Hagel's Moment?

Washington Post ^ | 30 November 2006 | David Ignatius

[MSF BU]

Actually, Ford received fewer votes than Reagan when you tally up all of the caucus and primary votes. Ford went on to lose the election. Hunter was working on the Reagan 76 campaign.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Hunter may have liked Reagan and worked for him, but that doesn't mean they share the same ideology. Reagan championed supply-side economics and free trade; Hunter is a protectionist.

[MSF BU]

Really? Was that what he did when he told the Japanese to impose voluntary import quota's and build factories in the United States?

[mwl1]

I don't care how conservative Hagel is on most issues.

He never misses an opportunity to bash his own party and its leaders, kissing up to the MSM. He's a media whore.

I'd rather have McCain, who presumably would die in office and then we'd have President Pawlenty.

[mwl1]

Frankly, Senator Allen was the closest we had to be the Reagan heir and to unify all factions of the party. Because of that threat, the WaPo and the Clintons shrewdly saw to his prompt destruction.

[Austin Willard Wright]

I don't care how conservative Hagel is on most issues.

I'm more interested in advancing the casue small government than in who bashes whom. Besides, the GOP because of its support for bigger government and thus deserves his bashing, and them some!

[George W. Bush]

True. But Allen knew he had to run the gauntlet of a hostile press. And he couldn't pull it off in a statewide race. I would guess that Hagel recognizes that Allen was the single greatest obstacle to his running for POTUS.

Best that we know early about Allen. I still think Hagel is an incredible longshot even if Allen's defeat leaves an opening that Romney may not fit so well.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

The only issue that Hagel is not "conservative" on, according to many on this board, is Iraq. However, I would argue that he IS conservative on this issue. "Neo-conservatism" is really rooted in Wilsoniansm, and this sort of mentality was later championed by FDR, JFK, and LBJ. It is not in any way conservative. Some domestic conservatives started blending this liberal foreign policy idea into conservatism, and that seems to have spilled over into spending habits. Throw in this administration's hostility towards civil liberties and pandering to the Christian Right, we have a case of big government gone way out of control in every area imaginable.

I like, many on this board, am not warm to McCain, Giuliani, or Romney, but not for the same reasons at all. I feel that any of these three would be much like a continuation of President Bush, and would be disastrous on civil liberties and foreign policy issues. Hot-button wedge social issues should be the LEAST of worries in comparison. Hagel is the one acceptable candidate I've seen so far. My top choice would be former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, but as far as I know he has no plans to run. I would also support Dick Armey, but I don't think he has any plans to jump into it.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

The only issue that Hagel is not "conservative" on, according to many on this board, is Iraq. However, I would argue that he IS conservative on this issue. "Neo-conservatism" is really rooted in Wilsoniansm, and this sort of mentality was later championed by FDR, JFK, and LBJ. It is not in any way conservative. Some domestic conservatives started blending this liberal foreign policy idea into conservatism, and that seems to have spilled over into spending habits. Throw in this administration's hostility towards civil liberties and pandering to the Christian Right, we have a case of big government gone way out of control in every area imaginable.

I like, many on this board, am not warm to McCain, Giuliani, or Romney, but not for the same reasons at all. I feel that any of these three would be much like a continuation of President Bush, and would be disastrous on civil liberties and foreign policy issues. Hot-button wedge social issues should be the LEAST of worries in comparison. Hagel is the one acceptable candidate I've seen so far. My top choice would be former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, but as far as I know he has no plans to run. I would also support Dick Armey, but I don't think he has any plans to jump into it.

[George W. Bush]

The only issue that Hagel is not "conservative" on, according to many on this board, is Iraq. However, I would argue that he IS conservative on this issue. "Neo-conservatism" is really rooted in Wilsoniansm, and this sort of mentality was later championed by FDR, JFK, and LBJ. It is not in any way conservative. Some domestic conservatives started blending this liberal foreign policy idea into conservatism, and that seems to have spilled over into spending habits. Throw in this administration's hostility towards civil liberties and pandering to the Christian Right, we have a case of big government gone way out of control in every area imaginable.

I like the way you put this. What we see is now is something of a blend between domestic McCarthyism, foreign Wilsonianism, and an LBJ guns-and-butter war approach.

Hagel doesn't go for it. The key to understanding Hagel is understanding Eisenhower. Eisenhower rejected and despised Richard Nixon and McCarthy. And his farewell address to the nation was a warning about the military-industrial complex (Ike coined the term). While Hagel and Eisenhower could not be called isolationist, they would be realists in foreign policy and only take the nation to war for concrete reasons.

I'm not saying people should love Hagel or that he could or should be elected. But his positions are pretty reliably conservative and consistent, unlike McStain's. Still, he has less charisma than a fence post and is only a senator so he's a long shot at best.