Chuck Hagel: Tomorrow

[NDP]

Will tomorrow be the day that Chuck Hagel declares his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination, and effectively end any chance that any Democrat had of winning the General Election, even in a fair election?

No Democrat currently running can beat Chuck Hagel. None of them have the "stature" that Chuck Hagel would have, and just like that poll showed, voters are more concerned with "character" than policy issues, and say what you will, but when most voters, especially Independents, see Hagel, they are going to see "tough...Vietnam service...seemingly Independent-minded" and they will care less about the fact that he has 100% ratings from most Conservative groups.

When the media begins talking about those ratings, and the fact that the only thing that he is "un-Republican" about is the Iraq war, watch the right-wing primary voters coalesce around Hagel and become more "anti-Iraq." I guarantee it.

So, I repeat. Will Hagel effectively end any chance that the Democrats have in 2008? If he announces that he is running, he will, even in a relatively "fair" election. And yes, I know all about his history with the voting machine company, which is why I keep stressing the "fair election" part. Hagel wouldn't need to cheat in the general to beat any of the Democrats that we have running.

If Hagel announces, after the first GOP debate, he will become the frontrunner. It's a guarantee.

[peacetheonlyway]

1. he also owns a $5M + interest in ES&S (which put him in power first go round)

and an interest in McCarthy Group which has an investment in Diebold.

the man is already a winner.

game over...

until the stupid dems realize they have election fraud they will never have
a won election for president ever again.


time for dem party to do something sincere and honest about elections instead
of lip service and ill informed Holt Style legislation.

[NDP]

4. I just acknowledged that. It's something that most voters won't care about because

the Dems haven't given them a reason to care about. This is what not going ballistic over voter fraud gets you. A public that doesn't "trust" it, but doesn't "focus" on it.

[TwilightGardener]

8. I am generally loathe to defend a 'Pug, but Hagel is an exception. There has

never been any evidence of "stealing" the election--it's a non-issue here in Nebraska, although it does sound like a good story and a big coincidence, LOL!

[rodeodance]

2. He will be a threat to the Dems and is VERY conservtive

[TwilightGardener]

3. No way would the 'Pugs let him near the nomination! They hate him--

although he will probably garner more support than people think, especially if the war is still going on.

[NDP]

6. Keep fooling yourself. This morning, I heard that like 65% of Republicans have never heard of him

[Bumblebee]

5. He has to be nominated by GOP first -- a tough call, given how many toes

he has stepped on. If he runs as Independent, he is a serious threat.

[NDP]

7. Like I just said. After Republican voters see him in the first debate, they will

fall in love with the guy's "tough and blunt" style, and he'll skyrocket. The primary voters in the GOP are unlike they are for the Dems. GOP voters are looking for a "leader" to defer to, and they will see that in Hagel more than the rest, especially after they see those 100% ratings on Conservative issues. They'll forget all about Iraq and swoon over Hagel.

It's a guarantee.

[liberal renegade]

10. he's pretty independent

just ask any repuke.....

[NDP]

12. Well, almost 70% of republican voters don't have any clue who he is. Besides

he's not Independent. He's just Independent when it comes to "Iraq," maybe a few of the civil liberties issues. Everything else, he is 100% in line with the Conservative base.

[pwb]

9. republicans will never win an election again

Hagel is a republican who votes with bush on most issues. no chance of beating any democrat. he is better than any other republic running. in 2008 the issue will be the party not the candidate and we have had enough of the republics all around.

[liberal renegade]

11. that's what I said after Clinton won his first term n/t

[NDP]

14. So, your logic is that most voters will care about the fact that he votes with Bush on most

issues, and that makes him have no chance of "beating any Democrat," as if the public cares so much about the Democrats? Look at how terrible Bush has been, and yet, in these pathetic early polls, the Republican candidates aren't getting hurt any by Bush when matched up against the Democrats. That proves just how terrible of a candidate Hillary Clinton would be, because she's the only Democrat that most of the public feel like they "know a lot about." Edwards and Obama are a lot less known, and do just as well in fictitious matchups as she does.

