keen on the fundies, I really don’t know what the answer is for you. You’re not going to win back control of the GOP; there are too many of them, and they are quite well-organized. You could form your own party, but it would be the smallest of the three parties right now, and probably for some time. The Dems seem to be finding their own center quite nicely right now, and no longer rely on the South for much of their power, so there’s not a whole lot to be gained from luring conservative Dems over.

I really think the best bet for non-fundie Republicans and fellow travelers who want an America that’s strong but not nutso is to support the Dems for now, simply because they oppose the fundie agenda, they genuinely do want to gain the high ground on national security (just to get rid of that bugaboo), they’ve been the more fiscally responsible of the two parties for about 30 years now, and because they are Not Insane.

The price you’d pay is that the Dems would probably do unlibertarian things like making it easier for unions to organize, working towards universal health care and public financing of Congressional campaigns, raising taxes on the rich, getting serious about controlling carbon emissions, and so forth.

[Jackmannii]

Based on what’s been said so far and the relatively little I’ve heard elsewhere about him to this point, Hagel is the perfect guy to save the Republican Party…from having to hold its nose and support John McCain in '08.

How more perfect could you get for the diehards? 0% ratings from environmental and abortion rights groups, a 100% approval rating from the Christian Coalition - and a nice record of resisting campaign and lobbying reforms. From ontheissues.org regarding his positions on government reform:

Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on banning “soft money” contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)

And while he’s flown below the radar until now, once he gets idea about a Presidential run some less than savory things will emerge.

It’s hard to understand the GOPers who control the primary process. Is Purity of Essence so important that McCain must be defeated at any cost so that the eventual nominee can lose to Hillary Clinton?

[Jonathan_Chance]

While I don’t really want to speculate on Hagel’s electability I want to point out that the sonuvabitch is GREAT with the media.

I mean GREAT. I had to follow him a bit in 2000 when he was spearheading McCain’s run and the whole time I’m thinking to myself ‘Self, the guy should dump McCain and do it himself. He’s all the media love that McCain wishes he could bring.’

[What_Exit]

@Malodorous

Oh yea deffinately. I’m just wondering why that jerk Hagel voted to destroy families 8% of the time

McCain also is rated at 0% pro-choice, though better on the environment (53%).

I can stomach McCain on many issues, Hagel not so much.

I really want the impossible candidates like Giuliani or someone like Susan Collins or Olympia J. Snowe or even Michael Bloomberg. I want an old fashion moderate Republican, Nixon without the evil. Ike without the later Senility. Teddy Roosevelt.

Yes, I know I have very little chance of seeing the party return to sanity.

Jim

[David_Simmons]

@John Mace

… Save the Republican Party in the Process?

I hope not in the short term. In the long term the Republcan party is vital as a brake on the Democrats and vice versa.

However, for the abject failure to expercise any restraint on or oversight of the Bush administration in the war and in its reckless grabbing of power to the executive the Republican party merits some time in the woodshed.

[Malodorous]

@Jackmannii

And while he’s flown below the radar until now, once he gets idea about a Presidential run some less than savory things will emerge.

Meh, as Washington scandals go, that seems pretty weak stuff. He was on the board of a company that produced voting machines for 10 weeks longer then he disclosed and said he was invested in a company for 1-5 million instead of giving the specific amount. Not good, but I don’t think it will give rise to “botched-paperworkgate” even if he becomes a major presidential contender.

[E-Sabbath]

Bloomberg. Hm. Now, that’s a thought, right there. I don’t think he wants the job, though. He loves his city, but I don’t think he has higher aspirations.