Robert Scheer: "Chuck Hagel for President!"

[Faryn Balyncd]

Thought-provoking and controversial comments from the outspoken progressive essayist Robert Scheer.

Robert Scheer, in his 30 years at the L. A. Times has had the remarkable ability to clear;y define progressive issues. Scheer was recently purged by the Times, who replaced his with war apologist Jonah Goldberg.

Does Hagel's antiwar stance put needed pressure on DLC Democrats to oppose the war?

Or, is does the antiwar stance of a conservative Republican a threat to the progressive movement?

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070116_robert_scheer_chuck_hagel_president/">Robert Scheer: "Chuck Hagel for President!"





"Chuck Hagel for president! If it ever narrows down to a choice between him and some Democratic hack who hasn’t the guts to fundamentally challenge the president on Iraq, then the conservative Republican from Nebraska will have my vote. Yes, the war is that important, and the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, the leading Democratic candidate, still can’t or won’t take a clear stand on the occupation is insulting to the vast majority of voters who have........Sen. Hagel is a decorated Vietnam War vet who learned the crucial lessons of that Democrat-launched debacle of post-colonial imperialism. Even more important, he has the courage to challenge a president from his own party who so clearly didn.t..........“The speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam,” Hagel said. “We are projecting ourselves further and deeper into a situation that we cannot win militarily..... To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives to be put in the middle of a civil war is wrong. It’s, first of all, in my opinion, morally wrong. It’s tactically, strategically, militarily wrong,” he added.

".......Too many leading Democratic politicians continue to act as if they fear that if they are forthright in opposing the war, they will appear weak, whether on national security or the protection of Israel, and so ignore the clear, strong voice of the American people that just revived their party’s fortunes..........Ever since President Ronald Reagan painted foreign policy as a simplistic war of good versus evil, the Republican Party has been in the thrall of neocon adventurers. Yet, the national emergence of Hagel reminds us that, two decades earlier, it was Dwight D. Eisenhower, a war hero and a Republican, who was the only president to clearly challenge the simplistic and jingoistic militarism that most Democrats embraced during the Cold War. It was Eisenhower, in fact, who refused to send troops to Vietnam, and his Democratic successors who opened the gates of war......True conservatives, going back to George Washington, have always been wary of the “foreign entanglements” that our first general and president warned against in his farewell address. And it is in that spirit, recognizing the limits to U.S. military power, that Hagel spoke this past Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

"......Independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, late of an oft-opportunistic Democratic Party that saw fit to nominate him as recently as 2000 for the vice presidency, had just finished accusing those who don’t support President Bush’s escalation of the war of being “all about failing.” In his defense of the indefensible, Lieberman baldly repeated many of Bush’s lies that launched this war four years ago..........Hagel refused to bite on Lieberman’s apocalyptic vision, which somehow manages to skip the hard truth that Iraq has collapsed because of our involvement, not despite it........“he fact is, the Iraqi people will determine the fate of Iraq,” Hagel responded, in what amounts to a radical opinion in paternalistic, arrogant Washington. “The people of the Middle East will determine their fate. We continue to interject ourselves in a situation that we never have understood, we’ve never comprehended we now have to devise a way to find some political consensus with our allies the regional powers, including Iran and Syria.........To say that we are going to feed more young men and women into that grinder, put them in the middle of a tribal, sectarian civil war, is not going to fix the problem,” he added.

"Words of wisdom that set the standard for anyone running for president."





. . . . . . . . . . . . Robert Scheer, http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070116_robert_scheer_chuck_hagel_president/

What do you think?

[Ignacio Upton]

1. See my thread from Monday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3129229&mesg_id=3129229

I think he has a serious chance if he runs as an Independent. He won't get the Republican nomination.

[Faryn Balyncd]

3. Do you think Hagel is positioning himself to leave the GOP?

He is despised by the pro-war Republican propagandists, who have been gunning to purge him, to deny him re-nomination for Senate in 2008.

Hagel insiders have leaked that he will neither run for president OR re-election to the Senate in 2008?

Might he become independent?

What effect might he have on Democratic candidates?

[Eurobabe]

12. Maybe he and Lieberdweed can swap seats?

[ProSense]

2. Why are people advocating a

wingnut for president?

[Faryn Balyncd]

5. What do you think Robert Sheer has in mind?

Do you think Robert Scheer is selling out progressives?

Do you think Hagel is Scheer's first choice?

Does he think Hagel's position will have a beneficial effect in defining the issues, and forcing Democrats to confront the Iraq issue with action?

If so, is Scheer right?

[ProSense]

8. "Yes, the war is that important"

So are a lot of other issues.

Could Hagel be a Trojan Horse?

Is Scheer absolutely certain that Hagel will end the war?

What, other than talk, has Hagel done to support withdrawal? He voted against both Democratic plans. Does he have a withdrawal plan to present to the Senate for a vote?

