Hagel & Thompson

Tom Bevan writes an interesting piece about Fred Thompson and Chuck Hagel - but he's more interesting in speaking about the latter. He says there's little room for a successful Presidential bid by Hagel either as a Republican or an Independent:

The final twist in the story is that Hagel gave a few hints on Monday that he may be positioning himself to run as an independent. But it's hard to see how Hagel would be able to muster much support going that route either. The lure of an independent bid is a candidate who takes moderate, mainstream and/or unorthodox positions on a variety of issues. Hagel is more or less a down-the-line conservative who happens to be an apostate on Iraq. Those who are adamantly against the war will most likely vote Democrat, and those who lean conservative but are frustrated with Iraq will most likely stick with the Republican candidate -- especially if that candidate offers a legitimate hope of prosecuting the war with more competence and better results than the current administration. That leaves a very small pool of voters for Hagel to draw from.

But even though he won't have a serious chance of winning, Hagel may still take the plunge as an independent. Therein lays an ironic subplot to the story: If the race between the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees does turn out to be close, a third-party bid by Hagel might result in a most unhappy ending for Republicans in 2008.

Bevan's implication is absolutely correct: Hagel may siphon off enough conservative voters for a Democrat to win with a plurality (but not a majority) in 2008. But my sense is that he would be more likely to split the anti-war vote with the Democratic candidate, and make it easier for the eventual Republican nominee (whoever it is) to run as a strong proponent of aggressive prosecution of the War on Terror. In such a case, Hagel would make it easier for a Republican to win.

Of course, if Hagel has any sense, he won't run a Presidential campaign he's likely to lose badly.

Previewing a Hagel Candidacy

So I checked the morning headlines to see the early word on Chuck Hagel's big talk today. And indeed, he has made news. He wants the federal government to stop classifying manure as toxic waste:

Hagel, Nelson want manure off list of hazardous substances
Sunday, March 11, 2007 5:43 PM CDT
The Associated Press

The two U.S. senators from Nebraska are cosponsoring legislation to remove manure from a federal list of hazardous substance.

Manure is classified as a hazardous substance under a federal law commonly referred to as the Superfund law.

As the father of a two-year old, I have to take issue with Mr. Hagel's view on this.

But if he does run for President, do you think this will be part of his platform? I bet it's all about Iowa.

Hagel May Retire

The Hill reports that Chuck Hagel may announce his retirement on Monday.

I would welcome such a move, although I believe the Hill places too much confidence in Nebraska's 'redness.' It seems to me that an open Senate seat might lean Republican - all things being equal - but that a strong Democratic candidate would probably do just fine there.

Is John McCain's Candidacy Over?

So there may soon be two new entrants into the Republican Presidential field for 2008. One is a John McCain wanna-be, who is nowhere near as popular as McCain among the rank-and-file. (And yes, that means he's awfully unpopular). Put him down as either an also-ran, or an independent candidacy. In that latter capacity, he might well hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans, by splitting the anti-Iraq war vote.

The other is a good friend of John McCain, who apparently stayed out of the race at least in part out of deference to him. If he steps in, he will instantly become the strongest conservative - and he may wind up sucking up all the oxygen that Mitt Romney is currently using, and leaving it a two-man race with Rudy Giuliani. Thompson would be a very serious contender.

But are these signs that McCain's candidacy is no longer seen as viable, or is it a signal (from friends) that he should get out?

Pondering Hagel and McCain

It seems entirely possible that either Chuck Hagel or John McCain will mount an independent Presidential candidacy. McCain is challenged in trying to win the love of conservatives, and Hagel seems like he can't be bothered to try. There have been rumors that both have been gearing up for a run.

How many independent candidacies can there be - particularly when you're speaking of two such similar personalities? And has anyone figured out what the incentive is for the two? Does one or the other need to declare first, or beat the other, or can McCain afford to compete in the GOP primary for a while, and then enter - even if Hagel has already?

Chuck Hagel is Unserious

At least, that's how I think a real columnist (like George Will or Charles Krauthammer) would describe him.

Time Magazine has posted its '10 Questions.' Here are two favorites:

How do you respond to people who say passing a nonbinding resolution like the one you introduced in the Senate opposing the troop surge doesn't matter?

Of course it matters. We don't want to get into a position where the American people in six to eight months are so frustrated they demand an immediate cutoff of funds. That's not the way we want to have to leave Iraq, so you have these debates now.

You described Arizona Senator John McCain's support of a resolution backing the surge but calling for benchmarks to evaluate Iraqi performance "disingenuous" after he criticized your resolution. Has this affected your friendship?

This has nothing to do with our friendship. There is no one I admire or respect more than John. I thought [his resolution] was duplicitous. It lays out benchmarks for the Iraqis, but doesn't attach any consequences.

So it 'matters' to debate things in the Senate, but it's 'duplicitous' to offer rhetoric without consequences?

Clearly, Hagel is as nuanced as John Kerry. Let's see if it gets him as far.

Time: Lieberman May Change Parties - Update and Bumped

But don't get too excited; sounds like Hagel might as well.

Seriously - these are the most unwelcome comments I've seen from Chuck Hagel in memory. And that's saying a lot:

Asked if the war would have gone better if Kerry had been elected in 2004, Hagel says: "Well, I don't think you can go back and undo those kinds of things."

Asked if he is going to run for president, Hagel answers: "I'll let you know."

He says Sen. John McCain is still a friend, but calls his recents stand on Iraq resolutions in Congress "duplicitous."

He notes that having people with a military background is important, and the only one with that in the Bush administration was Colin Powell, "the one person they listened to least."

If Chuck Hagel actually thinks that John Kerry might have done a better job on Iraq - the clear implication of his comment - then he's not a Republican in any more than name. Worse than that - he's too stupid for Senate service.

Which is also saying a lot.

On a more substantive note, this does raise an interesting question should Hagel actually decided to run for President: whom would he hurt more - the Republican or the Democrat?

I'll preface this by saying that we can't really make a guess until we know the nominees.

If the GOP nominates someone who is basically conservative - Mitt Romney version 3.0, or (more or less) John McCain, then an anti-war Chuck Hagel might take more votes from an anti-war Democrat than from the Republican candidate. Indeed, while I've argued that President Bush will be forced to draw down forces in Iraq by the end of the year, a 3-way Presidential race with Hagel as the third candidate might even allow a Republican to be more pro-Iraq.

That's a long way down the road, though.

Update: The Politico (via HotAir) provides more detail. Lieberman says that the issue of Iraq funding could cause him to switch parties:

"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephone interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

Asked whether that hasn't already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: "We will see how that plays out in the coming months," specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.

He suggested, however, that the forthcoming showdown over new funding could be a deciding factor that would lure him to the Republican Party.

"I hope we don't get to that point," Lieberman said. "That's about all I will say on it today. That would hurt."

I suggested this would be the case a little while ago. And I've been saying for months that Lieberman will ultimately have to switch parties.

Also note this recent statement by Lieberman, which attracted little attention.

Update II: HotAir properly notes that it is not at all certain that the Senate would change hands if Lieberman switched parties to give the Republicans a majority. I had forgotten that sad fact.

Interestingly, blogger Tim Chapman - then of the Heritage Foundation - warned in December that Senate Republicans were making a grave mistake in the negotiations on the organizing resolution, specifically for this reason.

What is Tim Chapman doing now? He works in the Senate minority - and apparently will continue to. At least he has a good boss.