NE-Sen: Chuck Hagel, another Republican to break term-limit pledge?

Chuck Hagel can't decide whether he's running for president. Heck, he can't even decide if he's running for re-election in the Senate. But while the indecisive Hagel waits on a decision (what better way to extract concessions from the GOP leadership than play coy in the Senate and threaten retirement if he doesn't get what he wants?), he's starting to raise money for reelection.

Meanwhile, while Hagel decides on his future in the Senate, let's remember what he said when he first ran for the office:

I support Term Limits. However, I will not need Term Limits. Twelve years in Congress is enough for anyone. We should return to our Founding Fathers' concept of "citizen-legislator," and Term-Limits would help preserve that ideal. When elected officials stay too long in the same job, they become institutionalized and co-opted by the system. Term Limits will allow our system to reach out and encourage Americans from all walks of life to serve our country. This would provide fresh, energetic, diverse, real-life experience leadership in Congress. What a change that would be!

Let's see if he lives up to his own ideals or, as usual, if the system has co-opted Chuck Hagel.

Race tracker wiki: NE-Sen

•  Chuck "Undecided" Hagel

  Can't decide whether he supports the non-binding Iraq War resolution, can't decide whether he's running for re-election, can't decide whether he's running for President.

  I wonder how much time he spends at the sock drawer each morning.

  by zeus4prez on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:12:03 AM PDT

  •  Chuck Hamlet, R-NE. n/t

    by pat208 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:23:28 AM PDT

    •  Sonethings rotten in the State of Nebraska. n/t

      by zashvil on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:18:37 AM PDT

      •  New book: "What's Rotten with Nebraska?" n/t

        by pat208 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:23:38 AM PDT

  •  Hagel: "I'm The Undecider"

    Holding a news conference to announce that you have decided that you can't decide might have some draw backs. On one hand it gets you a lot of media attention and OTOH it portrays you as someone that is lacking the ability to make up your mind. Don't see Hagel having enough support in the Republican Party to stage a late entry into the race for President as a Republican. That leaves open the speculation that he might try to run as an Independent. Interesting.

    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:23:59 AM PDT

    •  How'd he decide about today's conference?

      Holding a news conference to announce that you have decided that you can't decide might have some draw backs.

      Boy, I'd love to see the staff meeting notes on this one!

      by pat208 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:24:54 AM PDT

    •  The Undecider

      You said it all..so true.

      by wishingwell on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:38:44 AM PDT

•  Headline: Hagel to miss benchmark?

  by Kagro X on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:13:07 AM PDT

•  Republican Terms Unlimited

  From "Republican Terms Unlimited:"

  In 1994, the GOP rode the Contract with America and its call for term limits to an overwhelming victory in the midterm elections. Newt Gingrich, the architect of the '94 Republican Revolution, saw the term limits pledge as an essential ingredient to retaking the House. But in 1991, Gingrich called terms limits "a terrible idea." To no one's surprise, many of his Republican colleagues who took the pledge now agree with him.

  As CQPolitics reports, Tennessee Representative Zach Wamp and Arizona's Jeff Flake are among 8 House Republicans breaking their three-terms-and-out oath. The others include Barbara Cubin of Wyoming, Phil English of Pennsylvania, Timothy V. Johnson of Illinois, Ric Keller of Florida, Frank A. LoBiondo of New Jersey and Mark Souder of Indiana. As the story noted, apparently no penalty applies for breach of Contract with America: "All are seeking re-election; all are solid favorites to win."

  by Avenging Angel on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:13:15 AM PDT

•  Term Limits Were Always for Democrats

  Not for patriots!

  by Gooserock on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:13:26 AM PDT

•  Fat chance

  He'll run.  He'll claim that "in a post-9/11 world, he is needed now more than ever," or something else to that effect...

  by Ken in MN on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:14:04 AM PDT

  •  after voting against his own resolution ...

    he is indeed going to go where he is needed: to sell shoes.

    by section29 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:18:18 AM PDT

•  Term limits is sooooo 1990s. 9/11 changed

  everything. Experienced leadership in these dangerous times, that's what we need. Here in Louisiana all those term limits are kicking in so everyone's just running for a different office.

  Parasites.

  by BR Janet on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:16:34 AM PDT

•  Hagel's lame dithering and equivocating

  don't argue well for his possessing decisiveness and bold leadership.