You clearly seem to have very poor analytical skills. 2008 will not be about "parties." The public is not going to vote for someone just because they are a Democrat. It's going to be about the same thing that most Presidential elections are about, and that is "style." Most voters vote based on style, and Hagel's "tough and rugged exterior," and his "blunt speaking style" will be a draw to Independents and Republicans. Where party comes in is the amount of votes that he get.

He would naturally get a lot more as a "Republican" instead of an "Independent," but beyond that, party won't matter much for candidates like Hagel or Edwards. Either could win votes from the other side. No other Democrat would. Maybe Guliani or McCain would, but their "excess baggage" will sink them early in the GOP nomination cycle.

You have to think like "most" voters think, not like most people who you associate with who feel like they know about the issues and the people running.

[pwb]

18. you have convinced me i will vote republic...not

analyze this

[skipos]

13. Since you are so sure about his victory

would you be willing to donate some $$$ to the charity of my choice if you are wrong?
I am just curious how TRULY confident you are in your prediction.

Here is the latest poll from Republican pollster Rasmussen:
Hagel (34%) vs. Obama (50%)

Most Republicans like the way Bush is handling Iraq, why would they nominate Hagel?

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Feb. 23-27, 2007. N=1,281 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). RV = registered voters

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"

Republicans 50% approve, 44% disapprove

[NDP]

17. Almost 70% of republicans don't have a clue who Hagel is, and those who do

primarily know about him only because of his opposition to Bush's policy in Iraq.

Here's what will happen for the 1,000th time. They will find out that he has 100% ratings from all of the conservative groups, and then Iraq will become a non-issue.

You have very little foresight, I see. When everyone was falling for the media's BS about John McCain, I was saying "watch Romney and Hagel, they are the two." Now the GOP officials are starting to push Romney and he's winning straw polls, and McCain is sinking like a "rock," not because of his support for the war, but because he's as old as dirt, and doesn't "look like a President."

For the general public, they vote based on "style" and perceived "character." McCain doesn't fit their perception of a "President," so he was dead before he started.

Hagel would be ahead of Obama by 20% come May 2008 if both were going to be the nominees. It's a guarantee. The best chances the Democrats would have of beating Hagel, would be Gore or Edwards.

Gore could match him in "stature," which is what most independents will focus on most.
Edwards would appeal most to independents and "some" Republicans, out of the Democrats actually running.

The point of this thread: Hagel would be the Democrats' toughest opponent, and almost impossible for the current crop of candidates to beat.

I say that now, so save this thread. The reason that I'm saying it, is because when the Republicans nominate Hagel, and they will, and he wins the General Election, which he will, do not come to this board complaining about how you all "told the rest of us that your candidate would have been the best one because blah, blah, blah." I'm telling you right now, "none" of them would have beaten Hagel.

I like to call it early. Bookmark this thread. Don't complain that another candidate should have been nominated, it would not have mattered.

It's time to "work harder." The Democrats need to start talking more about e-voting to lay the groundwork to connect Hagel to that corrupt enterprise, and try to dig up some dirt on Chuck Hagel. Otherwise, it's a foregone conclusion

[skipos]

21. "You have very little foresight, I see."

Ahh... nice to see another DUer who chooses to be insulting when it is totally unnecessary. Sooo... are you going to respond to my question. Are you confident enough to promise to donate say... $100 to the charity of my choice if you are wrong? Or are you not 100% confident in your prediction?

[madrchsod]

15. he`s running for president

they have no one else

[Czolgosz]

16. You have an irrational belief that the Repub primary voters will support an opponent of the war.

Plus, if the world spun up-side-down and Hagel won the nomination, he couldn't win the general election because he's a right-wing nutjob who's far outside the mainstream on just about every issue besides the war.

Here's some information you should know about Hagel:

Rated 0% by the LCV - he's a complete anti-environment nightmare.

He voted to fund expanded road-building in National Forests.

He voted to drill for oil in ANWR.

He voted to terminate CAFE standards.

He voted against promoting hydrogen-powered vehicles.

He votes against setting the goal of reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025.

Rated 0% by NARAL - he's a complete anti-choice nightmare.

He voted to ban all D&X abortions.

He voted to outlaw abortions on Military Base regardless of any risk to the mother.

He voted against teen pregnancy education because it was not abstanence only.

He voted against funding for minority & women-owned business.

He voted against expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.

Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition - he's an equal rights nightmare.

