RK ARCHIVE - ANALYSIS: Good points disillusioned Republicans should consider from Chuck Hagel

Below is the link and transcript of Sen. Chuck Hagel being interviewed on FOX News Sunday from August 20. Here is the FOX News link to the video of this interview:

This is an excellent interview for disillusioned Republicans to see in my opinion because Hagel made some excellent and non partisan points. Here are some good examples:
"But I would say this. Both parties are at significant peril in the election this year if they continue to define down to the lowest political common denominator this issue of terrorism..."

"Now, the fact is +貚曌Gォ bottom line, Chris +貚曌Gォ there are very few options here. We don't have any good options. We've got a mess on our hands in the Middle East. We've got two wars. We just lost four Americans yesterday in Afghanistan. Things aren't going well there. We've got a peace in Lebanon that is barely holding.
So to continue to feed American troops into this (Iraq) I think takes away America's diplomatic options and military options because we're more and more bogged down..."

"Well, the facts of life are we are accountable. We are the majority party. We have been the governing party for 12 years. We had a little blip there in the Senate when Senator Jeffords left the Republican Party, but that's what life is about, Chris. It's about accountability..."

This is something very important Hagel says that ALL disillusioned, sincere, and honest Republicans need to seriously think about before they vote in November:

"What I think the answer is as a Republican +貚曌Gォ I've been a Republican all my life.

First time I voted was in 1968 on top of a tank in the Mekong Delta. I voted a straight Republican ticket. The reason I did is because I believe in the Republican philosophy of governance. It's not what it used to be. I don't think it's the same today.

Where is the fiscal responsibility of the party I joined in '68? Where is the international engagement of the party I joined, fair, free trade, individual responsibility, not building a bigger government, but building a smaller government?

I think we've lost our way. And I think the Republicans are going to be in some jeopardy for that and will be held accountable. Now, the people of each state and of this country will make their own decisions."

Disillusioned and moderate Republicans have got to understand that in order for them to have any say in the GOP (which they do not have now at all) that the current arrogant, extreme, and irresponsible GOP Neocon leadership have got to lose some power in this election (at least one branch of Congress) so that they can be held accountable for their behavior!

They also have to understand that if they vote for Bush rubber stamp GOP candidates that they have no right to complain if the things that Hagel complains about continue on for the next two years with no form of accountability. They have their chance this November to vote to hold Bush and the extreme GOP Neocon leadership accountable and they will not get that chance again for another two years if they miss it now!

It is important to see that Hagel is paying a political price for saying the things that he is saying:

"WALLACE: After we announced your appearance this week, we got some e-mail from our conservative viewers saying, hey, this guy's really a Democrat. And I'm sure today, listening to this, some of them are saying that."

RUSH: "But you've got Republicans -- and you know who they are. They're Chuck Hagel and Lindsey Graham and McCain, you know, and they're off the reservation doing their own thing, and it's that lack of unity on the Republican side that is causing there not to be a forceful defense of our policy on the Republican side and a proper definition of our enemy."

June 30, 2005, 9:42 a.m.
Chuck Hagel MovesOn
Meet the antiwar group+貚曌G劌s new spokesman on Iraq.

"The Left-wing antiwar group MoveOn, a key Democratic support, has found a new spokesman in Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (R., France)."

Chuck Hagel is someone who you may not agree with on every issue (I do not know of any two people who will agree on each and every issue) but he is an excellent example of a Republican who is in the mainstream and who is "putting country ahead of party" in my opinion!

He is also setting the right example for Republicans to question the GOP leadership which can help to get more Democratic votes in November or at least help encourage disillusioned Republicans to stay at home on election day if they will not vote for a Democrat!

Please forward this on for all disillusioned and moderate Republicans to see that a vote for ANY Bush rubber stamp GOP candidate in November is a vote for "more of the same" of what Hagel is complaining about and is a vote for lack of accountability on the part of Bush and from the extreme GOP Neocon leadership!

Hopefully this can help Jim Webb win over some disillusioned Republican voters that he needs to get to defeat Bush rubber stamp George Allen!

http://www.securinga...
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program:

An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda which will help our local candidates to win their races!

The following is a partial transcript from the Aug. 20, 2006, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace":
"FOX NEWS SUNDAY HOST" CHRIS WALLACE: Joining us now, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, member of the Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of administration policy.

WALLACE: A federal judge this week ruled that the NSA's warrantless wiretap program is unconstitutional, and the president very shortly thereafter responded that those who support the judge's decision do not understand the world we live in.

In this particular case, do you find yourself siding with the president or the judge?