  He just can't pull his finger out.

  by bumblebums on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:17:52 AM PDT

  •  Not fair. His dithering is first rate! n/t

    by pat208 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:23:59 AM PDT

•  F'n

  waffler.

  by ThunderHawk13 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:18:19 AM PDT

•  Given all the hoopla around here leading up

  to the non-decision, this is going to cause some head scratching. (Around here is Nebraska.)The newpaper had a headline saying there would be a story today, and they claimed their website had several different articles ready to go depending on the announcement. After this it looks like the headline is, "I dunno".

  by mvr on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:19:43 AM PDT

•  Hagel keeps options open...

  I hear he may drop out of politics and open "Flip-Flop Chuck's Shoe Emporium and Tanning Salon," with outlets in Omaha, Lincoln and Bellevue.

  by zeus4prez on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:19:47 AM PDT

•  Opinion...He can win the Repub vote for Pres....

  Hopefully, some other candidate will win the  nomination, because he is a real threat to us.

  by Pink Lady on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:21:10 AM PDT

  •  He is more anti-war than some Democrats

    If the war turns bad for Bush [read America] he could lead a rebellion in the GOP. Trouble for any Democrat who sits on fence and 'leaves everything on the table'.

    by exploring on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:27:28 AM PDT

  •  actually

    my fear would be that some anti war Independents who are conservative on some other issues would vote for Hagel as well as some Democrats and moderate Republicans. I do not think Hagel would cause the Right wing Religious ones to be motivated to show up in busloads at the polls to vote. In fact, I think right wingers would not want to vote for Hagel but would hold their nose because he is anti War and not marching lock step with Bush on this war. But I think a lot of education is needed for Democrats and Independents on just how Conservative Hagel is on other issues.

    by wishingwell on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:42:20 AM PDT

    •  he might bring back

      those who consider them selves sane conservatives. I don't know any religious nuts, but hear lots of Bush hating disgusted Republicans, who would happily vote to as we do to 'take back their party.'

      by shaharazade on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:58:24 AM PDT

      •  I got the same feeling

        from CSpan's Washington Journal.  There is a yearning in the Republican Party for a change away from business as usual.  This is what happens when you tout a "Big tent" for a few years but have a very partisan, divisive platform written by the Religious Right.  The Televangilist's have run the Republican Party for almost 30 years, and the moderate Republicans and Liberterians within the Republican party are tired of the same ol' boys club.  They are craving change within their party.  I don't think Hagel would really deliver that overwhelming, but he could get a decent base for an independent run, which could hurt Dems by taking away independents and anti-war Republicans.  

        by greeninca on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:18:14 AM PDT

•  Term-limit promises aren't attack worthy

  If a sitting Congressman or Senator decides to run past an initial guarantee of terms served, I consider that an appropriate course of action and not open to negative criticism. We want the most dedicated person serving, and, if he/she feels that serving again will benefit the district/country best and is viable for re-election, I see no reason to attack. I just urge restraint when we start attacking others; not all statements by the Opposition are bad, and neither are the people on that side.

  by buzzermaster on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:21:17 AM PDT

  •  Term limits were idiotic at the time. But if

    some politician was stupid enough to endorse the idea for poll points, then they should have spine to accept the ramification of their own arguments. Or is that asking a bit much of a politician?

    by BR Janet on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:28:43 AM PDT

•  the system has co-opted him

  it got holy joe, it'll get Hagel too.

  by benmcc on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:21:59 AM PDT

•  I supported Wellstone

  when he backed off his pledge and ran for a 3rd term.  It would be hypocritical of me to condemn Hagel if he does the same thing.

  by clonecone on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:23:20 AM PDT

  •  In terms of reasons to condemn Hagel,

    this ranks near the bottom anyway. He is a walking pillar of crapulence in countless ways.

    by ablington on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:32:23 AM PDT

    •  I agree.

      I can find hundreds, if not thousands, of other reasons to slam Hagel.  

      by clonecone on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:36:59 AM PDT

  •  I can live with that.

    People can call me hypocrite all they want, if they also get to call Hagel "former Senator from Nebraska".

    As Spenser's pal Hawk says, "Consistency be da hobgoblin of little minds".

    by AdmiralNaismith on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:42:57 AM PDT

•  You mean Chuck Hagel

  might say something and then do the exact opposite?

