Senator Hagel: Don't Quit Now
In mid-August, I was flying off to participate in the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue. I was catching an 8 am flight at Dulles Airport and for whatever reason was being escorted to the front of some very long security lines and was given the red carpet treatment by TSA. I have no idea why. I thought that perhaps someone had mistaken me as David Letterman's brother again -- which actually happened once and got me into a restricted but cool night club.
But standing a few layers back in the long line was Chuck Hagel, dressed in a starched shirt and crisp suit and tie. I said howdy to him -- and despite my unshaven state after hiking and camping for a week in the Cascades and wearing jeans and a t-shirt, Hagel was effusive, energetic, real. We chatted about Iran, Iraq, and the general wreck that had become American foreign policy.
And despite my nudge, he would not get out of that long line he was in, though I tried to encourage him to just take my place as the real VIP, since TSA had clearly made a mistake on me.
Hagel told me he was flying off to participate in a forum organized by former Clinton chief-of-staff Leon Panetta, and I read about his comments later in the news.
The word is slowly leaking out that not only is Chuck Hagel not going to run for President -- but he's not going to run for the Senate again in 2008. I'm not sure this is the final word, but Hagel is getting ready to make an announcement either this next Saturday or the one following -- and all indicators are that he is going to depart an institution that very much still needs his conscience and sensibilities.
Dems are already readying New School President and former Senator Bob Kerrey to run. I don't want to comment on Kerrey right now. I've worked with him, and suffice it say that we each survived the experience. He's tough-minded, iconoclastic, and ruthlessly political in a good sense -- traits I admire.
But this isn't about Kerrey. It's about Hagel.
Chuck Hagel is the kind of Republican that would would bring health back to American politics. He's a Republican conservative -- no doubt about it. But he's the kind of Republican who respects the views of Democrats. He'll compete with them, but respect them. He's not about a hyperventilating right that rules by assertion and Cheney/Rove "50% + 1" delusions.
Hagel -- like John Warner -- both have a great deal of concern for the state of the military today. So does Senator Jack Reid who served in the military. All of the presidential candidates are speaking about the need to restore our military so that its capabilities and morale don't erode further -- but Hagel, Warner, Reid, McCain, Webb -- these folks have different inroads to understanding the plight of service people and the military system today.
Hagel was the boldest in my view in fighting George W. Bush on the war. Republicans and Democrats need his kind of logic and leadership -- and it would be a terrible shame for him to leave the Senate.
I think he may leave anyway. But he shouldn't. He should rethink his views on this as he's not talking to the right people.
More on what he might do in his next life later -- but in the mean time, i just want to post an open admonishment to him for these rumors that he might end his tenure.
Hagel has been a terrific national leader in my view -- and leaving now reduces our ability to correct the many, many problems in our national security and foreign policy portfolios after the Bush administration finally is brought to an end. He should stay where he is and should partner with the next President and the next raft of Senators and Congressman in undoing the damage done.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
Kerrey is a Lieberdem of the worst order; he will further weaken any Democratic resolve to oppose Bush. There is NO circumstance that I can imagine in which Kerrey is more favorable (to my aspirations for this country) than Hagel (and yes I know Hagel's abysmal domestic positions and yes I know on funding the war Hagel has been all talk and little action. But just think how baleful the Lieberman presence is in government and think how much worse that influence would be if that influence were doubled.)
September 5, 2007 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Clemons, for many years I've felt that Senator Hagel was a good Senator. He's always been more of an old school kind of conservative, who would speak his mind, the party be damned. He seems to be a pretty honest guy.
I have a very big problem with him as of last Fall though. His assent to the theft of habeas corpus in the John Warner Defense Authorization Act. That is a right of humans, not a state's beneficent gift, or the Senate's rightful power to take. Kenneth Starr certainly understood this, and Senator Hagel should damn well of understand why too. Maybe I missed it, but I do not recall his signing on as a cosponsor to the Restore Habeas Corpus legislation pending in the Senate.
Liberty and Justice for ALL is still a high value concept to some Americans, and Hagel disappointed me, I expected more from him. I thought he would stand his ground against all enemies, foreign or domestic.
September 5, 2007 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post sound to me terribly arrogant. It appears that the poster passes verdicts on Hagel and Kerrey, while he show deference to the first, he essentially bad mouthes the second. He even admonishes Hagel later.
A much humbler writing can deliver the same message without a need to imply that Kerrey is so bad that Hagel is way better. (For me, I know that Kerry is a centrist, that amounts to moral treason.)
I do agree with the commenter who said the Hagel was involved with some real ungainliness, despite his courage and, mostly, moral stance.
I am a reader of this poster for quite a while, mainly, because he commands the respect of a wide section of the Netroots community. After reading many post, I am unimpressed.
September 5, 2007 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't agree with many of Hagel's policy positions, but if every Republican was like him, the country would be a lot better off.
September 5, 2007 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
In terms of being a Republican Hagel is about as tolerable as it gets right now. Back in the 60's or 70's he would have been considered a fairly common Republican politician in terms of ideology. But in today's political climate there aren't enough like him, who are closer to the center then the wing of his party, to affect change within his party. He is a Republican through and through, especially on the economy, so I wouldn't expect to see him switch parties if he's frustrated with the R's. So if that is the case I can see why he would want out. I guess it begs the question which is more important? A numerical advantage in terms of having another seat in the senate if the D's can take the seat? Or losing someone on the Republican side who could help give the D's cover to change course in our horrible Iraq policy? Both have upsides...
My home when I am not ranting here...