HAGEL: Chris, I'm one of the senators who has authored legislation to address the balance, which is, I think, critical +貚曌Gォ has been for all the years that our country has been a thriving democracy, a balance between guaranteeing the rights of individuals enshrined in the Constitution and the security of our country.

We've done that very successfully. I think we will continue to do that successfully. On the court case itself, I'm not surprised that you had a judge challenge that. We have legislation now in the Senate, and I understand the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, will hold another hearing, maybe even a markup, on September 7.

HAGEL: I do. And I think that we need to find a new law. Of the law that we are operating with now was crafted in 1978. Technology has taken all of these issues far beyond that law, so we need a new law. And it needs a law +貚曌Gォ we need a law that is relevant to today's threats.

WALLACE: But, Senator, your party jumped on this decision. I want you to take a look at something that was issued by the Republican National Committee the day of the decision. Here's the title: Liberal Judge Backs Dem Agenda to Weaken National Security. And a Republican spokeswoman says that this shows the fundamental choice between Republicans and Democrats.

HAGEL: Excuse me. Well, Chris, I can't speak for the party. I don't speak for the party. I don't defend the party. They do a very adequate job of that themselves.

But I would say this. Both parties are at significant peril in the election this year if they continue to define down to the lowest political common denominator this issue of terrorism.

We have on the one side the Democrats running around saying well, the Republicans are warmongers, they want to take your rights away from you, you can't trust them. The Republicans, evidenced by that headline you threw up, are saying about the Democrats they're cut and run, you can't trust them.

What's going to happen here +貚曌Gォ not only is there going to be a response to this in the November 7th election, but if you continue to debase this issue, a very serious issue +貚曌Gォ terrorism is a serious issue. It is a threat. It's real.

If you continue to define it down to the lowest political common denominator for both parties, then what you're going to find is the American people not taking it seriously, that it's just another wedge issue. I've talked about that.

I don't think those kind of headlines do any good. I don't like it. I've said it, even though it's my own party. This is a real issue. This is consuming our country, this one issue. For the last five years, we have been consumed with terrorism. We've been consumed with the concern of our security.

We're engaged in two wars overseas right now, and so it's too serious to be left to headline seekers of politicians or political parties.

WALLACE: All right. Let's turn to one of those wars, Iraq. In an interview you gave to the Omaha World Herald a couple of weeks ago, you said +貚曌Gォ and let's put it up on the screen +貚曌Gォ "Conditions in Iraq are an absolute replay of Vietnam." You said, "U.S. soldiers are easy targets in a country that has fallen into absolute anarchy."

Question: Is the president's effort, policy, mission to create a unified democratic Iraq a lost cause?

HAGEL: Well, history will determine that. I can't determine that. You can't either. The fact...

HAGEL: The fact is we are where we are. We're not going to go back and replay or unwind the bad decisions, and I think we made them right from the beginning, beginning with the fact that we didn't have enough troops going in. But that's essentially irrelevant now.

It's how do we get out of this mess. We've got a very unstable Middle East, I think the most unstable Middle East we've seen since 1948. And you can measure that any way you want. The fact is the future of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqi people just like it was in Vietnam.

The answer, in my opinion, is not to just keep feeding more American troops into it. The Iraqi people have already made some decisions here. We, in fact, are in probably a low grade, maybe a very defined, civil war.

You've got corruption everywhere, as bad as it's ever been. You've got uncontrollables that we can't control, we can't deal with. Iran probably has more influence in Iraq than we do at this point.

So what do we do? We have to play the cards we have right now, and that is that we are going to have to do everything we can, as we have been doing, to assist Iraqis to start governing, to start defending themselves, start supporting themselves.

Now, we've made a big deal out of the fact that they have a functioning constitution +貚曌Gォ that's a significant achievement. An elected, fair free government, unity government +貚曌Gォ significant achievement. Now they must govern themselves. They must support themselves.

WALLACE: But you have said that you think that we should begin pulling troops out within six months.

HAGEL: Well, how is it going to make things better for us to continue to kill Americans and put Americans in the middle of a civil war that we have less and less control and influence over every day? How does that stabilize things?

This is going to play out, Chris, on its own. I'm not saying pull out of Iraq. That's not what I've said. I've said start withdrawing troops. We have to show the Iraqi people +貚曌Gォ and this obviously cuts right to the great anti-Americanism by any poll, by any measurements there +貚曌Gォ that we are not there to predetermine their outcome. We're not there to control or to govern. They are going to have to do that.