  I'm shocked.  He has always been as reliable as Arlen Specter!

  /snark.

  :)

  by Sean in Motion on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:24:15 AM PDT

•  Rumor is

  Hagel is considering a presidential bid, not Senate re-election.
  http://www.newsmax.com/...

  Further, speculation is that he may run as an indpenedent rather than as a republican. Great news for democrats.

  We would likely see a 3 way split of the vote big enough to insure a democratic victory

  Baker believes Hagel's anti-war stance and late announcement could point to another possibility.

  "It's possible he might try to run as an independent," Baker said. "The Republican electorate is going to be a real problem for him."

  With Hagel himself raising the spectre of impeachment, I dare say he's not likely to remain welcome in the republican party for very long. He is likely to become their Joe Lieberman.

  In an interview appearing in April editions of Esquire magazine -- set to hit stands next week -- Hagel suggests that President Bush could be subject to calls for impeachment as the Iraq war drags on.

  Conservative though he may be on too many issues, you gotta admit the man has cojones. And he may well be our ticket to putting an end to the Neo-con insanity that has run amok in our country.

  by MaverickModerate on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:26:32 AM PDT

  •  Maybe he could follow the Lieberman model.

    You know, run for the Senate, for the presidency, and be a Republican, Democrat, and Independent all at the same time.  Is Joe going to be the only living person capable of this feat?  

    by trinite on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:30:26 AM PDT

    •  Maybe he will run with Lieberman as his veep

      Wouldn't that be peachy.

      by SicSemperStolidis on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:38:11 AM PDT

      •  What would we call them?

        Chameleons?

        by trinite on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:54:50 AM PDT

  •  What if it's a 3-way race

    With pro-war candidates Hillary and McCain? Then how does Hagel look?

    2008 could well be a "single-issue" election, and if Hagel runs as an independent, he will get votes, count on it, not enough to win, but enough to get McCain (or whoever the Republican is) elected.

    Very dangerous!

    by CADeminVA on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:44:22 AM PDT

    •  You have it backwards

      First of all, Clinton is NOT pro war. She is actively pushing to get us out. She won't admit her original vote was wrong, but she is definitely not supporting war now.

      Second, Hagle will ONLY take votes from Republicans. No democrat is going to vote for him. Therefore the only thing that is dangerous is to ignore the realities and paper them over with inaccurate assumptions.

      by MaverickModerate on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:12:00 AM PDT

      •  Don't be too sure of that

        Lots of people would never, ever vote for Hillary.  

        Of course, the result I see would be to give white Southerners a choice other than Hillary or McCain (or Guliani), none of whom they like.  Could be that between Hagel and a white Republican splitting the white vote, the black vote just might carry some Dixie states.  Black voters will turn out in record numbers for Hillary, or especially for Obama.

        by AdmiralNaismith on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:47:49 AM PDT

        •  Wouldn't that be a hoot!

          Imagine Texas going for the Dem because the conservative vote was split between Hagel and the Republican nominee. Ha, what delicious irony.

          by MaverickModerate on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:26:39 PM PDT

•  Isn't making decisions his job?

  So what else is new?

  by trinite on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:27:12 AM PDT

•  this was the funniest thing ever

  "I stand before you today to make an announcement... that I will make an announcement..."

  thanks... now where's that remote so I can go back to Andy Griffith?  

  by Sarahkatheryn on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:31:53 AM PDT

•  Susan Collins made the same pledge, too.

  Two terms and I'm out.

  Let's see if she lives up to her ideals.  I'm not holding my breath.

  -

  by Bill in Portland Maine on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:32:32 AM PDT

  •  I think she already publicly

    changed her mind, via the Sun Journal a couple of years ago.

    I am hoping to move back to Maine prior to 08 so that I can expend my energies ousting this woman.

    by ablington on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:37:50 AM PDT

•  He's a Republican!

  What did you expect?  They probably can't balance their budgets because they have a problem counting up to twelve!

  by Randall Sherman on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:32:46 AM PDT

•  A Key Here

  By equivocating like this, Sen. Hagel hamstrings the Nebraska Republican Party, since this makes it far more difficult for anyone else to commence a serious run, since they would have to do so as a primary challenger.  From what I can tell, all statewide offices are currently held by Republicans, so this clogs things up considerably.  According to the Omaha World-Herald, the following GOPers have expressed at least some interest in running for Hagel's seat:

  • Kermit Brashear, an Omaha lawyer and former speaker of the Nebraska Legislature.

