Hagel at CFR: Would Consider Running on Dem Ticket, Calls Hillary 'Capable'
Maverick Republican senator Chuck Hagel raised his criticisms of the Bush White House to a new level in New York yesterday, holding open the possibility that he could serve in a future Democratic administration or even run on a presidential ticket headed by a Democrat.
Mr. Hagel, who has become increasingly estranged from his party over the Iraq war, said that he would give the current administration “the lowest grade” in “almost every area.”
He added: “I have to say that this is one of the most arrogant, incompetent administrations I’ve ever seen.”
Mr. Hagel’s scorching attack came during an event at the Council on Foreign Relations. He accused the administration of having “squandered” the international sympathy and support for the United States that arose in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
“I think of this administration and what they could have done after 9/11, what was within their grasp,” Mr. Hagel said. “Every poll in the world showed 90 per cent of the world for us. Iran had some of the first spontaneous demonstrations on the streets of Tehran, supporting America. [The administration] squandered a tremendous amount of opportunity. There’s where they have failed the country.”
Mr. Hagel’s dissatisfaction with the Bush administration is well known—he even made a sarcastic crack yesterday about the frankness of his opinions being the reason “why I’m so highly regarded at the White House”—but the comments may have been his most trenchant to date.
Mr. Hagel will retire as the senior senator from Nebraska when his current term ends next year, and he announced in March that he would not seek the presidency. But when Ted Sorensen, the famed speechwriter for President John F. Kennedy, yesterday asked from the floor whether Mr. Hagel would consider an offer to run as vice-president on a ticket headed by a Democrat, the answer was intriguing.
“I think this is one of those years where anything is possible,” Mr. Hagel said. “I don’t think that question is going to be posed to me, so I probably wouldn’t have to worry about it. But if there was an area that I thought I could make a difference in… then I would entertain these kinds of serious questions. We are living through this remarkable time in history. Everything’s possible.”
The notion of Mr. Hagel as the vice-presidential nominee on a Democratic-led ticket currently seems a little far-fetched. But he seemed just as inclined to respond warmly to a more likely scenario—the offer of a position within a Democratic administration if that party takes the White House next year.
“I would consider a serious offer in any administration if it comes from a serious president who wants to do something to make our world better and our country stronger,” he said.
There was little comfort of any kind for Mr. Hagel’s party colleagues in his remarks. He opined that it was “likely” that Democrats would “add to their numbers” in Congress and in governors’ mansions across the nation next year, and suggested his party could experience “one of the great political defeats of our time.”
Asked which of the presidential candidates of either party came closest to his own thinking on foreign affairs, Mr. Hagel mentioned only Senator John McCain among Republicans, and even then stopped well short of full-throated endorsement.
He merely said that Mr. McCain was “the only one of the candidates I’ve worked closely with, of the Republicans.”
He continued:
“Now, Joe Biden: I’m very close to Joe Biden’s philosophy about foreign policy. I suppose of all the candidates out there, including McCain, I’m probably closer to Joe Biden. I think Biden would be a very good president.”
During these ruminations, Mr. Hagel also complained about the brevity required of the candidates during debates and about the media’s concentration on the presumed front-runners.
Deriding the style of the debates as resembling a “poor man’s Gong Show”, he asserted that the candidates “haven’t had the chance, most of them, to articulate the depth of a philosophy about foreign policy.
“On the Democratic side, the media just pays attention to three candidates—Hillary and Obama and Edwards. So guys who actually have something to say, like Biden and Dodd—not that the other three don’t—but those guys get shoved off into the background and they are lucky to get 30 seconds of anything.”
But when asked whether he saw dangers in the possibility that two families, the Bushes and the Clintons, could hypothetically occupy the White House for a continuous 28 years, Mr. Hagel demurred.
“That’s up to the voters, actually,” he said. “If the American people decide to elect Hillary Clinton, they elect Hillary Clinton. She’s certainly capable.” Next Page >
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.6
- 44.2
- Obama +2.4
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.8
- 35.8
- +20.0
- McCain
- 54.8
- 36.6
- +18.2
How about Ron Paul and Hagel?
If Sen. Hagel were in the Republican debates, they would then have a much closer bonding with reality. I feel like I'm watching an episode of the old black and white Twilight Zone every time I have to listen to one of the GOP candidates speak out. It is as if they haven't been witnesses to what has been happening for the last 7 years, or, more likely, as if they were willing participants.
Unfortuneately for me, Sen. Hagel and Rep. Ron Paul are throwbacks to an earlier age, when Republicans lived and worked in the real world, instead of a neo-con nightmare.
"Sen. Hagel and Rep. Ron Paul are throwbacks to an earlier age, when Republicans lived and worked in the real world, instead of a neo-con nightmare."
Are you suggesting that Ron Paul's positions, which besdides an immediate pull out of Iraq also include an immediate pullout of the United Nations and the abolishing of Federal Income Tax, is working in the real world??? Dude. Did you mean the MTV Real World?
Please stay Mr.Hagel. Help to start the rebuild. Wating for an oppertunity to rejoin the GOP
Hegel Smegel.
He lacked the cojones to vote against the war on several votes.
And Ron Paul is a Smuck. Since Reagan, one of the chief crimes has been to take what belongs to the people (in the form of the commons) and give it to the private sector. Why are bloggers so GD stupid? Paul wants to make it the de Facto law. Money rules. Ask yourself this question, those of you flirting with neo=Randianism, Who do you have more influence with, Congress or Exxon?
a love supreme,
campion
Maybe Hagel, through his connections at Es+S, could buy another election.
