The Next "John McCain"
Hey, Chuck Hagel, superstar!
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As has been pointed out this morning, Chuck Hagel has now "officially" supplanted John McCain, at least in the eyes of this WashPost book reviewer, as the straight talkin', outsider, maverick, martyr for his belief in what's right. John McCain has been reduced to "administration booster," while Chuck Hagel has fallen out of favor with the rightwing, GOP establishment for "repeatedly challenging the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill and leveling bruising critiques of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and domestic policy."
Arianna Huffington, the sage of the ditzy, declared last week that John McCain had sold his soul to the Bushies and that the race for the GOP nomination in two years would turn into "McCain vrs. non-McCain." For the slot of non-McCain in her little scenario, she nominated Chuck Hagel: "Hagel is courageously and passionately speaking out against the White House's disastrous foreign policies…. It's almost as if McCain has abandoned the Straight Talk Express on the side of the road and Hagel has hopped into the driver's seat."
Read More...
As much more serious commentator, our own Streif observed in this space a few hours ago:
Hagel has it all. War veteran. Against the war in Iraq. Critic of Bush on nearly any topic. Google “chuck hagel moderate” and you get over 224,000 hits. And now recognized by the WaPo as a “fearless maverick.”
Chuck Hagel is the New McCain.
By my count, both Hagel and McCain have had ten appearances each on the Sunday morning Talk Shows, but never "together for balance." It will be interesting to see if this swings as the election draws nearer and the anti-Bushie meme becomes more strident.
Almost by media acclimation, Ned Lamont is the focus point in American politics today. The Dems have their various positions on the Ned factor, while Republicans don't want to be like Ned.
From FOX News Sunday, last Sunday:
[HOST CHRIS] WALLACE: All right. Let's talk some politics. I know you don't like politics and national security, but this is pure politics. Connecticut Senate race — Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman?
[SENATOR CHUCK] HAGEL: That's up to the people of Connecticut.
WALLACE: Would you agree that Ned Lamont's positions on all these issues we've discussed today are closer to yours than Joe Lieberman's are?
HAGEL: No. That's — Ned Lamont's position on issues...
WALLACE: On Iraq, on...
HAGEL: ... all the issues...
WALLACE: ... on the Patriot Act, on NSA warrantless wiretaps?
HAGEL: Those are some issues. But when you're...
WALLACE: Pretty big issues.
HAGEL: But we also have a lot of other issues like pro-life, like tax policy, like spending policy. See, that's my point, too, Chris. Being a United States Senator is more than just talking about Iraq.
And no, I'm not very close to Lamont on the whole scope of issues. He's a liberal Democrat.
The Senator did not argue with the host's assertion that he and Ned agree on most issues involving the war and national security. John McCain is taking a different tack, arguing the sensible position that it would be a mistake on many levels to leave Iraq prematurely in a fit of political whimsy.
John McCain has created an opening for someone to step into "media's favorite Republican" role, and Chuck Hagel is diving in with some great aplomb. Is this Hagel's best shot at becoming President? As McCain can tell him, all the media support in the country does not translate into Republican support. If Hagel wants to be the Republican nominee for President, and Chuck Hagel would never fit in with today's Democratic Party, he had better learn that he will have to be someone whom Republicans want to nominate.
Hagel is trying to shield his contrarian views on national security from attack by positing that this all should be non-political, but it has to be political. Politics demands vision, and Hagel can't see past the headlines.
The idea here, if you want the nomination, is to appeal to Republicans; for example, I think Rudy and Mitt are now pro-life. Appealing to the media gets your name out there, but "straight talk" is not a good thing if it is wrong.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Rudy Giuliani Attacked Over 9/11 — Comments (44) »
The Next "John McCain" 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The Republican party is not defined by the war, and Lieberman votes with you clowns way more than even an Arlen Specter or a Linc Chafee does.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
than Chuck Hagel is a would-be Democrat. Hagel's a conservative guy, while Joe is a liberal.
This war sometimes confounds ideology.
Is this "Leeberman" spelling supposed to be the punchline to some kind of a joke?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Honest liberals we will tolerate. Moby trolls we will not. Adios.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
makes even less sense than Bayh getting elected in Indiana. At least Bayh's name is worth a few points.
Hagel has made a huge mistake. He picked a bad issue to be a "Maverick" on.
McCain consciously groomed his media image way back. And the media glommed on because they could put a tough guy - a tortured war hero - on the air but this guy wasn't an anti-war type. It was a great innoculation against conservative critics.
I remember conversing with people during the Republican convention in 1988 and wondering if McCain might be the one. We rationalized that his media image would help immensely.
Back in the 1980s McCain wasn't that much of a "Maverick." He was a fairly standard Reaganite Republican. He was a little vague on some issues. The Keating Five thing seemed to really get him wound up. Though Republicans stood up for him he seemed to use that as a time to start his "Maverick" schtick - picking certain issues to wander off the reservation on. He then starting picking fights - none of which ever really made any overall philosophical or political sense.
It was (and is) often hard to know where McCain would be on any particular issue.
Since then I have watched his core Republican support dwindle though he still does have some.
This has however always burnished his media reputation.
On the contrary, Hagel never had any Republican core support and damn sure has none now.
Yes, as soon as he becomes the nominee McCain's media buds will start the sabotage.
But Hagel doesn't have to worry as he'll never get near the nomination. His only hope would be to get on as a VP and if that were to happen that ticket would be tanked in the general election as Republican voters stay home in droves.
heretical as it sounded a month ago, leeberman the republcan made assertions, not least of which was the assertion implied in the name itself: that lieberman was actually a republican.
now that the party has moved beyond speculation, and denied all support for alan S., then we should embrace lieberman as republicans.
he stands up for the war in iraq more often than most proclaimed republicans, so i think its about time to go ahead and officially switch that D to a R. about darn time.
lets promote this guy, with his experience as a 'bipartisan' he could be secretary of defense. that way, we could appoint someone to take his seat after he beats Lamont.
dont hate lieberman, embrace the new Leeberman(R) !!!