Now, the fact is +貚曌Gォ bottom line, Chris +貚曌Gォ there are very few options here. We don't have any good options. We've got a mess on our hands in the Middle East. We've got two wars. We just lost four Americans yesterday in Afghanistan. Things aren't going well there. We've got a peace in Lebanon that is barely holding.

So to continue to feed American troops into this I think takes away America's diplomatic options and military options because we're more and more bogged down.

WALLACE: After we announced your appearance this week, we got some e-mail from our conservative viewers saying, hey, this guy's really a Democrat. And I'm sure today, listening to this, some of them are saying that.

Let's go over some of your positions and put them up on the screen. You favor direct talks with Iran, Syria and Hamas. Three weeks ago you called for an immediate truce with Hezbollah, saying the Israeli offensive was hurting our standing in the Middle East.

You've been very critical, as we've just heard, of U.S. policy in Iraq. And you have problems with NSA wiretaps and parts of the Patriot Act. When it comes to national security, are you closer to John Kerry than you are to George W. Bush?

HAGEL: Chris, I'm going to go back to the comment I made earlier. When it comes to war, Americans dying in a war, national security, it should never be held captive to a political agenda. I think that's wrong. I've said it's wrong.

I don't base my analysis and judgment and votes on war, national security, on a party position. I don't think that's the right thing to do. I don't think Americans really want us to do that.

Now, if you look at my record, my voting record +貚曌Gォ I've been in the Senate 10 years. Do you have any idea what my voting record is in support of the Bush administration position the last six years, the Republican Party? It's about 95 percent over 10 years. My record is about as conservative as any conservative Republican in the United States Senate. It is constantly +貚曌Gォ the American Conservative Union constantly rates me as one of the highest.

So I don't apologize, Chris, to you or anyone else for my position. My conservative credentials are pretty clear.

When it comes to war, Democrats die in war just like Republicans, and we debase war and the responsibility we have when we try to make it captive to a political position or a political party. I won't do that.

WALLACE: All right. Let's talk some politics. I know you don't like politics and national security, but this is pure politics. Connecticut Senate race +貚曌Gォ Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman?

WALLACE: Would you agree that Ned Lamont's positions on all these issues we've discussed today are closer to yours than Joe Lieberman's are?

HAGEL: But we also have a lot of other issues like pro-life, like tax policy, like spending policy. See, that's my point, too, Chris. Being a United States Senator is more than just talking about Iraq.

And no, I'm not very close to Lamont on the whole scope of issues. He's a liberal Democrat.

WALLACE: Let's talk +貚曌Gォ you gave an interview early this year about the prospects of the GOP in November, and you said there were storm clouds over this party, that they elected us as the majority to rule and if we don't, they're going to hold us to account.

That was in January. We're now in August. Do you think that the Republicans have lived up to that challenge?

HAGEL: Well, the facts of life are we are accountable. We are the majority party. We have been the governing party for 12 years. We had a little blip there in the Senate when Senator Jeffords left the Republican Party, but that's what life is about, Chris. It's about accountability.

And so you can't go out and read off talking points and then not have some connection to actually getting it done as the governing party.

HAGEL: Well, we'll find out on November 7th. I don't think the answer is the alternative that the Democrats present because I don't know what that alternative is. What I think the answer is as a Republican +貚曌Gォ I've been a Republican all my life.

WALLACE: Finally, you've left open the possibility of running for president in 2008. In a new book about you, your wife, Lilibet, is quoted as being less than thrilled at the prospect of being first lady. Here's what she has to say, according to the book: Lilibet said having her husband in the White House wouldn't be number one on her list of desirable occupations.

Fair to say, Senator, that that's the first primary you're going to have to win?

HAGEL: Well, I am a long way from making a decision on what I'm going to do. I think it just shows the immense good judgment of my wife and how sane she is. I don't know of any spouse who would wish the job of president on their husband or wife. It's a big job. It's a tough job.

Obviously, it's a great privilege to serve this country in any job, and I'm very, very happy and proud that I have the opportunity and privilege to serve my country and my state in the United States Senate.

WALLACE: Senator Hagel, we're going to have to leave it there. Thank you so much for...

Comments

WASHINGTON POST: For Hagel, Standing Up Brought a Fall From Favor (Mitch Dworkin - 8/22/2006 2:57:17 PM)

Democratic candidates should be specifically asking for the votes of these kind of disillusioned Republicans!

I am sure that there are many upset "Chuck Hagel Republicans" out there who can be won over if Democrats asked them for their votes:

http://www.washingto...

For Hagel, Standing Up Brought a Fall From Favor

By Eric Pianin

Tuesday, August 22, 2006; Page A13

Chuck Hagel: Moving Forward

Charlyne Berens

University of Nebraska Press, 230 pp. $25

Not long ago, Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John McCain of Arizona were the Stardust Twins of the GOP, both decorated Vietnam War veterans and fearless conservative mavericks who occupied much the same political ground.

