A progressive campaign from the right? Nope, just Republican values (again)

What if this guy is in the race?
Chuck Hagel
Many people, some on this blog, probably believe that Chuck Hagel (R-NE) could not get out of the primary. But I’m not so sure.

But lets change the scenario a little. What if the McCain Doctrine shows increased casualties to such a degree that his electability is vertually zero (see The war within Sen. McCain for a discussion from McCain on how his push for the escalation could end his presidential candidacy)? What if as primary season goes on, as suggested by anoodle here and discussed in his stolen playbook, Giuliani suffers significantly from his moderate views on social issues? What if Romney cannot make people understand the Mormon religion? What if Brownback is seen in the same light as HRC by the left as unelectable?

If I’m Chuck Hagel, I’m considering a strong run for President. This Newsweek article suggests that the one reason why Hagel will not get out of the primary is because of the nature of the Republican party in rewarding the guy whose turn it is next. But as the article suggests, with the available candidates and an unpopular war, the Republican party might revert back to its core issues.

This presents a problem for the Dems, in my mind. Hagel is with the Democratic plan of scaled re-deployment and negotiating with Syria and Iran on a diplomatic level. He has supported tax cuts. He has succeeded with small business in Nebraska. He is socially conservative. Where this Republican was effectively ostracized two years ago, he could be the prodigal son come home to keep Republicans in the White House. Or, he could be a distant fourth behind the big three.


8 Responses to A progressive campaign from the right? Nope, just Republican values (again)

  1. johncos says:

    Four years ago, I thought that the most electable combination in the country was a McCain-Hagel ticket…my how times have changed. Hagel to me has always seemed like a decent guy who really hated the bullshit of modern politics, so I’m not sure he has the intestinal fortitude for a multi-year presidential run.

    The guy that’s under our radar is Gov. Mike Huckabee from Arkansas. He has the social conservative credentials the base is looking for, has had a fairly effective tenure as governor, and seems to be very natural in front of the camera http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q58tx37I720 . Plus he’s a guy who has lost something like 200 poundsd while being a governor, so he can talk about child health issues and mean it and be convincing. Those are the type of “minor” issues that actually win voters hearts.

  2. anoodle says:

    I have thought for a long time that there would be a huge opening in the republican primaries for a conservative, anti-war candidate. Hagel fits that bill perfectly– he’s a vietnam vet and a strong advocate for the military, but he was also one of the first Republicans to speak out against the war. He fits the bill on the social issues, and, in general, falls in line with the other candidates on most conservative positions– pro-tax cuts, pro-life, pro-business, small government, etc. But he sounds like a practical, reasoned guy when it comes to foreign policy.

    The Republicans do tend to nominate the “next in line” candidate, but if McCain continues his unflinching support for a policy support by approximately 1 in 10 candidates, and if Rudy is deemed to liberal on social issues, and if Newt is deemed to crazy, and if the country won’t elect a flip-flopping Mormon, I could see Hagel being the man.

    The only problem is, there are rumors that not only will he not run for president, he may retire from politics altogether:


  3. anoodle says:

    Oh, and I agree completely about Huckabee….. he could be the 2008 version of Clinton…..

  4. comm5ttee says:

    Right on, Huckabee could be the guy. Although he might only get on track if there is a vaccuum.

  5. askewed says:

    Hagel’s biggest problem is that his name is Chuck. No one is voting to make Chuck the President. I feel bad for the guy… the only reason I can’t run myself is I’m too short. Same goes for Huckabee…

    The next President won’t be a woman, a Jew, a black guy or a white guy named Chuck and certainly not a Huckabee. If Gore didn’t tap Lieberman we’d probably not be in this mess right now ( I don’t know if you’ve heard this but a lot of people seem to flat out hate Jews). Anyway being progressive is great, I’m all for it and practice the idea in my day-to-day life. But we need some big picture thinking here. Let’s find a nice John, William or Michael and get them a running mate named Robert. The most ethnic thing Robert should ever have done in his life is eat at Chi-Chi’s. Let’s get this thing locked up and then open the cabinets and fill them with rainbows.

    Win at any cost then do the right thing, Is my new motto…

  6. anoodle says:

    You’re basically advocating the opposite of the GWB 2000 convention charade where he basically made the stage look like Soul Train with him in the lead. A lot of good that did him– 9% of African-Americans voted for him….

    I guess you wouldn’t be a big fan of a Richardson-Schumer ticket…..

    (I guess sarcasm can be tough to infer when you don’t know the person writing and can’t read it in their voice, like I can with askewed…..)

    You’re basically advocating the Howard Dean, “guys in the pick-up trucks with confederate flags” theory. The reality is, if the dems hold their African American support, win the gender gap among women by 4-5%, and increase their lead among Latinos, it would be a blow-out. Doing that alone would probably pull portions of the southwest into the blue category– Colorado (no accident that the convention is there, and that Allard just said he’s calling it quits before 2008), New Mexico (why Richardson gets so much hype), even Arizona and Nevada are all realistic pick-ups…..

    The key is getting to 270. Nothing else matters.

  7. johncos says:

    This is why, as much as he is sometimes harangued, Howard Dean was absolutely right about the 50 state campaign. It is absolutely atrocious that a national party was running candidates in 18 states like the Democrats were in 2000-2002. anoodle is absolutely correct that the south/middle west is tremendously in play this next election cycle. NM has turned blue and NV and CO won’t be difficult to win. AZ is certainly in play considering that a fairly decent GOP Senator in John Kyl was almost defeated this year simply because of the War and McCain.

    I understand that askewed is being sarcastic (and i’ve appreciated and loved previous posts), but i think the point is ridiculous. Gore didnt lose because of Lieberman (hell, he probably helped massively in Florida) and Chuck is about as WASPy a name (charles) as you can get. There is no doubt that the DNC is playing to win in 2008 and the idea that nominating a Barack or anyone else will elminate the possiblity of victory is absurd.

  8. anoodle says:

    Great point– I know there was sarcasm there, but look at the last few losing dem candidates:
    John Forbes Kerry
    Albert Arnold Gore
    Michael Stanley Dukakis
    Walter Frederick Mondale

    Not exactly a lot of ethnicity there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: