Sticks and Stones

It's no surprise at this point to see Chuck Hagel noting that George W. Bush is a really bad president or to see Steve Clemons hailing Hagel's good sense. And, indeed, if Hagel were a blogger, I'd be reading his posts thinking to myself it's really too bad this guy isn't a Senator from Nebraska, if he was, he could use the powers of his office to impact the course of events in this country. But of course he is a Senator from Nebraska, and instead of finding myself admiring his work in that capacity I find myself thinking that Hagel would make a damn good "reasonable conservative" blogger.

I mean, at America's moment of crisis standing in the crossroads is Hagel running for President to offer the country a more credible version of Ron Paul's efforts to break the Bushist orthodoxy? No. He's not even running for re-election. He's retiring and thus guaranteeing that Nebraska's Senate seat falls into the hands of a more conservative Republican rather than standing and fighting -- or doing anything at all -- to help advance the ideals he allegedly espouses. It's a huge horrible waste.

Comments

Likewise, Bob Kerrey.

Posted by Bill Gardner | December 1, 2007 4:39 PM

Hagel is the phony of sanctimony. Did he vote against the war, even when he knew it was a bad idea? No. He had his chance.

Posted by bjk | December 1, 2007 5:13 PM

Ah, so it is bad for republican locked up states to have more and more conservative republicans representing them. Hmm, and yet the solution to this is to support conservative democrats to oppose them, instead of supporting more moderate republicans? At some point, liberals have to realize that their interests are not bound up 100 percent with the Democratic party. It would be much more sensible for libs to look around for a moderate Nebraska republican to support - if, indeed, the state will surely go republican - than vainly looking for some rightwing Dem loser.

Posted by ROGER | December 1, 2007 6:11 PM

He's retiring and thus guaranteeing that Nebraska's Senate seat falls into the hands of a more conservative Republican

Nebraska has a pretty moderate streak of senators going. Their other Senator is a moderate Dem, after all, and Hagel's the only Republican they've elected Senator since the early '70s. I don't know what the outlook there is, but I'd be surprised if a Trent Lott type stood a strong chance.

Posted by right | December 1, 2007 6:29 PM

Matt,

What exactly do you expect? I mean come on, does it really surprise you that a retiring politician can say and often do things that might otherwise be considered career suicide? Having to balance "doing the right thing" and doing things that ensure you is difficult for any politician but I think is more difficult for Republicans. The GOP rode to power on the backs of hard right idiologues (both the religous right and the anti-tax right). However, in doing so it has given these groups far greater power than it likely intended and the effect has been a marginalization of moderate Republicans. Its more common to see the right mount strong primary challenges to Republican incumbents than it is for the left do so (although they're catching up.) So its not so surprising to see a retiring politician show some spine. After all he/she has nothing to lose.

Oh and as far as Hagel is concerned I think his rehtoric is sharper than his actions.

Posted by Anon | December 1, 2007 7:22 PM

Playing devil's advocate... politics is a tough business, if you do it right; the hours are insane, there's a lot of drudgy travel, the backbiting and carping are more or less constant. Most politicians are kept engaged by, in this order, a thirst for power and a genuine desire to influence the country's direction for the better. Hagel can see reason 1) disappearing along with Republican electoral fortunes, and he's witnessed a steady divergence between what he stands for and what his party does with the influence it has. I can totally see why he would be so demoralised as to consider quitting the only attractive option.

That doesn't mean it's not a crying shame, though.

Posted by Lucy | December 1, 2007 7:26 PM

I do not agree with the snark in the post, but I wholeheartedly agree that Hagel's retirement is "a huge horrible waste."

Posted by Ann | December 1, 2007 7:39 PM

I agree with Anon.

What this post overlooks is the fact that the GOP electorate hates dissenters, regardless of the merits of their arguments. Hagel is disliked by a lot of the GOP. It's not clear at all that he could be re-elected.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | December 1, 2007 7:40 PM

Re: Hagel is disliked by a lot of the GOP. It's not clear at all that he could be re-elected.

What do the people in his state think of him? For a senator that's the relevant question, not what Bible Belt preachers and Neocons ideologues think.

Posted by Jonf | December 1, 2007 7:49 PM

What do the people in his state think of him? For a senator that's the relevant question, not what Bible Belt preachers and Neocons ideologues think.

No, that's *not* the relevant question. The relevant question is what do the stalwart party primary voters think of him. At this point, if he'd stayed, I would have been shocked if he hadn't been "primaried"

Posted by justinb | December 1, 2007 8:42 PM

I agree with Anon.

What this post overlooks is the fact that the GOP electorate hates dissenters, regardless of the merits of their arguments. Hagel is disliked by a lot of the GOP. It's not clear at all that he could be re-elected.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg |

True, but he would not be any more unpopular had he acted on any of these spasms of conscious he seems to have every couple of months, and as long as he's retiring, why not go out with some principle.

Posted by Jim | December 1, 2007 9:14 PM

He's retiring and thus guaranteeing that Nebraska's Senate seat falls into the hands of a more conservative Republican...

Let's not go all defeatist, Matt. Hagel's retirement most likely results in the GOP retaining the seat, but it's hardly a guarantee. Larry Sabato even rates it a tossup. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2008/senate/?state=NE

Posted by Jasper | December 1, 2007 9:53 PM

He's retiring and thus guaranteeing that Nebraska's Senate seat falls into the hands of a more conservative Republican

I fail to see how Hagel is the Musharraf of North Platte, the lone man capable of preventing Nebraska fall falling into the hands of religious fanatics.