[Faryn Balyncd]

9. Good points.....

I would not think Scheer is certain Hagel would end the war.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0822-08.htm

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/NY_Times_GOP_senator_to_join_0116.html

What do you think is Scheer's objective?

[ProSense]

11. The problem

I have with this tactic is that it is the same tactic the media used that led many people to believe that McCain is a moderate. From your link:

Hulse and Rutenberg write that Hagel asserts he is not seeking to "bash the president" or "call for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," but rather intends the resolution to be "a responsible way for members of the Senate to register their opinion on the increase of more than 20,000 additional troops announced by Bush last week."

Why? In his rhetoric, he's been calling for withdrawal, which is long overdue. Playing the public is what this is about. It's time to stop playing games. When there is nothing left, they will all be dragged kicking and screaming to the "helicopter on the roof" policy.

"if you're opposed to the escalation, then you can't be content just to say “I'm opposed,” or to vote for a non-binding resolution.

[depakid]

6. Because he's coopting the issues

Next thing you know, he'll break out with some consumer advocacy and some green policies.

This is why the Liebermans, et al. are so harmful to every reasonable Democrat- in every race, all across the country.

[PATRICK]

13. To be president

instead of McCain he has to strike out on the non-Bush tack. This praise is loopy fandom considering the shallow political reality driving this one-issue stand. As to Iraq itself how far does Hagel go against the "hack Democrats"? Does he intend to close down our permanent bases and hand back the oil rights to the Iraqi people? Does he intend full and immediate redeployment or is he gaming the incompetency of Bush
with the redemption of Bush's illegal plan? Does HE have a plan? The "hacks" do.

What of other horrendous Bush abuses of of law and liberty? has he smacked down Bush supporters on his own tack concerning the war besides the interest serving alternative to McCain escalation style stay the course?

There is NO GOP presidential hopeful to dote on. I cheer on Hagel because in the process of challenging Bush control of the selection(and the vote rigging he helped institute as the ES&S president who installed the machines that surprisingly counted him in as Senator in oddly predominant Dem districts even)--- in that process he can hurt the GOP as well as Bush who can go down together or separately, separately maybe being tactically easier.

Naderization of one's moral presidential choice is something one frustrated pundit has moved to. If he keeps it up he might get to where most of us are already: in full recognition of how irredeemable the GOP field is among all its actors, commitments and possibilities. And how tragic the results would be if any of them succeeded their current incompetent fraudsters.

[Faryn Balyncd]

15. Good points, PATRICK (#13), especially...

Very good points, especially your question, "What of other horrendous Bush abuses of of law and liberty?" (which may be in danger of being neglected by politicians of both parties.)

I would guess that Scheer might think some of those he terms "hacks" might benefit from some competitive pressure (ie, a certain politician who has currently proposed a "surge" in troops in Afghanistan, as an apparent alternative to a "surge" in Iraq).

Perhaps Scheer's closing sentence,

"Words of wisdom that set the standard for anyone running for president."

might shed some light on Scheer's motive.






Might Scheer feel that without shifting the entire spectrum of debate on the war, we might end up in 2008 with another election without a candidate who is unafraid to vigorously and boldly oppose the war?

Might he feel that Hagel may be shifting this debate, despite the fact that he is despised by GOP insiders and the chance of him receiving the Republican nomination is infinitesimal.

Might the threat of an independent run by Hagel force the Democratic Party to reject the DLC and nominate a Democratic candidate who boldly opposes the war, permanent bases, and military domination of the middle east?

[PATRICK]

16. Those mights are exactly

and only why I openly cheer on Hagel's run or position on the war. I do wonder about Scheer. The subtle interpretation is the kindest and the effect should be beneficially the same whether he is or not.

[Tom Joad]

14. I don't think that would be anyone's first choice, but if it came to Hillary wingnut

and a chuck wingnut, i won't bother putting up any door hangers for either of them.

[marmar]

4. I applaud him for standing up to * on the escalation and other Iraq policies, but....

he's still a social/corporatist conservative. No, gracias. There's more than Iraq to be concerned about.

[ProudDad]

32. You're right

In fact, Iraq is a social/corporatist conservative's wet dream...

That's the bunch that got us there.

Repeat after me, "IT'S THE OIL, STUPID!"

[rubberducky]

7. I think that IF Hagel were to run....

he would be a BIG problem for the dems.

[illinoisprogressive]

10. Hagel makes J. Leiberman look stupid. I'd like him to look into an indie bid.

I think Hagel is cool for a republican. But, his party doesn't support him. I really think he should check out being an Indie and run.
I loved the way he made Joe look like an ass Sunday.

[madfloridian]

17. Perhaps Chuck Hagel will be very good for Democrats who..

tend to keep their fingers up in the wind too long. Or Democrats who are of the "let's play nice" school of thought.

I think if he keeps it up, it is going to force some action from our Democrats who have become known for triangulation.

At this point, his motives are not as important as the fact that he is showing up Democrats who refuse to defund the "surge" aka escalation aka augmentation.

