View Story | 312 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
I love to speculate.
John McCain votes against Children's Healthcare
by Hope08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:20:48 PM PDT
He has a 0 percent rating with NARAL.
No way that pro-choice Dems will vote for an anti-abortion Republican to be one heart beat away from appointing the next U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
"We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans." -- Barack Obama
by jhutson on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:26:34 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Now, go spread some peace, love and understanding. Use force if necessary. - Phil N DeBlanc
by lineatus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:29:47 PM PDT
More needs to be said. Not a huge issue because:
by mangusta on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:30:59 PM PDT
NO.
You might as well ask McCain to choose Feingold or Kucinich as his running mate. This is proof positive that the pundits are starting lose their minds.
We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/
by anastasia p on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:30:33 PM PDT
How weird.
Make your voice heard! MichiganDecides.com!
by cartwrightdale on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:02:39 PM PDT
Politics is like sports, it doesn't build character it reveals character.
by Sassy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:16:55 PM PDT
Want to see women never support Obama? Pick Hagel. First of all, current Obama supporters would have to think our candidate had more than lost his bearings if he chose an anti-choice Republican.
But at a time when we're trying to unite, to welcome back our sisters who were fighting the good fight for women's issues, we say, oh and here's your consolation prize: a guy who'd give the gov rights over your body. That will never work.
by MazeDancer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:33:01 PM PDT
by Hope08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:52:27 PM PDT
Although the large majority of Democratic women are pro-choice, the large majority of Republican women are pro-life (and the indies are split 50/50). So, theoretically you could still argue that Hagel would convince enough Republican-leaning women to jump ship from McCain to counter the pro-choice women who would be turned off by him. Theoretically, anyway.
by cartwrightdale on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:07:53 PM PDT
are a moot point. The media might like to wonder about "OMG, what will hillary supporters do!?". In a month, this whole primary business will be a distant memory. Dont worry about party unity. Trust me.
-1.12 / -5.54
by spookthesunset on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:17:30 PM PDT
when the first really viable female running for present is about to lose and woman are voting for her in pretty large numbers.
by gatti on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:44:36 PM PDT
he would appoint if he became President? Back to the dark ages.
by cph on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:15:33 PM PDT
Not all republicans are evil nor idiots. Hagel surely is neither. If it came to that, he would probably nominate middle-of-the-road judges that can be confirmed by a Senate dominated by democrats (the not an idiot part)
by mangusta on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:39:50 PM PDT
I agree with your closing statement - we need to think out of the box. We've gotten this far. No need to fear a Hagel or a Nunn or some of the other "out of the box" candidates being discussed.
by fcvaguy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:28:59 PM PDT
The heart beat away thing is the kicker. I don't like it. But I think this ticket would guarantee sweeping victories of Democrats into Congress. Even if he got there, a Progressive agenda would prevail.
by Hope08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:30:57 PM PDT
too bad an honest debate here isn't going to happen.
Obama will be a bit more open to this, thankfully, than most people here.
Why?
by David Kroning on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:32:56 PM PDT
Hagel is a conservative Republican..we've had 8 years of that in the White House, longer in Congress. The whole idea behind the candidacy of Barack Obama is change..and you don't get that with a conservative republican who has sided with Bush 90% of the time...might as well just keep Cheney as VP!
by StuHunter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:36:41 PM PDT
saying Hagel is like Cheney is completely uninformed...Hagel HATES Cheney and everything he stands for just like us.
by David Kroning on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:39:15 PM PDT
Hagel has collaberated on a ton of bi-partisan sponsorship of bills with Obama already. Hagel is very anti-Bush / anti-Cheney.
I have always liked the concept of Hagel being a possible VP pick. I think he would eliminate the GOP talking-points and would draw a ton of support from across the aisle.
As for being pro-choice, I don't believe that Hagel would do anything to change that (esp if he was on the Dem ticket with the Dem Party Platform).
by seattlegirl on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:44:54 PM PDT
remember that little get-together that Bloomberg and Hagal had? It was about creating a third party...
And, they nixed it because they knew Obama had it in the bag after Super Tuesday.
Even if Hagal is not VP, he will be in the Cabinent. Perhaps Sec. of Defense.
by David Kroning on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:46:31 PM PDT
Very good point! I think that was the plan all along. Even though Bloomberg has not publicly endorsed anyone, I think he and Obama have been talking about if the election was stolen from him bolting to a 3rd Party. I would not be at all surprised if Hagel was part of that discussion / that 3rd Party type of strategy.
Basically, sane voices want to take back DC from the special interests, the neo-cons (and not all Reps are neo-cons by any stretch of the imagination), and building a working majority.
I think an Obama / Hagel ticket would ensure a win in November and create a working majority. I am not sure if it is too epic...but it is nice to ponder the concept of true bi-partisanship.
by seattlegirl on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:18:20 PM PDT
Has lunacy completely taken over this website? Hagel is a very very conservative Republican who doesn't support women's rights. Why on earth would you want to put him a heartbeat away from the Presidency. If he were running against Obama, you wouldn't consider voting for him in a million years. Just because he was right (sort of) on one issue in his entire career does not make him a candidate for VP.
by cph on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:20:18 PM PDT
not at all David, since Hagel has supported Bush/Cheney on everything except the war..again, put the pipe down. When I hear Hagel denounce Cheney, and take a stand against him, you'll be vindicated..until then, you're drfeaming!
by StuHunter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:50:01 PM PDT
figure out the difference between a neo-con fascist who hides out in Repub clothes and an honest conservative.