Hagel was at McCain's side when the Arizonan waged a bitter presidential primary battle against George W. Bush in 2000, and he introduced McCain to the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia. By then, of course, McCain's "Straight Talk Express" campaign had been derailed by Bush, while Hagel's popularity among party regulars surged to the point that he was mentioned as a possible running mate for Bush.

But six years later, that picture has been turned upside down: McCain has morphed from party outsider to Bush administration booster and a leading contender for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. Hagel, meanwhile, has tumbled from grace within the party after repeatedly challenging the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill and leveling bruising critiques of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and domestic policy.

How could the onetime toast of the GOP have fallen so far, and what are the chances that Hagel will run for president in 2008 in the face of so many obstacles? In her new book, "Chuck Hagel: Moving Forward," University of Nebraska at Lincoln journalism professor Charlyne Berens attempts to answer those questions with a sympathetic portrait of a public figure who is immensely appealing and astute, yet the architect of his own political frustrations.

Berens begins her book noting that Hagel, a loyal Republican and internationalist in outlook, "time and again has taken shots at his party's and his president's engagement -- or lack of it -- with the rest of the world" and has scolded his conservative colleagues for their unilateralist tendencies. Hagel strongly values international alliances and global institutions such as the United Nations and NATO, a view that he has enunciated from his perch on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and that put him at odds with Bush's early go-it-alone approach to foreign policy.

Hagel commands respect for his thoughtful views on foreign policy, his one real passion in the Senate, and his candor has made him a favorite of the Washington press corps, as when he declared after Bush was nominated for a second term that the Republican Party "has come loose of its moorings."

Yet that same independent streak that marked his formative years and his remarkable climb to power has hurt his relations with many of his Republican colleagues and diminished his effectiveness as a lawmaker. While McCain has vigorously defended Bush's war policies and mended fences with the Rev. Jerry Falwell and other right-wing foes, Hagel's complaints about the war and his opposition to the No Child Left Behind education plan and other signature Bush domestic initiatives have marginalized his prospects as a presidential candidate.

As Hagel's chief of staff, Lou Ann Linehan, often lamented: "I don't know why we have to run in front of every bullet."

"So now he's considering running for the presidency," Berens writes. "Just how will his outspokenness affect that aspiration?"

Berens offers a wide range of opinions and speculation on the subject from political scholars and operatives, but by the conclusion of the book, the questions of whether Hagel will run or could mount an effective campaign are left hanging.

Authors of speculative books on politics run the risk of being overtaken by events, and Berens's observations have a slightly dated feel. Her book leaves off in early 2005, with the Hamlet-like Hagel still pondering his future. But a lot has happened since then, and other Republicans, including McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Sen. George Allen of Virginia, are way ahead of Hagel in organization, fundraising and prominence in the polls.

For all the frustration Hagel expresses about the Republican Party, he is philosophically in tune with many of its traditional stances. He is an ardent free-trader, favors as little government as possible (wishful thinking in an era of exploding government growth) and supports limits to government intrusion in the private lives of Americans, while Bush has authorized warrantless wiretaps of telephones and e-mails.

Hagel, 59, still has bits of shrapnel in his chest and the remnants of burns to his face from his service as an infantryman in Vietnam in the late 1960s. Unlike his brother, Tom, who walked point with him in the same infantry unit, Hagel supported the war effort and never took part in protests. It took decades of study and reflection before he came around to his brother's conclusion that the war had been a huge mistake and that, as he described it, "there was just so much dishonesty in it."

Recently, Hagel called Iraq "an absolute replay of Vietnam."

The book suggests that Hagel's Vietnam experience helped to shape his internationalist perspective and to put him on a track to a political career. It also may have heavily influenced his views on the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- which he voted to authorize and later came to regret -- as well as his skepticism of the administration's motives and dismay with its performance. He has asserted that the White House has lost touch with reality and that the reconstruction effort in Iraq is "beyond pitiful."

In the fall of 2004, Harold W. Andersen, the retired publisher of the Omaha World-Herald, wrote a column for the paper declaring that Nebraska Republicans were tired of Hagel's criticism of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. Hagel responded that it was his responsibility as a senator to ask the hard questions that "were not asked when we sent young men and women into Vietnam."

"Where were our elected officials then?" he asked, with the same straight-from-the-shoulder forthrightness that has gotten him into hot water with his party.

Pianin is the Post's congressional editor.