  • Jon Bruning, who last year won a second term as Nebraska's attorney general.

  • Hal Daub, former Omaha mayor and former congressman.

  • Mike Johanns, former Lincoln mayor, former governor and current U.S. agriculture secretary.

  • Lee Terry, who recently won his fifth term as Omaha's congressman.

  • Jeff Fortenberry, Lincoln's congressman just won a second term.

  • Pete Ricketts, the Omaha businessman who lost in a landslide to Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson in 2006.

  We'll have to see whether any of them try to apply some pressure on Hagel to make up his mind one way or the other about which race (if either) he actually intends to pursue.

  by The Maven on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:32:47 AM PDT

  •  Except...

    No Democrat is going to seriously consider running against Hagel either, unfortunately. So the impact is minimal. He is trying to hold off a primary challenge I think, if he does decide to run for reelection (which is by no means a given).

    by ptmflbcs on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:13:18 AM PDT

    •  KLEEB for SENATE!

      Scott Kleeb could make a race of it.  He almost won the most Republican district in the state, and would surely do better statewide.

      Besides, he's so dreamy...

      by AdmiralNaismith on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:49:45 AM PDT

•  Today marks the day he began to lose relevance

  which is so sad because I really believed that he was a man of his words. I agree with Kos, I'll give him another chance and

  Let's see if he lives up to his own ideals or, as usual, if the system has co-opted Chuck Hagel

  He was a GOP equivalent of a Lieberman for us even if it was symbolic only since unlike Lieberman who is full of hate, he always fell in line at the behest of his leadership.

  by ameri on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:33:45 AM PDT

  •  "So sad??"

    (pukes in mouth a little)

    by ablington on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:38:32 AM PDT

•  Typical

  As a longtime watcher of Nebraska politics, I can say this is all too typical of a person who is more interested in getting his face on TV than on actually doing anything.  He could have just issued a press release, but that wouldn't have warranted the breathless coverage he got out here for the last six days.  I hope people think twice before they take anything Hagel says seriously.  (This is actually the second time this year he's punted - remember his non-couragous vote against the surge resolution?)

  by DemDuck on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:41:30 AM PDT

•  Hagel, are you serious??

  My Take: add him to the list of Senators who will be sitting in the US Capitol in January 2009 when someone else will be sworn in as the 44th US President. Remember, John F. Kennedy was the last sitting US Senator to be elected President (directly), so it doesn't happen very often, and it sure doesn't happen to a little known Senator from a non-strategic electoral state like Nebraska who hasn't lifted a finger over the past 90 days to build-up his network, hire staff, and raise $$! Think about it - outside of his stance on the Iraqi war, what does Hagel have that can separate him from the pack? McCain's got the "straight-shooter", experience factor, Rudy's got 911, and Mitt's got the executive track record as well as the look, charisma, and charm. Hagel's mostly known (w/in the Beltway - most folks haven't even heard of him) for his stance on the Iraqi war - a stance, mind you, that falls in contrast with the majority of Republican primary voters!

  By today's standards, Hagel is late to the game. The Big 3 have locked up supporters, raised tons of $$, built a network, hired key staff and consultants, and made numerous trips to speak to primary-based groups (i.e., CPAC) and campaign in key states (NH, SC, IA, etc.). Hagel hasn't done any of this. Now, if Hagel had the name recognition as Newt, this wouldn't be too crazy; however, Newt (or Al Gore for the Democrats) is the only individual who has the luxury to wait and see how things play out.

  I've liked Hagel in the Senate - he's a no BS-type of guy, who has a pragmatic way of thinking; however, this process is about aligning yourself with the Republican base and with such a big difference in thinking on Iraq, plus his 2nd or 3rd tier status as a candidate (nice way of saying he's not popular enough to raise $$), I just don't see it happening.

  www.weaselzippers.blogspot.com

  by Weasel Zipper on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:42:07 AM PDT

  •  Hopefully

    when he watches someone else get sworn in, it will be from the Visitors Gallery.

    by AdmiralNaismith on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 11:51:50 AM PDT

•  12 years is plenty of time until it's over

  I'm not sure you're going to find many Minnesota democrats blaming Hagel if he runs for the Senate again. Paul Wellstone faced the same situation and I don't think anyone wanted him to step down (on the Left, that is).