Rated just 12% by APHA - he's a public health nightmare.

He voted for Medicare means-testing.

He voted for limiting the self-employment health deduction.

He voted against increasing the Medicaid rebate for producing generics.

He voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate bulk purchase discounts for prescription drug.

He voted against expanding the enrollment period for Medicare Part D.

He voted for capping negligent hospital corporation and careless nursinghome liability at $250,000.

Rated 22% by the ARA - he'sg an anti-senior nightmare.

He favors privatizing Social Security.

He favors a private schools vouchers system to drain finds and students from our public education system.

He voted against funding smaller classes.

He favors tax cuts for corporations and the ultra-wealthy.

He voted against prioritizing national debt reduction over more tax cutsfor corporations and the ultra-wealthy.

He voted to extend the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends and the Paris Hilton estate tax.

Rated 92% by the CATO institute - he's a fair trade nightmare.

He voted to renew 'fast track' unchecked presidential trade agreement authority.

He voted to implement CAFTA.

He voted to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act.

He voted to deploy the Star Wars missile defense boondoggle.

He voted against McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.

He voted against restricting "soft money" contributions.

He voted against establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity.

He voted to allow lobbyist gifts to Congress.

He voted for on increasing penalties for drug offenses.

[NDP]

19. No, I know people, just like strategist and pollsters know people. "Style" matters.

They will be drawn to Hagel's. Watch. I know people.

[Czolgosz]

22. I'm sure Hagel will pull a strong fourth place. The bigger news tomorrow will be Ron Paul declaring

his candidacy.

Paul actually represents a distinct constituency. Hagel represents the anti-war radical right, which is a group which could hold its national meetups in a phone booth.

[TwilightGardener]

24. Ron Paul? Bigger news? Are you sure?

He is a true libertarian nut, although a principled one. But I take his candidacy about as seriously as I take Biden's, which is to say, not at all.

[Czolgosz]

28. Neither Paul nor Hagel (nor Biden, since you mentioned him) stands a snowball's chance, but Paul's

candidacy will illustrate effectively how far the Repubs have drifted from their self-proclaimed status as the party of small government and fiscal prudence.

Paul will stand on the stage and say deeply conservative things that none of his Repub rivals will be able match because none of the front-runners is a true small government conservative. This will deepen three rift within the Repub party.

What effect will Hagel have? He'll split off a few of McCain's voters who are drawn to the idea of nominating a very conventional sort of quasi-"maverick." Hagel's dismal failure will help illustrate for Americans that the Repub party is the party of escalation and endless war. I'm cool with that.

[pwb]

23. you don't know people here?

you are as sure of yourself as the neocons were about the war.

[skipos]

27. Yep. Hagel thinks Ben Nelson is too liberal.

I just reponded to a post of yours in an old Giuliani thread by the way.

[fuzzyball]

35. The republics ALSO want an end to Iraq war....the only difference

being most of them do not want to withdraw troops precepitously.
If Hagel has a plan for ending the war with atleast a fig leaf of
honor, my guess is the republics will jump on it.

[TwilightGardener]

37. Very good point. I think the 'Pugs in Congress all know that

the war's a dog. If Hagel can figure out a way to convince this admin to start drawing down the troops while allowing BushCo to save face, they might just forgive him...maybe.

[Czolgosz]

40. Main-street Repubs are losing patients with the war; zealots who vote in the Repub caucuses are not.

[TwilightGardener]

I also don't know how good of a campaigner he is--

he isn't a glib bullshitter--he doesn't have the gift o'gab. People love a smooth fast-talker. He also never, ever smiles--he looks like smiling (or god forbid, laughing) would absolutely kill him. He looks like the world weighs on him very heavily. How would he compete with all the "sunshinier" candidates, especially when he has to go on Leno and The Daily Show? Though he is good-looking and appealing in a brooding sort of way, people like "happy". I can't picture him getting that far. I just can't.

[saltpoint]

20. We're going to kick Chuck Hagel's conservative butt from coast to

coast.

He might not even run. I think he might, but he's keeping us all in suspense until sometime tomorrow.

A lot of us think he's reasonably clear-headed on Iraq but ultra-Right in just about everything else. I'm in that camp. His judicial appointments would likely be along the Alito variety. I could do without that.

