Monday’s political round-up

March 12, 2007

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Sen. [tag]Chuck Hagel[/tag] (R-Neb.) announced this morning that he had nothing new to announce. He told reporters that he will decide “later this year” on a potential presidential run. “In making this announcement, I believe there will still be political options open to me at a later date,” the two-term senator said in press conference in Omaha, Nebraska. “But that will depend on the people of Nebraska and this country. I cannot control that and I do not worry about it.” Hagel, who had vowed to serve no more than two terms, also said he’d continue raising money for a Senate re-election campaign.

* New to YouTube: a 1989 video in which [tag]Rudy Giuliani[/tag] says, “There must be public funding for abortion for poor women…. I have also stated that I disagree with President Bush’s veto last week of public funding for abortion.” That might raise a few eyebrows.

* Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Roll Call the GOP is unlikely to take back the Senate majority in 2008. “Could we get it back?” McConnell asked. “It would have to be a good day…. What I think is that it’s clearly possible that we stay roughly where we are.”

* Former Gov. [tag]Mitt Romney[/tag] has been working overtime to curry favor from the far-right wing, and that includes apparent attempts to buy their support. The NYT noted that a foundation controlled by Romney has made contributions of $10,000 to $15,000 to each of three Massachusetts organizations associated with major national conservative groups: the antiabortion Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Massachusetts Citizens for Limited Taxation and the Christian conservative Massachusetts Family Institute. Romney has also generously backed the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society, and a nonprofit group affiliated with National Review.

* Ted Sorensen, the speechwriter and special counsel to President John F. Kennedy endorsed [tag]Barack Obama[/tag] late last week and compared Obama’s campaign to Kennedy’s run almost half a century earlier.

* And actor-turned Senator-turned actor Fred Thompson is reportedly considering a presidential campaign. Thompson, best known as Arthur Branch on NBC’s drama “Law & Order,” is being urged to pursue the GOP nomination by several Tennessee Republicans who also have been trying to drum up support for a candidacy. He told Fox News yesterday that he’s “leaving the door open.”

As part of my relentless payback effort, please enjoy this article from the Sunday Boston Globe about another area where Mitt’s sucking up to the far-right, the regular trotting out of his too-pretty-for-words nuclear family.

Payback for what? He’s a lying sack of crap who got elected governor of MA running against a dem party hack by sucking up to the state’s centrists, who he has since then kneed in the groin at every opportunity.

Image is what he does. Content – not so much.

  • I really wonder if Hagel isn’t looking a year down the road to what I call the Buyer’s Remorse primary: after the nominees are decided and 40-50 percent of each party’s primary electorate is upset with who has emerged. There will be a gap for a plausible centrist; Hagel alone is probably too far right on domestic policy to fill it, but he’s said he’d be open to running with a Democrat, and his full remarks today send a clear signal that he’s looking to the middle. So, yeah, it’s a non-announcement, but with some intriguing undercurrents.

  • Just for the record, I would not vote for Chuck Hagel unless his opponent was the soulless embodiment of pure evil on earth….and Bush can’t run again so that just doesn’t apply. /snark

    Seriously, the guy says good things sometimes but never follows through when it comes to the crunch so I would never be able to trust him.

  • This is really silly. Scheduling an announcement to announce you have nothing to announce. I agree with the above comment though. Hagel may be right on the war, but he’s wrong on just about everything else. Still, I have to admit that if he would try to run a third-party candidacy, something that seems likely if both parties have their nominees by the end of February 2008 and everyone gets sick of both of them, he would probably pull more from the GOP than the Democrats based on his non-war voting record alone. If Bloomberg were to go third party, he’d be more likely to hurt the Democratic candidate since he’s really a Republican in name only.

  • I agree with Curmudgeon . . . of course, the American public would probably love Hagel, since he, y’know, “seems” presidential. And it’s all about image (or, in the words of Pete Townshend, “it’s an eminence front, it’s a put-on.”)

    Hey, if Hagel ran with Lieberman, would it create anti-matter? Would they cancel each other out, resulting in no candidate at all on that ticket? /joke

  • One other thing: Whether they come from others or from the candidates themselves (like Hillary), I’m getting a little tired of all the JFK comparisons. Hillary’s is especially ridiculous since I haven’t heard anyone espousing the bigotry against women as president that they did against Catholics long ago. Yes, if Obama or Richardson or (barf) Hillary got the nomination and/or presidency, it would be a landmark, but the parallels aren’t quite exact. This especially is true with Hillary who is so obsessed with herself and her own ambition that she doesn’t get that no one is saying we aren’t ready for a woman president, we just don’t want HER as president.

  • In other political circumstances — which is to say, not in the wake of the Bush administrations — I’d regard Hagel as the kind of president-from-the-other-party that I’d never vote for but could live with for four years. We don’t live in those circumstances, however.

    One possible benefit for Democrats, if Hagel does run, is that his presence in the race would bring Iraq front and center in the Republican race. Most of the Republican candidates don’t seem to be mentioning Iraq very often, but with an actual critic of the war running it might be harder for them to avoid it.

  • Well, Chris #7, the trouble is, if Hagel got the Repub nomination, and he’s a critic of the war . . . that would neutralize the war issue. It would distance him enough from Bush that the swing voters whose decisions hinge on the war issue will feel comfortable voting Republican. We’d be much better off running against a candidate whose position on the war is more closely aligned with Bush. And, it goes without saying that our candidate needs to be one who OPPOSED THE WAR FROM THE GET-GO!

  • Funny of the morning for me: Hagel punked CNN into covering his non-announcement live by promising them something important, demonstrating that he has learned at least one easy trick from Bush’s team.

  • I would like to announce that Hagel talks a good game, but in general, he sucks. No, that isn’t news either.

    Mitch “Filibuster” McConman: “What I think is that it’s clearly possible that we stay roughly where we are” (on the downward slide into oblivion).

    Fred Thompson could be a problem, but he apparently has quite the bevy of girlfriends, hopefully they will provide a rich vein of inside dirt on the telegenic jerk. Atrios has an enlightening set of questions from one of his alleged GFs who happens to work in the media:

    http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_03_11_atrios_archive.html#117370486937488430

  • Was Rudy in support of “abortion rights” in 1989 or was he in support of the elimination of poor people? Oh, Oh, Oh,…. I think that might be his defense of his 1989 position. I can hear him now,”I thought then and I think now that abortion is morally reprehensible, but it funding abortions for the poor was the only way that I could see clear to solving the intractable problem of poverty.”

  • It’s not just Hagel & Thompson. The second wave of GOP prez hopefuls also includes Rep. Ron Paul.

    Savor this moment — the GOP is digging deep to find someone, anyone to hold the White House. Democrats, on the other hand, would be content with even the fourth-stringer, namely Bill Richardson.

  • Boy, here’s a twist we haven’t seen too often: a candidate paying voters cash for their votes. Until Romney came along, it was the other way around. If he ever got elected (not if I can help it) I’m sure he’d open the spigots even wider on the faith based initiatives to keep the religious righties well bribed and in his corner.

    On Fred Thompson, I wouldn’t even want him playing a president on TV.

    • Comments are closed.