Republican presumptive Presidential nominee Sen. John McCain is worried about Republican “Obamacons” who could openly or all-but-openly support rival Democratic Senator Barack Obama come November, columnist Robert Novak writes.

What’s a Republican with a reputation for being independent who wants to distance himself just enough from the Bush administration so he doesn’t lose his party base to do?

Novak writes:

What is an “Obamacon?” The phrase surfaced in January to describe British conservatives entranced by Barack Obama. On March 13 the American Spectator broadened the term to cover all “conservative supporters” of the Democratic presidential candidate. Their ranks, though growing, feature few famous people. But looming on the horizon are two big potential Obamacons: Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel.

Neither Powell, first-term secretary of state for George W. Bush, nor Hagel, retiring after two terms as a U.S. senator from Nebraska, has endorsed Obama. Hagel probably never will. Powell probably will enter Obama’s camp at a time of his own choosing. The best bet is that neither of the two, both of whom supported President Bush in 2000 and 2004, will back John McCain in 2008.

Powell, Hagel and lesser-known Obamacons harbor no animosity toward McCain. Nor do they show much affection for the rigidly liberal Obama. The Obamacon syndrome is based on hostility to Bush and his administration and on revulsion over today’s Republican Party. The danger for McCain is that desire for a therapeutic electoral bloodbath could get out of control.

This is what I have called for months now the Big Broom. There are many voters who may agree with McCain on some key issues and not be totally-comfortable with Obama. But come November — as they try to get a loan from a bank to fill up their cars with $8/gallon gas and find out they can’t get a loan since credit is tight and their home equity has evaporated — many of these voters may wish to take a Big Broom and totally sweep out the crew that has administered the financial mess.

At a time when consumer confidence is setting record lows, it could truly be “it’s the economy, stupid” and not the war and not offshore drilling and most assuredly not whether Karl Rove (who has apparently now emerged as America’s populist) thinks Obama looks like an arrogant country club member smoking a cigarette with a beautiful woman on his arm.

In the Republican Party, Big Broom politics would entail Republicans not voting or defecting to Obama so that the day after the election, as their party regroups after the defeat, Bushies are politely but assertively shown the door out of the room of party power — and new blood would take over in the wake of the therapeutic electoral bloodbath.

Novak again:

Read the rest of this entry »

Now that the drama of, and the headlines-grabbing by, the Democratic primaries are over, perhaps Americans can focus again on the other important issues facing us. Issues such as the economy, the war in Iraq, and vital legislation languishing in Congress.

One of these pieces of important legislation is the new G.I. Bill. That is the upgraded G.I. Bill sponsored by Senators James Webb, (D-Va), and Chuck Hagel, (R-Neb). A bill that enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House, and one that would begin to restore educational benefits to our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, similar to the benefits that were enjoyed by our World War II veterans under the original 1944 GI Bill.

While 75 U.S. Senators have voted for this bill–neither Senator McCain nor my Texas Senator Cornyn were among them–and while an overwhelming majority of Representatives, including my Representative Lloyd Doggett, have voted in favor of it, “support-the-troops” President Bush continues to threaten that he will veto this bill.

Hopefully, this bill will come up for a final vote this week of June 9th. Hopefully, patriotism and our debt and duty to truly support our troops who are sacrificing, and who have already sacrificed so much will prevail over partisanship, petty and misplaced penny-pinching, and disingenuous opposing arguments.

As a Vietnam war era veteran who has benefited so much from the previous G.I. Bill, I wrote a piece on TMV a couple of weeks ago on Memorial Day weekend. That article, “Let us truly honor our fallen heroes this memorial Day,” perhaps reflected more my passion to get this better G.I. Bill passed than the cold hard facts, and the raw politics being used by those who oppose it.

Fortunately, a few days ago, I came across a column written by none other than Edward Humes, which more than makes up for my lack of facts and more than fills-in-the blanks when it comes to the politics involved.

