Hagel Says Republican Party Must Change

Sen. Hagel May Run For President With The Hope Of Shifting Republican Philosophy

(CBS)  In recent weeks, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., has seemed to go against the Republican party and has even suggested that he might consider running for president as an independent. Appearing on Face the Nation he said if he runs, he will do so as a Republican but hopes his party can shift back to the center.

Hagel has been one of the most outspoken Republican critics of President George W. Bush's handling of the Iraq war, and he continues to try to force his party to adopt a new strategy — not just with the war but in it's overall philosophy.

On Face the Nation he criticized the way his party has changed over the years.

"For example, the Republican Party, interestingly enough as the new chairman of the Republican Party said in his acceptance speech two days ago, needs to get back to what it once stood for," Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, continued. "The party that I first voted for on top of a tank in Mekong Delta 1968 is not the party I see today."

Hagel said that right now he's "not a candidate for any office," but he will make a decision about the 2008 race soon. Earlier, Hagel said on C-SPAN that he would consider running for president as an independent, but he told Bob Schieffer that he will stay a Republican. What it means to be a Republican, he said, is what should change.

"I think we are living through one of the great historical, political reorientations of our time," he said. "I think we are seeing defined right now through the process — and it will continue right up to November of next year — a new center of gravity for both parties based on beliefs, philosophies."

If he runs, Hagel said his candidacy would not be solely based on the Iraq war. He will try to return his party to a platform based on fiscal responsibility, trade and smaller government.

But, Hagel, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is the co-sponsor of a high-profile resolution opposing the expansion of the war in Iraq.

The resolution, which is also sponsored by Senator Olympia Snow, R-Maine, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., will "put congress on record" and encourage debate, Hagel said.

"I want every member of the United States Senate to have to take a position on this," Hagel said. "We have kids dying every day."

The president's plan to send a "surge" of American troops into Iraq to quell sectarian violence is a mistake, Hagel said.

"I think, for whatever reason, the advice he got was not very solid," he said. "It is wrong to put American troops in the middle of a sectarian civil war."

Even though Vice President Dick Cheney says talk of resolutions undercuts the troops, Hagel said he would have welcomed similar congressional action when he was fighting in Vietnam.

"We're Article 1 of the Constitution," he said. "We are a co-equal branch of government. Are we not to participate? Are we not to say anything? Are we not to register our sense of where we're going in this country on foreign policy? Bottom line is this. Our young men and women and their families, these young men and women who are asked to fight and die deserve a policy worthy of those sacrifices."

[rickylee9]

Senator Hagel. You did you bump your head? glad you were not on my tank crew. You were not the only one in Vietnam. however just one of the few in Congress. Troop reinforcements are a good thing. America is doing great things all over the world Except in Congress. President Bush is Right you are wrong.

[rickylee9]

Senator Hagel. You did you bump your head? glad you were not on my tank crew. You were not the only one in Vietnam. however just one of the few in Congress. Troop reinforcements are a good thing. America is doing great things all over the world Except in Congress. President Bush is Right you are wrong.

[jackstraus2]

If you support Bush's war in Iraq because you believe it is in the best interests of America, then answer this question. If a Democrat president had invaded Iraq, would you feel the same way about the war? As Sean Hannity says " Don't evade the issue, just answer yes or no." Now consider whether you are first a conservative or an American.

[jimbo miller]

i seem to be comment happy this evening, but after veiwing the sen hagel interview with political bob, I was impressed by the manner in which he slated the competence of the current administration.

His criticism of the president, was in my opinion,carried out with effortless ease

The fact that the president had commented, and admitted that a re-evaluation of the tactics and planning as regards the situation in iraq, holds no water with the majority of americans. you cannot re-evaluate the lifes of the victims,on all sides of this oil driven war.....is there not a case for impeaching the most incompetent, muleish, and arrogant president in your history...mactoop the scot

[jimbo miller]

as i have a relative in afghanistan mr bush
have you forgotten that al qeda over there is growing stronger by the day, and remember that is their primary stronghold......DO you do remember? their leader mr bush, I suppose however, instead of Bin Laden occupying your thoughts,it may well be the TEAR LADEN members of the families that have lost their coragous kith and kin.
mactoop from scotland

[jimbo miller]

well done sen. Hagel
It is my contention that most of the brave young souls doing bush and co's dirty work in iraq are probably economic conscripts Although they knew the risks of joining the us military they were perhaps not aware that their own c.i.c.'s so called Plan for winning the peace? would contribute to the death of so many of their comrades.. I am amazed at the way mr bush goes around god blessing everything that moves, so i will cut to the chase....God has not and will not, save any of the brave youngsters in harms way Mr Bush, but you could..jiggler mactoop scotland

[rillifane]

FARTKNOCKER2

I was running for office thrity years ago and debating my opponent who is an African American at a predominantly Black church.

He pulled the same thing, holding up his hand and urign the audience to "vote for the man who looks like you."

When it was my turn I said "If you think that Mike has made a good point then certainly it is your right to vote for him on that basis. But before you do, go and get a dictionary and look up the word HYPOCRITE."