[generaldemocrat]

18. Dems should form close ties with Hagel....

in order to offset the influence of LIEberman.

[Kahuna]

35. Great idea!

:thumbsup:

[zulchzulu]

19. Hagel is good for smacking around Repugs...his record is hard-right

Chuck Hagel? Um....no thanks....

* Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
* Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
* Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
* Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

* Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
* Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
* Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
* Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

More: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

[Telly Savalas]

34. Thanks for calling attention to this guy's record.

Hagel gets way too much credit at DU.

But I do have a question --- what's that "setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women" about?

Was it a plan to build expressways that they wouldn't let white guys drive on? :shrug:

[sandnsea]

20. Kerry is forthright in a withdrawal strategy

and has been forthright in how to end this war since 2004. God I'm sick of these fuckwits. What kind of progressive prefers Chuck Hagel to the numerous Democrats who are actively trying to get us out of this mess.

[fujiyama]

21. He has no chance of getting the republican nomination

His stance on the war and criticism of their dear leader and neocon foreign policy is of concern to the powers within the party.

Were he to run as an independent, he would only benefit the republican candidate, drawing votes from the Democrat.

Would I vote for him were to he run? No way. But I have no reason to believe he'd lead the US on this same destructive path its taken over the years. He's one of the few republican politicians I can disagree with, but not despise...

[Ignacio Upton]

24. Actually I think Hagel would draw a lot of votes from both sides

He would draw votes from Republicans uneasy about Bush and the fear of the Republican candidate being another Bush. He would also draw votes from some moderate to conservative Democrats who will be turned off if Hillary or Kerry is the nominee. With Hagel, he's anti-war, BUT he's also a conservative, so swiftboating him will be a lot harder for the GOP.

[Faryn Balyncd]

25. Perhaps you are right, fujiyama (#21) ....

....that an actual Hagel independent run might split the antiwar vote.

I would hope something else might transpire:

that the threat of such an independent antiwar candidacy would embolden politicians of both parties to directly confront the warmongers and fence-straddlers within each party, and result in a Democratic ticket which, with pride & patriotism, proudly advocates ending the war, renounces the permanent bases, and champions the restoration of checks & balances and civil liberties.

I don't believe such a threat will be posed by any actual Republican nominee, because the chances of an antiwar civil libertarian who respects the rule of law actually winning the Republican nomination in 2008 is zero.

(A pre-nomination fight within the GOP on these issues, on the other hand, would be beneficial, as it would focus the attention of the Republican-leaning independents, moderates, libertarians, and historical conservatives who crossed party lines to vote Democratic in 2006, and impede the propagandists attempts tp bring them back to the GOP in 2008.)

And without the threat of an independent antiwar candidate, the DLC may succeed in nominating their version of a supposedly "centrist" Democratic candidate (that is to say, a war-tolerating, corporatist fence-straddler).

2004 too much resembled a competition for the vote of those quavering in fear, and consequently ended in a loss.






(But, perhaps there may be too much "brinkmanship" involved in this scenario.)

[Lord Byron]

22. HAGEL IS NOT ANTIWAR

!!!

He's not. And he's also a rabid free-trader.

[ruggerson]

23. I think any progressive that would vote for Hagel

utterly forfeits their right to be called a progressive.

Because he's a rightwing asshole.

[sampsonblk]

26. Hagel's not bad

No worse than Kerry, and no worse than Gore os 2000. Better than Leiberman.

[fedupinBushcountry]

27. You must be a Naderite

:boring:

[sampsonblk]

31. Clarkie. Nice try-nt

nt

[w4rma]

36. That is an ignorant fanboyish statement. It shows how little you know of any of their records.

There are more issues out there than just Bush's failed warmongering.

Hagel is an extremist right-winger who rubber stamped Bush on everything except his warmongering (and maybe that also, up until recently).

[TheDonkey]

28. Obama/Hagel

would be better than Kerry/McCain ( I like Kerry but detest McCain, Hagel is actually an "ok" rethug)

[ProSense]

29. Yeah, if

you support the Christian Coalition.

[Cha]

30. I think..for one thing..

I can't imagine WHY any democrat would fear "looking weak" by opposing the War On Iraq at this juncture!!??

And a lot of us knew they wouldn't appear weak if they didn't vote for the stupid IWR cause it wasn't gonna turn out right with all THE FUCKING LIES. HELLO-GOOD MORNING! :think:

[Jack Rabbit]

33. Hagel was very impressive in his response to Lieberman

One would like to think that was the response of a Democratic Senator to a Bush Republican toad, but it was the response of a conservative (not right wing fascist) senator to a Bush toad for Lieberman.

Mr. Scheer's problems with Hilary Clinton are, in fact, mine. She's so worried about what her focus groups will say that she can't say what she thinks, and probably has been doing this for so long that doesn't know what she thinks anyway.

I'm not going to join Mr. Scheer on the Hagel for President bandwagon any time soon, but there are worse things imaginable than Chuck Hagel sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office.