Republicans aren't keen on him especially because he bucked Bush on Iraq early on. And was on all the news shows doing the bucking. They're out to git 'im.

[Mass]

25. Hagel, the most supportive Bush ally in 2006 in the Senate.

Sure, he talks tough against Iraq, but he consistently voted for Bush's bills on Iraq throughout the year.

I doubt he will get the nomination, but, if he does, it would be easy to show he supported Bush from A to Z.

[enough already]

26. Hagel has no shot whatsoever

You can cite his conservative ratings all you want, but those nazis HATE him since he won't goosestep to Chimp-ler's tune any longer. He's done like dinner.

[Milo_Bloom]

29. I agree, he is a huge threat... HOWEVER

The right democratic candidate can beat him, but it would have to be someone who was against the war from the very start.

The GOP in the primaries are like sheep and they will go whichever way the "powers that be" decide and diseminate throughout the party via right wing radio and conservative media, etc. I believe the "powers that be" realize that Iraq is a disaster for the GOP and probably realize that they need to put forth and anti-war conservative if they stand any chance in the general election.

The best argument against Hagel is that he voted for the war in the first place and although he may have "seen the light" the very fact that he voted for the war, calls his judgment into question. However, this argument ONLY works if the person he is running against didn't support the war at all. Against a Clinton, Edwards, Biden or Dodd, it is a useless argument, since they are all in the same boat and he can wipe the floor with any of them.

[cleveramerican]

30. he won't get the nomination... but as a third party candidate

he could have a real effect

[AshevilleGuy]

39. Right. The repuke machine would never allow an anti-war

candidate to have their nomination. The WH would do WHATEVER IT TAKES to stop that.

But as a third party candidate... Oh, please please please please please please.... :D

[xkenx]

31. Iagree with you completely about Hagel taking off among Rethugs, BUT

not that a Dem. won't beat him. What our candidate needs to do is hammer home that Hagel voted for IWR, supported Bush until he learned the truth. However, Dems. who voted or spoke up against Iraq war knew the truth before the war. We can lay that on Hagel, as well as his misguided right wing voting record. "Folks, do you want another Bush clone in the White House making terrible econonic and social policy, one who couldn't see the bullshit until it was too late? Of course Dems. who voted for IWR and supported B**h like HRC and co-sponsor Edwards will have a tough time against a Republican Viet Nam hero. Time to bring out WES CLARK with the progressive bona fides, a bigger war hero, and one who blew the whistle on the Iraq fiasco from the very beginning.

[TwilightGardener]

34. Untrue about Hagel's supporting the war until lately--he voted for it out of loyalty, but

at the same time he cast his vote he made a speech cautioning against the invasion, saying that imposing a democracy by force was a roll of the dice. He was one of the earliest critics, from either side of the aisle, of how the war was being handled, even when the war was still fairly popular. The vote is his only sticking point. Actually, the vote and the fact that he voted against his own conscience (he knew better!) are his sticking points. This is why I think Obama would beat him, but again, I don't see him getting that far.

[Dinger]

32. "No Dem Currently Running Can Beat Chuck Hagel," Except:

Wes Clark
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[Dinger]

33. I Think This Is What Clark Is Waiting For

Just a feeling I have. Not sure exactly what it means for Clark, but I believe it will play some part in Clark's decision to run or not to run.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

36. Will the fundies and the haters who comprise the GOP "base" --

-- by that I mean the dead-ender 30% who still like Bush -- vote for Hagel in the primaries? Yes, he's very, very conservative; he has supported Bush and the GOP on every issue except the Iraq war. But the "base" is so invested in kickin' ass in Iraq (it's Jesus' war against the Muslim hordes, after all), how will they be able to overlook Hagel's opposition to it? That crowd loves war. Especially this one. Can they stand to give up their holy war even if it means gay people can't get married and nobody can get an abortion?

[TwilightGardener]

38. About the fundies--what does it say that Brownback, the fundie

poster-boy, also opposes the escalation of the war and wants to start ending it? You would think he'd be all into fighting the little brown "mooslims" until the rapture. It doesn't seem to either help or hurt him, in his case, while the knives are out for Hagel. I will never understand the Republican brain.