The audience was stunned and dead silence prevailed. Them, a well known reporter for a local black newspaper, Al "Big City" Wallace, stood up and began applauding and shouted out "Preach Brother Eric, preach." The audience then also rose to their feet and began to applaud. They would not quiet down until my opponent apologized to me.

What it takes is for people to genuinely purge themselves of prejudice and then speak out sincerely and without fear. But when you speak out make sure that you can look into your own heart and know that you do so with love and respect for all people. If you have that then the message will be heard.

[jimbo miller]

i am glad that one republican has vociferously
criticised that buffoon bush...with the seemingly
ceaseless carnage in iraq, it is plain to everyone that he probably did not take the views of the more moderate members of his cabinet before he decided to smoke out the non existant
al qeda operatives in 1raq...He is so pig headed and brained that it was he and his fellow hawks
who created this mess...... It seems to be the trait, that an american politician has to go about god blessing everything that moves.... So ill get straight to the point GOD hasnt or cannot save these brave young souls in Iraq, but heres the rub MR PRESIDENT you could..mactoop the scot

[rillifane]

huskerarmy

I will take your word for it that this was Eisenhower's attitude. But then, at the time, I recall that my neighbors in NYC, who overwhelmingly voted for the Liberal Party had equally repulsive views on race. If I did not that was largely an accident of my own birth (as a mixed race individual).

To be fair, we ought to consider individuals in the context of their times. Eisenhower sent the troops, which was the right thing to do both legally and morally even if he had wrongful views generally. My neighbors in NYC changed as have many other people I've met over the years. Many of them became ardent supporters of civil rights. I applaud the change rather than condemn the history.

I had dinner one evening with Strom Thurmond, as wicked a racist as ever lived. We talked about his campaign as Dixiecrat candidate in 1948. Suddenly he stopped, realizing he was talking to a veteran of the civl rights struggle. "Different times" he said. I agreed. I saw genuine regret in his eyes. He was, beyond question, a brilliant man, and he realized he had been wrong. He could have been great man had he chosen, in 1948 to champion civil rights. Instead whatever else he might have done is overshadowed by that moment.

Thinking about that makes me a more forgiving person.

[huskerarmy]

"And it was Eisenhower who didn't hesitate to send troops to Little Rock to enforce that court's orders."

While Eisenhower professed that he would obey the Brown decision, he privately defended the racism of Southern whites, telling Warren that they "are not bad people. All they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside some big overgrown Negro."

[huskerarmy]

"...it will never help the cause to keep pointing fingers an blaming one group for all the problems / failures on another group.."

Fartknocker,
That is about as sincere as I've ever heard you sound. Unfortunately, as long as people (like you) defend the George Allens and Trent Lotts, the GOP campaign against Harold Ford, the exploitation of Barrack Obama's middle name to elicit hate, there will be mistrust and the vernacular will not change... You want change, you have to change yourself first.

[huskerarmy]

"...Bill Cosby is still correct. The Black community needs to take better control of the situation and look to cure those ills that... are within the power of the communmity to solve. If his message often meets with criticism it may be because there are a lot of people who have a vested interest in maintaining the position that outside help (read money) is the critical issue."

Or... that those who deliver this message all too frequently have a vested interest in a position that their problems are entirely their own and theirs alone to solve without the resources to solve them (read money).

[rillifane]

clemenhagen1

Eisenhower was "reluctant"? I should hope so. But he did it because it was the right thing to do.

Kennedy, on the other hand, had to be dragged kicking and screaming into helping the Freedom Riders and did so only after scenes of people being beaten while local cops stood by had been played over and over on the TV news.

As for your list of choices.

Frankly I think Eisenhower was the greatest president of the post war era. Truman runs second. I despised Nixon but then I also had real issues with Kennedy (albeit for different reasons). Johnson was a contemptible political hack while Barry Goldwater was a genuinely great man (and one who I knew personally). JFK, by the way shared my evaluation of Goldwater. I think both Clinton and Bush II are jackasses and voted for neither. (I liked Bush I).

Clarence Thomas is a better person than it may appear. I've know him for thirty some years thru our mutual friend Jack Danforth. Thurgood Marshall was, in my oponion, a better justice (tho not a better mind in the final analysis).

PS: for the record, I'm Anglo-Asian not Black
That's given me the experience (amusing or disheartening depending on one's perspective) of being called "a Neo-Nazi Reagan Clone" by a "Black Nationist" at a lunch meeting one day and a "N*gg*r loving half breed from Jew occupied New York" by a White Citizen's Council member at a dinner meeting on the same day.

[rillifane]

FARTKNOCKER2

I have no trouble with the idea expressed by that elderly legislator from Virgina although I suspect that his motivation was not very worthy.

Apologies for slavery are absurd and nothing more than political game playing.

However, it would be wrong to say that the effects of slavery and a century of Jim Crow don't still ripple thru the ages down to our own day. Overt acts of racial discrimination still occur on a daily basis in every corner of this nation and I'm not talking about some of the far fetched drivel pushed by the Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons.

That being said, Bill Cosby is still correct. The Black community needs to take better control of the situation and look to cure those ills that, no matter their genesis, are within the power of the communmity to solve.