This guy has some nerve!
hagel's assessment of the bush administration is one of the best i've heard. who knew there were still a couple intelligent republicans out there?
but naturally, being as smart as he is, the only logical next move for hagel is to abandon that sinking ship while there's still time.
It is my hope Biden and Hagel join and run under Unity08!
Well lets see the Republicans are quitting and the Dems are trying to socialize everything. What an election this will be, there's not one good choice out there. I am tired of holding my nose to vote. I do have to say I respect Hagel speaking out, I can't stand the brown noses the rest of the Republicans have by following Bush. I don't want to vote for anyone who knowingly goes along with someone even when they are wrong just because they are from the same party. We need independent thinkers not party followers you know someone who thinks of the American people.
Ron Paul at least knows what Americans rights are, however, I agree not EVERYTHING should be privatized, by the way here in Chicago the Democrats are privatizing everything so the country is being sold out from under us already.
Hagel is truly pathetic. He positioned himself as maverick, which could have been interesting. Then he comes up with something so off the wall that he really ought to just drop out of politics or consider getting counseling.
Hillary is "capable"? Sure. She's capable of a lot of deceit, we've seen that. She is also capable of Being: blindly-partisan; dishonest; unprincipled; arrogant; overly-ambitious; underhanded; demeaning; self-righteous; shrill; self-pitying; bombastic; and wildly overstating her bona fides.
Seriously, how can Chuck vouch for her abilities when she has never spent day one in a leadership position? Further, does her crypto-socialism not bother this "Conservative" newscaster cum politician?
Hagel has forgotten what it means to be Conservative. Now is the best time for him to leave, before his vanity, personal ambition and love for the cries of the crowd totally destroy his reputation.
Oh, I see, you're one of the brain-washed misogynists who probably meets Karl Rove at a Des Moines airport bathroom on the weekends to lick his b**lsack. Everything you wrote in your comment is ass backwards. There is a clinical psychiatrist condition known as projection, where a person criticizes in others what they see in themselves. It's a classic Republican syndrome.
Let address your comments one by one:
1) About Chuck Hagel, you say. "...Then he comes up with something so off the wall that he really ought to just drop out of politics or consider getting counseling." What did he say that was so off the wall that he should get counseling?
2) Going done your name-calling list regarding Hillary Clinton, nothing you said has any merit beyond being petty and insignificant. I'll address these childish accusations one by one:
- deceit - When was she deceitful? About what? How did that affect the health and well-being of our nation?
- blindly partisan - This one is ridiculous. She has voted with Republicans on many issues, including: authorizing the President to go to war if necessary (it wasn't, he did), sponsoring a flag-burning amendment, co-sponsoring legislation to curb the sale of violent video games, providing economic incentives to many industries. That is just a couple off the top of my head. How is that "blindly partisan?" Plus, she grew up a REPUBLICAN!!! She was a Goldwater Girl, for the love of elephants and Bay Buchanan!
- dishonest - About what?
- unprincipled - How? What do you mean? What principles is she lacking that you are referring to?
- arrogant - What does this mean? How is she arrogant? In comparison with George Bush, more or less arrogant? Give examples.
- underhanded - How? When? About what?
- demeaning - To whom? When? I've never heard Hillary Clinton demean anyone. Give examples.
- shrill - I won't even address this, because it would be ridiculous. This comment is petty and misogynistic and should not be included in any serious discourse.
- self-pitying - When has Hillary Clinton felt sorry for herself? What actions has she taken that would be considered "self-pitying?"
- bombastic - Do you know what the word means? Ok, it means pompous. Why would you call her pompous? Again, what is your point(s) of reference?
- "wildly overstating her bona fides" - OK, were you a character in "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" Seriously, it sounds like you wrote this from an antebellum porch in the 1920's. What did she overstate about her "bona fides?" (giggles) Sorry, that just makes me laugh.
- "never spent a day in a leadership position" - What do you call being a Senator for 7 years, chump change? How are her credentials any less than ANY other candidate on either side of the aisle? She has worked relentlessly her entire life for the legal system and this country.
- crypto-socialism - Dude, if you're making up words like this, you really don't know what you're talking about. Her health care plan has absolutely NOTHING to do with socialism. By the way, corporate America (banking, media, travel, etc.) and all the major industries in the United States (auto, farming, manufacturing, etc.) are begging the federal government for help with health care costs. This is no longer a "liberal" or Democratic issue. It's traditional Republicans who recognize the reality and want to do something about it.
Now, for your petty criticisms of Senator Hagel. You accused him of:
- vanity - Huh? What does this mean? How is he being vain? He disagrees with the way this Administration has run the country, says so, and that makes him vain? Huh? Are you sure?
- personal ambition - He is leaving politics, probably for good. He announced in March he would not run for President. He won't be on a Democratic ticket, and Ron Paul won't get the nomination. How is this personally ambitious? It sounds like exactly the opposite.
- love for the cries of the crowd - Well, you got me on that one. He may like making people happy. Bastard.
Anyhoo...sorry if I insulted you personally. It felt appropriate while I was doing it, since you took such liberty with two patriots - Clinton and Hagel. But the point is, we need to flesh out our criticisms and ideas in a rational, reasoned way. That can include some humor and some sharp words, but at the end of the day, we are AMERICANS, and we all love this country. Disagreement is good, but we need to back up our ideas with thought and evidence, as opposed to just spewing vile at those with whom we disagree. Good luck to you, Karl Daggerfield. The next year will be very difficult for you to come to terms with, but I promise, your life and the lives of those around you will be better off once this administration is gone, and Hillary Clinton is President. :)
What's wrong with being ass backwards? Wouldn't you be in more trouble if you were ass frontwards?