The Candidates
I simply don’t understand the logic here:
Sen. Chuck Hagel, the loudest Republican critic of the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war, used a much-anticipated news conference Monday to announce that he didn’t have anything to announce at all.
“I’m here today to announce that my family and I will make a decision on my political future later this year,” Hagel said at an Omaha, Neb., news conference that the political world assumed he had called to announce whether he would run for president.
The blogosphere was buzzing all weekend about Hagel’s potential entry into the 2008 presidential race and what it’s implications were for the rest of the field. Jon Martin wrote a fascinating piece on that yesterday and Chris Cillizza wondered whether he’d announce a presidential run, a Senate re-election run, or a retirement. John McCain told the New York Times that “Chuck is an American hero and a person who I love dearly, and I’ll look forward to being with him out on the campaign trail,” implying that he thought that Hagel was indeed planning on announcing. The media was clearly ready to anoint him the new Maverick and have him make the rounds on all the requisite talking head shows.
And then after all this speculation…nothing. He announces today that he might announce in a few months? What gives?
Soren Dayton says:
Chuck Hagel could have turned anti-war Republicans and independents into a force.
Now the press hates him because he led them on. And he still hasn’t resolved the problem in his state (he will get a strong challenge in the primary) And he is not in charge of the debate.
Ana Marie Cox quotes MSNBC saying that it was “one of the most bizarre political statement’s I’ve ever heard.” I completely agree.
March 12th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I like Chuck. I really do. But really, what was that?
Chris Matthews is going to be really unhappy!
March 12th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I am trying to look at this in some positive way, but I can’t. I can only conclude that the man is basically proving he has no business running as a Presidential candidate.
Anyone care to disabuse me of that notion? I’m willing to listen.
March 12th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Did Hagel ever make sense? I’m not for kicking people out of the party as a general proposition but I have to agree with Hugh Hewitt on this: Iraq is a party vote. Deviate wherever else you’d like, but being anti-war just isn’t acceptable. The confusing aspect of Chuck Hagel is that apparently he has some vague notion that there’s a universe in which he could end up the Republican nominee.
March 12th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Interestingly, Hagel launched a new official campaign website today:
http://www.hagel08.com/
March 12th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
It appears that Hagel assumed he could play by the rules of the Big Three (multiple announcements). For quixotic candidate they better not string the media along or they’ll be ignored.
I think that’s where Hagel is headed.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Matt, The War in Iraq is a Republican War and Republicans must vote for it? Come on, think of something better than that.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Yeah, I’ve gotta agree with Peter on this one.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Peter,
I’m with you. One can be a thoughtful conservative and oppose Iraq (”A Republic, Not an Empire” comes to mind). Such conservatives are the exception (from what I’ve seen), but I’m not for running them out of the GOP.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
My guess is that Hagel was planning on getting in. Then the buzz was about Thompson getting in over the weekend, and he realized this wasn’t the best time to announce. So he “put his announcement off.” He can wait and see if the surge fails, which increases his stock, and for the bloom to fall off of Thompson’s rose. Or, he can re-declare for Senate.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
The media will never ignore Hagel. He gives them yet another “maverick” to point out all the ills of traditional conservatism. I wouldn’t be surprised if they catapulted him into the Big Three ahead of Romney, citing his “courage and fortitude”.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
I don’t mean to say Iraq is specifically a Republican war, but rather that Republicans ought to be committed to winning wars. It’s a defining principle of the party. Whatever one thought about Iraq initially, an inability to recognize the consequences of failure is against the very nature of what our party stands for.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
I think it depends on what you mean by “oppose” Iraq. If you mean that they think it was an awful idea to invade initially or that we’re being imperialist in some fashion then I’d agree those are more then tenable positions. I disagree with them, but they’re reasonable. I don’t think its reasonable or sane to imagine that any good can come of abandoning Iraq at this juncture. I may or may not support kicking such people out of the party, but I have absolutely no use for them.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
My guess is Sen. Hagel had seen the Unity08 ticket as his best shot, for whatever that’s worth, but because they haven’t gotten as much attention from the teaming masses of unhappy voters as they predicted they’d have by now, Hagel may be having second thoughts about going that route. He still needs to keep his name out there, though, but he’s been around long enough to know that he has little to no chance of winning the Republican nomination. I like the guy but not everyone can be president. Maybe he’s beginning to realize this.
March 12th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20070312/NEWS/703120342/1051/NEWS01
One of the poster may want to comment on the Super Saturday event in South Carolina on April 21. There will be three county caucuses that day. The article discusses who is campaigning and what their doing.
Econ Grad Stud
March 12th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
With all due respect to Senator Hagel, whose war record is truly heroic, his performance today does not actually inspire one that he should be voted into a position where he has control of the nuclear launch codes. He is just an odd duck, who seemingly has the smarts and ambition but not nearly the likability to succeed as a presidential candidate; a Republican John Kerry of sorts.
March 12th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Matt, I’m curious how you would define winning the war in Iraq. I’ve never been a strong supporter or opponent of the war. It has definitely produced some good results but I am also somewhat sympathetic to Ron Paul’s position.
What is our current objective in Iraq? What must happen for us to be able to delcare that the war is over and we have won? Is this something that could happen in 2 years? 20 years? 50 years? Longer?
March 12th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Leaving a nation that can defend itself from Iran and Al Qaeda seems like victory to me.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
econ grad, given the nation is predominantly Shi’ite the Iranians are unlikely to attack it. And Al Queda weren’t there until US soldiers arrived. I’d say they’re after the Americans, not the Iraqis!
March 13th, 2007 at 6:05 am
That’s simply misleading JayPe. The Iranians likely won’t “attack” Iraq in the conventional sense, but they won’t need to. They’ll essentially take over the Shia south using surrogates. It will become a puppet regime. And Al Quaeda may not have had an enormous presence in Iraq when we invaded, but it was indeed there. This canard that somehow the moment we withdraw our troops everyone will essentially throw up their arms and say “yey! The Americans left. Let’s not kill each other anymore” is criminally misguided. If we leave before they can secure their own country. , the chaos in Iraq and the middle east is going to make the Cambodian killing fields look like a pleasant memory.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
[...] managed to leave much of the blogosphere and the punditocracy scratching our collective heads in bewilderment over his non-announcement announcement. Dana Milbank provides some more information that suggests [...]
March 13th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
[...] managed to leave much of the blogosphere and the punditocracy scratching our collective heads in bewilderment over his non-announcement announcement. Dana Milbank provides some more information that suggests [...]