  I don't really understand Hagel's recent voting regarding troop drawdowns, in light of some of the things he's said. What I do know is that he's not afraid to stand alone, and I admire that, no matter what a person's politics.

  The guy is sincerely trying to serve his country, and I don't think he wishes harm on anyone. Maybe I'm naive, but I'm not going to hold his decisions through this against him.

  by mitc0185 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:44:02 AM PDT

  •  I just don't get it

    Wellstone came to mind when I read this, too.  I don't understand why anyone would make that kind of pledge.  Twelve years is an awful lot of future to predict.

    by SharaiP on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:16:17 AM PDT

•  Not the system co-opting them

  I'm tired of the mantra that teh system has co-opted the Republican who ran on term limits and so many other reform pledges.

  There's no evidence that tehy have been corrupted by Washington. all the evidencs is that they never planned to keep their promises. After all, the term-limit idea wasn't originally their's; it was creaed by Newt, who'd already served the 12 years.

  by Frank Palmer on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:44:11 AM PDT

•  MSNBC

  was just saying that Fred Thompson ( of Law and Order ) is thinking about running for President. We all know how that worked out last time there was an Actor who won the Presidency. ( of course most of these Republicans are Actors, they act like all is peachy and that they really give a damn)

  by wishingwell on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:45:31 AM PDT

•  Hagel's nonannouncement announcement

  Is a perfect complement to Hillary's announcement nonannouncement (officially, she's only fired up an exploratory committee.)

  by curtadams on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:58:32 AM PDT

•  Try to Remember.....and I Emailed him about it...

  Hagel's wonderful speech about the War and that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the Dems on the vote twice already.  Whatever else you think of Senator Hagel and how he voted, cut him some slack for his stance on THIS WAR.  I was in my late teens at the height of the Viet Nam War.  Nothing since has divided the country like that War did....not even Iraq, because....they were drafted and 59,000 of them never came back.   Since 1/2 of my family is Republican, and after some bitter down and out fights where we did not speak to each other for weeks on end over politics, I have tried to LISTEN to the other side, even though I do not agree with them.  Senator Hagel is a hero to me, because he went against a MACHINE to tell us all, (D) and (R) alike, what he thinks about the War.  That MACHINE punishes their own swiftly and horribly.  I try to look at some of what I call the Moderate Republicans as a fresh start towards bipartisanship willing to work it out with some of our more Moderate Democrats.  

  by Boca Babs on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:59:18 AM PDT

•  qwatz

  hagel is doing what jesse did in 1984 and 1988 (the years of "run jesse run") - he is running by not running. just keeping his name alive.

  by 2liberal on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:05:48 AM PDT

•  Hagels Staff Confirms He IS

  Running to keep his office in 08

  by OneCrankyDom on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:22:17 AM PDT

•  3 Way Race?

  After hearing his comments on CNN, it sounds to me like he is seriously considering running as an independent.  He pretty much dissed the Republican Party in a much publicsied non-announcement.  He couldn't win the Republican nod(not enough antiwar republicans), but he could be tempted to run on a Unity ticket or as an Independent.  Th good news for dems....No one really knows who he is....and they said Obama was an Unknown, currently Hagel's favorbility ratings are 10% Favor, 11% Do not favor, 79% Do not know.  

  by greeninca on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 10:57:16 AM PDT

•  Independent?

  I heard part of his speech and was struck by the scathing words for "his" party.  Could this have been a warning shot fired across the bow of the Republican ship of state?  My first fleeting thought was that he was abandoning the GOP.  But common sense quickly told me that since he is the most reliably Conservative of senators, this couldn't be the case.  

  But Independent...?  Could be.

  by miriam on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 12:36:27 PM PDT

•  Hmm.

  Let's see if he lives up to his own ideals or, as usual, if the system has co-opted Chuck Hagel.

  You're talking like it's something that got done to Chuck, not something that he's done to/for himself.

  Chuck Hagel is hardly a victim of the system -- let's not go there, even a little bit, mmkay?

  by Mehitabel9 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 02:03:17 PM PDT