September 5, 2007 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Chuck Hagel has said some powerful things on television and has taken the wind out the sails, at times, of some of the more noxious GOP talking points, particularly with respect to Iraq. And that has been refreshing of course.
But Hagel has the domestic record that is typical of his Republican colleagues and so I won't miss him that much if he chooses to leave. Moreover, to the extent that Hagel has at times and on certain critical issues been a voice of moderation, I do not believe that he has done the kind of heavy-lifting that separates a leader with encouraging soundbites, from leaders who unite broad-based coalitions to actually gets things done.
September 6, 2007 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like Hagel, but I often wonder if I am impressed by him solely because he is rational. I mean, we sure set the bar low for GOP heros these days: hey - if he aint insane I like him!
Hagel seems to me to be genuinely someone who has strong leadership abilities and a sense of decency and those are the kind of people I like to see stay the course!
September 6, 2007 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hagel SAYS the right things, but his votes support georgejr's agenda. I don't think he'll be missed.
September 6, 2007 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I grew up in south central Nebraska and keep in close contact with many friends and relatives still in Nebraska. Based upon what they have told me - I think there is a good chance he can't be re-elected.
September 6, 2007 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
From Think Progress (5/22/07):
Bob Kerrey: Wrong Before Going Into Iraq And Still Wrong Today
On September 13, 2002, just as Congress was debating whether to approve a resolution providing President Bush the authority to use force against Iraq, former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE) wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
The real choice is between sustaining a military effort designed to contain Saddam Hussein and a military effort designed to replace him. In my mind the case for the second choice is overwhelming. … Regime change is the only way we can safely reduce our military commitment to the region.
In calling for regime change, Kerrey displayed an inability to comprehend the predictable chaos that would ensue. The intelligence community warned the Bush administration in January 2003 that regime change “would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict.”
In December 2003, an undeterred Kerrey claimed that he had been vindicated and Iraq war critics would ultimately be proven wrong. “Twenty years from now, we’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who says it wasn’t worth the effort,” he wrote.
Today, Bob Kerrey (D-NE), unrepentant over his failed Iraq war predictions, returns to the Wall Street Journal op-ed page to blast “American liberals.” In making his argument that democracy can indeed be imposed by military force (apparently by overlooking the Iraq war), Kerrey writes:
American liberals need to face these truths … [A] unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.
Perhaps he should have thought about that before advocating regime change as “the only way” to “safely reduce our military commitment to the region.” By staying in Iraq as an occupying force, the U.S. is helping inflame the terrorist movement. But Bob Kerrey has never understood that from the beginning, so why would he understand that now?
UPDATE: The National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez heralds Kerrey as “my favorite Democrat.”
UPDATE II: Rush Limbaugh says “Bob Kerrey is right on Iraq.”
September 6, 2007 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me, Hagel is another McCain, admirable only in that they aren't evil like many others in their party. And, as was mentioned, he's a Conservative, a mindset I'd never vote for.
September 6, 2007 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course domestically Kerrey isn't so great either. Here from Mother Jones, November-December 1996:
By Robert Dreyfuss
November/December 1996 Issue
Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska is agitated. Surrounded by lobbyists at a private strategy session on Social Security, he fumes, "I don't know what the president thinks, but I know it's going to take presidential leadership."
You might think Kerrey, a prominent Democrat, would want a re-elected President Clinton to go to the mat to protect Social Security, the crown jewel of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. But in fact, Kerrey is the chief sponsor of legislation that would begin to "privatize" Social Security, and he wants Clinton's support. Asked whether he's worried about progressive Democrats mobilizing to defend Social Security, Kerrey bristles, "I'll kick the shit out of any liberal who tries that."
Kerrey, kick-ass mad. A real prize that Schumer found. Whooppeee!!!!! (Of course Iraq and Social Security are only minor concerns for us progressives. Elect a Dem any Dem. Brilliant strategy, Schumer)
September 7, 2007 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
BB, good post.
We don't need another Ben Nelson representing us in the Senate.
September 7, 2007 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
however poor Ben Nelson's voting record has been, I don't recall him playing the role of a mouthpiece for right-wing policy like Lieberman and Kerrey.
September 8, 2007 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, if you look at their voting records, most Republicans are pretty much like him.
September 8, 2007 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
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
September 8, 2007 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman been fierce defenders of civil liberties?
You do know, of course, that Bob Kerrey almost singlehandedly did "kick shit" out of the flag burning amendment while other Democrats were runing for cover? Is that the action of a rightwinger?
Is Jerry Brown your model of a rightwinger? Jerry Brown's impossible campaign for the Democratic nomination for president was dealt the quietus here in New York partially by Pat Moynihan's denunciation of Brown's tax plans that would rid the system of the horribly regressive Social Security tax?
My understanding of what Kerrey was talking about in regard to Social Security was much in line with Jerry Brown's very liberal proposals though I will accept that I may be flat out wrong. Kerry couldn't possibly plumb the depths of idiocy of Al Gore's Social Security lockbox but he is surely right the system needs some fixing. Robbing poor workers to pay the wealthiest is standing Robin Hood on his head.
Near as I can tell, Kerrey is pretty much on the same wavelength on Iraq as the leading Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination though Kerrey tells it straight. I am absolutely opposed to funding the occupation of Iraq but most Democratic pols obviously aren't.
Overall I think it would be very good to have a strong pro-choice liberal replace a down-the-road rightwinger. Hagel is right on Iraq and wrong on everything else.
Best, Terry
September 9, 2007 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink