Chuck Hagel - GOP Senator Challenging Bush

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 6:52pm

Chuck Hagel, one of the few Republicans with the balls to criticize the White House, came out swinging today, blasting the Administration for going after Iraq war critics and further politicizing the war, stating:

"Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late," he added. "Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic – to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."

So, you think this guy is running for the Republican nod in 2008?
GOP Senator Hits Bush for Attacking War Critics

[cheezedoodle]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 6:54pm

I hope this guys wife does not have a top secret job...

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 6:55pm

I feel there is little doubt, he has been trying to get the center for the Repubs for awhile. This is the time for him to make his move since the Bushies are spiraling.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 7:06pm

hagel's got no shot at the nomination. while the idea of playing to the center might appear to be a good strategy around here where we deal in idealism, in point of fact, if the conservative right wing sits out '08, the gop has no shot. why vote for a republican who sounds like a democrat when you can vote for the real thing? imagine how much chance a democrat who supported the war and the pesident would have at the democratic nod, not much. however, if the person some how got through their party's primary i bet that a right of center democrat would have a better shot than a left of center republican in a general election. i'm not saying it's unpatriotic to question the administration, but to go out of one's way to attack the leader of one's own party, regardless of which party, is career suicide when there are three years to go before the election and the polls could be turned around.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 8:49pm

This is how it happened with Nixon. First the lefties were against him, then the general public, then the media, then the Democratic leaders and then the decent Republicans started turning.

Hagel is among the first of many Republicans to reconnect with their decency.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 9:20pm

I want to be in a Howard Dean/Chuck Hagel sammich.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 10:26pm

With a bowl of Howard the Duck soup.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 10:27pm

Chuck and Ben are the middle of the road Nebraskans. I respect both of them!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 11:38pm

Hagel responds to the president--and to his foul-mouthed minion from Ohio:

"Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late," Hagel added. "Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic – to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 11/15/05 at 11:41pm

Nebraska United

Hagel/Kerrey:


Updated On: 11/15/05 at 11:41 PM

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/16/05 at 9:47am

Political motivations aside, how can anyone possibly argue with his rationale? You speak the truth, my faithful Indian companion.

and "we deal in idealism" papa? Cool.

Reading your posts makes me feel like I've just done two monster rails with Andy Dick.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 11/17/05 at 5:28pm

nothing wrong with idealism. i have my idyllic moments, but when gauging the political spectrum in any ralistic sense, one must put on one's cynic shades. if that wasn't true, then we'd have had either nominee dean or nominee kucinich from the democratic party in '08. either of whom, in the long run, would have left the democratic party in better shape.

now i don't mean electorally. i think either one would have lost, probably worse than kerry did. but by going with kerry the democrats avoided the gorilla in the corner which is their far left (the gop on the other hand has embraced theirs). a dean or kucinich might have been akin to goldwater in '64 allowing the democrats to emerge with a better sense of who they are as a party and how best to express that to the american people.

sometimes people need to have their eyes opened. the country's more conservative than many folks on the left want to admit. by the same token it's more liberal than their counterparts on the right want to admit. well, that's not technically true, since they scream at every chance they get about how liberal it is (see media rants). i think that re-taking congress for the dems is going to be tough because no matter what the polls say about bush, when push comes to shove fear will still play a huge part in any national election and there's too many soundbites out there to portray dems as soft on defense. not that they are all correct, but just as they republicans must play to their conservative base, the democrats must play to their liberal base. the problem for them is that the country is still more conservative than many on the left want to admit on enough issues that can be used to sway voters.

and lil, you hang out with andy dick?

Updated On: 11/17/05 at 05:28 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/17/05 at 5:50pm

The country WAS more conserviative. That's another thing Bush & Cheney's lies and DeLay & Frist's corruption have squandered.

The Republican hegemony has gone up in flames and down in disgrace.

It's over.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 11/17/05 at 5:54pm

and my point is proven.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/17/05 at 6:02pm

Thanks for your response.