You aren't going to eliminate the latter, but we damn sure need to get rid of the former.
by David Kroning on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:51:47 PM PDT
Im waiting for a link showing me where Hagel has denounced Cheney and not voted with him on everything except Iraq... show me..
by StuHunter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:54:43 PM PDT
You asked what Hagel disagrees with the Bush Administration on...the answer - Pretty much everything - this is an excerpt of what Hagel said:
"As to my personal opinion, which I have not been shy about sharing, I think as most of you know in speeches or interviews, this administration in my opinion has been as unprepared as any administration I'm aware of, not only the ones that I have been somehow connected to and that's been every administration -- either I've been in Washington or worked within an administration or Congress or some way dealing with them since the first Nixon administration. I would rate this one the lowest in capacity, in capability, in policy, in consensus -- almost every area, I would give it the lowest grade.
And I have to say -- this is my opinion -- it is my opinion that this is one of the most arrogant, incompetent administrations I've ever seen personally or ever read about. (Laughter.) And when you think of the time and the opportunities that have been squandered by this administration, that's how you judge -- you all know about this, especially those of you in financial services, but anybody who does anything with time."
Here are a series of awesome links (the first one has the quotes and much more on policy issues as well):
http://www.cfr.org/...
This article shows that Hagel is a pragmatist at heart (just like Obama). He does not believe in the Bush Administration's worldview when it comes to Iraq, Iran, diplomacy (he believes in talking with your enemies just like Obama does), global warming - he believes there are issues with our environment (but they have to be solved in conjunction with business), and we need renewable energy sources and conservation.
Hagel says, "And so I -- to your question about who is in my opinion closest to my foreign policy, John McCain is the only one that I -- of the candidates that I've worked closely with -- of the Republicans. 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's. And I think Biden would be a very good president. I think Joe Biden would be a very good secretary of State."
He also says:
"What has prevented a World War III or a nuclear holocaust, in my opinion, more than any one thing, is what Truman, Eisenhower and Marshall and others worked for after World War II -- building coalitions of common interest -- the United Nations, NATO, World Bank, IMF, dozens of multilateral banks and institutions. Why? Because they were focused on a common interest. This was not a zero-sum game. Alliances are absolutely critical. And what we learned from Iraq is that you can't unilaterally, arbitrarily march into a country, invade a sovereign nation, regardless of the dynamics or the reasons or whatever you want to make as the primary focus on this, without alliances, the strength of those alliances."
http://swamppolitics.com/...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
And this is interesting...he basically says that both Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton are reckless on their Iran stance (and that was before Hillary's "obliterate Iran" comments, but Hagel seems to be a good judge of character):
"The politician who has spoken the strongest words against the recklessness of Giuliani is not a Democrat, but Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. It was Hagel who had the nerve to denounce the self-indulgence of Giuliani, when the latter pushed hard to outbid the president in rhetorical posturing against Iran. This was speaking of war in such a way as to make a war inevitable, said Hagel; and it put our own soldiers at risk. Hagel rightly included Hillary Clinton in his condemnation. For her vote to declare the Islamic Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, and her scorn of the "naivete" of talking to Iran, added up to another attempt to overmatch the president in the game of who is the toughest.
One other thing sets Hagel apart from Clinton and Giuliani, as it also sets him apart from Cheney and Bush. He has fought in a war, a war on the ground, and has seen what it is for soldiers and civilians to die."
Hope this helps! Let me know your thoughts.
by seattlegirl on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:52:44 PM PDT
stronger too
by mangusta on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:42:10 PM PDT
of the debate. I agree with you 100%, but I'm really wiped tonight and too tired to argue :)
by fcvaguy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:45:20 PM PDT
Wasn't sure it was clear in your diary or if you had even considered it... but reading the comments, I think many people believe if this happened, he would remain a Republican. That would be unacceptable, imo. He would have to become a Democrat before being selected as VP.
What do you think?
by fcvaguy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:44:17 PM PDT
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. -- Thomas Jefferson
by DWKING on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:54:55 PM PDT
which he can't do because he is ultra conservative on social issues...
by StuHunter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:56:51 PM PDT
by fcvaguy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:57:35 PM PDT
reads DailyKos and thinks the same. How do I know this? Show me a link that disagrees with me. I shouldn't have to research opposing views, I already know they are wrong or are published by corporate media that is biased or scared of $MY_CANIDATE.
Anything by $MY_VIEWS are republican talking points.
by spookthesunset on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:20:22 PM PDT
I think that becoming a Democrat would be good but not necessary.
by Hope08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:07:38 PM PDT
by anastasia p on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:33:13 PM PDT
you site. We'll see how the summer goes. But if things are still close, I think this would be the ticket to seal the deal.
More than anything, the swing voter wants an end to the war. It's the core of Obama's agenda. Hagel reinforces it strongly.
by Hope08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:36:11 PM PDT
easy to interpret on face value. This being said, Hagel is a conservative republican, but as far as you can get from a neo-con, and most definitely he does not "=" Bush, see for instance the quotes from seattlegirl above, and there are many more in the same vein.
by mangusta on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:52:55 PM PDT
Obama were to explain it well. Nothing should be out of the question.
Ecrasez l'infame!
by jeff in nyc on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:33:23 PM PDT
Good ideas rarely emerge from watching Hardball.
A liberal is a conservative who's been hugged.
by raatz on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:22:10 PM PDT
Wash, rinse repeat. I will NEVER EVER EVER vote for a republican, EVER.
"Universal health care for every man, woman & child. That is our cause." -John Edwards 1/30/2008 [-8.63, -7.03]
by jesses on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:19:34 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 312 comments