If his message often meets with criticism it may be because there are a lot of people who have a vested interest in maintaining the position that outside help (read money) is the critical issue. You'll notice that Sharpton and Jackson are wearing $1000 custom made suits and living like corpoprate CEO's off the money they make being self annointed advocates for the poor and oppressed.

That sort of venality is endemic to every group and is the principle basis for the political support of Nanny state. "Activists" of every stripe pretend to commitment to this group or that while actually looking to become gatekeeper for Federal largesse.

[long_rider]

I have to admit that Hagle has stood up to the chimp, and the co-president, but the idea of placing another Republican in the Whitwhouse does not set right with me.

The Republican party has turned its back on the American people for the last six years, and have bowed to the corp. kings - giving them everything they want. The current administration has done nothing for us Americans, and should receive little support from Americans in 2008.

In the last six years, under Republican rule, Americans have lost jobs, have been sent to fight a needless war, been lied to time-after-time, and let the government run with little or no oversight. During all of this, party politics was the winner every time, with little consideration for the people they were suppose to represent.

I am not saying the Democrats will be much better, but we have lived through six years of lying, stealing, cheating, with the Republicans, and Americans will probably see Republicans for what they are, dollar ****** to big business, and the people be damned.

[clemenhagen1]

Rillifane: First, Eisenhowever called in troops reluctantly, and only after Gov. Faubus removed National Guard troops who blocked the Little Rock Nines entrance into the school and replaced them with an outmatched Little Rock city police force. Eisenhower showed little true leadership when it came to civil rights. As for Warren, a true leader both on the supreme court and later on the Warren Commission. However, I'll give you your choice of supreme court nominees: Thurgood Marshall or Clarence Thomas! You decide. Are you suggesting America has a long and ugly history of racism? You cannot argue with that. Are you suggesting that politicians of all persuasions have used the race issue cynically? A given. But choose your leaders on the issue of race: Truman or Eisenhower? Kennedy or Nixon? Johnson or Goldwater? Clinton or Bush? I cannot pretend to understand your experiences as a black man growing up in the South. But an objective viewer would have to accept the fact that Democrats have done far more to advance the cause of justice and equality in the 20th and 21st Centuries than Republicans ever have. I do appreciate your historical insights, however. You are obviously extremely well-read and educated. Take care.

[rillifane]

clemenhagen1

It was on the orders of FDR that a variety of Republican sponsored legislation, including voting rights, housing rights and a proposal for an ERA for women was voted down. FDR's deal with the black leadership was to entrench them in power by making them the gatekeepers for Federal largesse. A. Phillip Randolph and his friends choose personal politcal power and personal gain over civil rights.

It was the Eisenhower appointed conservative Republican former governor of California, Earl Warren who crafted the decisions which gave impetus to the civil rights movement. And it was Eisenhower who didn't hesitate to send troops to Little Rock to enforce that court's orders.

Don't kid yourself. The Democrats in the north were every bit as racist as those in the south. That's why my birth certificate from liberal democrat NYC reads "colored" (I'm anglo/asian).

Race is, and has always been, the number one social/political issue in the USA.

And whether its Southerners trying to pretend the civil war was about something other than race (an argument I seem to have on a weekly basis here in Texas) or northerners trying to pretend its a problem restricted to dumb rednecks the biggest part of that issue is self delusion.

[mwitten2]

Finally, a prominent Republican telling the truth about the Civil War in Iraq and after a weekend in which we lost 27 members of our great military to the "insane" policy of the worse President/Vice President in the history of the United States, I commend Mr. Hagel for his courage in telling the truth about the mess in Iraq!

[clemenhagen1]

Rillifane: One must really focus not on party but on region. The South voted as a bloc from 1870 to 1970 because the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and the Reconstructionists. However, to suggest that the Republicans were the party of civil rights in the 20th Century is absolutely ludicrous. First presidential administration to help minorities? Roosevelt during the New Deal. First president to use powers of his office towards true integration? Truman, who pushed civil rights legislation that was killed by Southern Democrats AND Do-Nothing Republican Congress. Truman's reaction? He integrated the armed forces with an executive order. During the civil rights movement the South was dominated by conservative Democrats - no other party existed in the South. However, Kennedy did propose civil rights legislation and did federalize the National Guard to protect the Freedom Riders and James Meredith. LBJ did use his powers to push through landmark legislation. Calling the Republicans civil rights reformers simply does not jive with my reading of history, Teddy Roosevelt and a few notable exceptions not included.

The two-party system, along with all of it's fundraising, 527s, special interests, corporate lobbyists, redistricting, gerrymandering, corruption, and political manipulation of our voting system, is completely broken. There is no possible way for an average honest citizen with great ideas to win any election greater than local dog catcher without making use of one of the above.

Abolishing the electoral college would open up the free marketplace for great ideas and fresh new leaders. We need to start over from scratch, so the rules can't be fixed to favor the wealthy and easily corrupted.

By the way, what kind of country contemplates electing for President a Bush-Clinton-Bush- and possibly another Clinton - two family dynasty possibly up to 28 years (lets hope Jeb doesn't want a run for it later, assuming Clinton wins in this scenario)