What do the people in his state think of him? For a senator that's the relevant question, not what Bible Belt preachers and Neocons ideologues think.

OTOH, with the way fundraising works, there is a second order effect that makes a candidate worry about what people think of him that can't even vote for him.

I would have been shocked if he hadn't been "primaried"

I'm not sure if the various political machines of either side will avail themselves of this option too often anymore, absent an outright scandal (e.g. Craig). Both Lieberman and Chafee, in different ways, are examples of this strategy backfiring.

Posted by Kolohe | December 1, 2007 10:38 PM

There was some legitimate guy threatening to run in the GOP primary vs. Hagel, before he announced his retirement.

Kolohe, off topic, but Lieberman isn't a good example-- he was emphatically not subjected to a primary at the behest of the national party. I don't think Chafee was, either, come to think of it.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | December 1, 2007 10:49 PM

Mr Kingtown-
Uh, according to this Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman in the Democrat(ic) primary [is it with or without the 'ic'? I mess this up worse than their, there, they're]
And, according to this Steve Laffey ran against Chafee, but lost the primary. Sheldon Whitehouse wound up defeating Chafee in the general.

In both cases, the incumbent had a primary opponent that ran towards the base (of the national party). And in both cases, the base wound up ultimately losing in the general election.

Posted by Kolohe | December 2, 2007 1:02 AM

I misread your comment, "various political machines of either side," to refer to the national party machinery. The national Democratic and Republican parties weren't thrilled with either challenge-- of course you're right that there were challenges.

Chafee's challenge may have been sponsored by the same people who mounted a primary challenge to Arlen Specter a few years ago.

There are going to be primary challenges to some so-called "Bush Dog" Democrats in the House.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | December 2, 2007 9:06 AM

I live in Lincoln, arguably Nebraska's most "liberal" city (there's some statistic everyone quotes about Lincoln having the highest number of openly homosexual citizens per capita, for instance, and our public school system has ELL students speaking 47 languages other than English), and I'd say this: when you look at Ben Nelson's (the Democratic senator) voting record, moderate sometimes seems like a pretty generous term to apply to him. I would agree with the earlier poster that in a state like Nebraska, it's sometimes best to try to avoid looking at party lines, because Democrats that campaign in Nebraska often moderate themselves so much that you might as well have just gotten a Republican. I seriously dislike a lot of Hagel's domestic policy, but I like most of his other views more than Nelson's, and I'd welcome another Republican like him.

And as far as any sort of "done deal" arguments about which party will take Hagel's seat, I'd just say this: I've been really surprised by politics here, lately. I mean, pretty much everyone assumed that Tom Osborne could run on a national socialist ticket and still win the governorship, and he didn't even win the primary. So things aren't always as set in stone here as they seem.

Posted by One Nebraskan | December 2, 2007 1:22 PM

Kolohe,

I really don't think Lieberman and Chaffe are good examples for the respective bases' ability to "primary" out candidates. Indeed, I think they prove the point I was trying to make above (or at least the Lieberman example does.)

The fact is Lieberman lost the Democratic primary. Furthermore, if he had respected the Democratic primary voters' decision he would have been out altoghether and Ned Lamont would have rolled to victory. Lieberman was able to win with Republican support that the actual Republican candidate would not have garnered and by lying to his constiutents when telling them that he would work to get American troops out of Iraq. Current polling shows that if the citizens of Connecticut could have a do over they'd have voted for Lamont in numbers that would have given him a victory. In my opinion the Lieberman loss in the primary taught both the Democratic and Republican establishment an important lesson--namely, drifting too far from your regions base can lead to trouble that the power of incumbancy won't always protect the incumbents from.

As for Chaffee. Indeed, the fact that he nearly lost a primary challange to a total loon like Lafey is telling. Rhode Island is solidly blue. Its a state that eventually rejected probably one of the most moderate Republican Senators but a far right candidate like Laffey gave Chaffee the battle of his life. That this can be accomplished in a solidly blue state like RI (where one would presume the Republican electorate is generally more moderate than the national electorate) shows you how much more organized each side's base is (and as I originally argued how organized the Republican base is) and how they can take advantage of low turn out rates in primary elections to thier advantage.

Again, my point was simply that its not easy for any politican to buck the trend of his or her party's base and not pay a political cost. So to see a retiring politican like Hagel do so isn't so surprising to me.

Posted by Anon | December 2, 2007 7:31 PM

Anon-
I really don't think Lieberman and Chaffe are good examples for the respective bases' ability to "primary" out candidates.

I can't think of *any* successful examples of the base being able to "primary" out a candidate in the last election cycle (i.e. the base ultimately being successful in getting a candidate elected to office more in tune with its views)

my point was simply that its not easy for any politican to buck the trend of his or her party's base and not pay a political cost.

But who actually has? Every senate seat lost by the republicans in '06 was pretty much either due to shifting political alignment within a state (e.g. Webb over Allen in VA) or outright scandal (Brown over DeWine in OH). No one lost their seat because they were insufficiently conservative (or liberal as the case may be)

Posted by Kolohe | December 3, 2007 1:22 AM