I say, none other than Edward Humes because Mr. Humes is a journalist and prolific author who in 1989 received the Pulitzer Prize for specialized reporting for several investigative stories he wrote about the U.S. Military. In 2006, he literally “wrote the book” on the G.I. Bill with his “Over Here: How the G.I. Bill Transformed the American Dream.” A book that tells how the post-World War II G.I. Bill ” revolutionized higher education, created suburbia, brought us the scientists, engineers, doctors, artists and teachers who built most of what is good in America today.”

While Humes mainly questions Senator McCain’s opposition to the G.I. Bill (”Why would a Vietnam War veteran and former prisoner of war, a man who is personally acquainted with the difficulties vets can face in returning to civilian life, join President Bush in opposing a popular bipartisan bill to support the troops?”), he offers many other thoughts and compelling arguments. Here are some excerpts from his May 30 column in the Los Angeles Times, “McCain’s Attack on Vets– His respectful rhetoric isn’t matched by his votes“:

“Isn’t fixing the education benefit in the bill — one that has shortchanged far too many veterans for years — a political no-brainer in an election year? The 75 senators who recently voted for it certainly thought so”

“The original GI Bill — signed into law in 1944 — was one of the most important laws every adopted by Congress. It transformed the nation after World War II in epic fashion, with generous college benefits, stipends, subsidized mortgages, business loans and job training and placement.”

“Veterans got free rides to any college that would accept them. Tuition, books, housing and living expenses were all covered, giving rise to a new generation of scientists, inventors, teachers, doctors, civic leaders and artists. Low-interest, no-money-down home loans backed by the government made it cheaper to buy than to rent. Suburbia, widespread homeownership, college as a majority aspiration, the middle class — all were built on the back of the GI Bill.”

“Today’s GI Bill, however, is a pale shadow of the original, particularly when it comes to college, as Congress has not kept the benefits in line with the rising cost of higher education. The World War II-era living stipend is gone; in its place, members of the military must agree to a $100 monthly payroll deduction to receive the college aid. An education benefit that sent WWII vets to Yale now won’t cover four years at the average public university, though many recruits don’t understand this when they sign up.”

McCain and others who oppose the Webb-Hagel version of the G.I. Bill have said that too-generous education benefits will hurt retention as enlistees will leave for college after their initial enlistment commitment rather than continue to serve. This is what Humes has to say about that:

“McCain’s position makes sense only by overlooking the fact that the main retention (and recruiting) problems facing the military are the Iraq war and the scandals plaguing military and veterans healthcare.” “The inadequacy of the military’s prime recruiting tool — subsidized college educations — is hurting recruitment too, and Webb argues this can be fixed only by fixing the GI Bill. He says McCain, a friend, ‘is missing the boat’ by siding with the Bush Pentagon rather than veterans groups. Webb points to a Congressional Budget Office analysis that found any possible losses in retention caused by his bill would be balanced by the increases in recruitment it would generate.”

On some of McCain’s other positions and arguments:

“Before the Senate voted on Webb’s GI legislation, McCain offered what he called a compromise bill, but it was rejected. Webb pointed out that there really was no compromise in McCain’s proposal because it would have excluded most veterans by offering full education benefits only to those with multiple enlistments, even though 70% to 75% of enlistees leave after one tour.”

Humes also takes a look at McCain’s record on “legislation supported by major veterans organizations” which he records as follows:

* On Webb’s GI Bill, he expressed opposition, and he was AWOL when it was time to vote on May 22.

* Last September, he voted against another Webb bill that would have mandated adequate rest for troops between combat deployments.

* On a badly needed $1.5-billion increase for veterans medical services for fiscal year 2007 — to be funded through closing corporate tax loopholes — he voted no. He also voted against establishing a trust fund to bolster under-budgeted veterans hospitals.

* In May 2006, he voted against a $20-billion allotment for expanding swamped veterans medical facilities.

* In April 2006, he was one of 13 Senate Republicans who voted against an amendment to provide $430 million for veterans outpatient care.

* In March 2004, he voted against and helped defeat on a party-line vote a $1.8-billion reserve for veterans medical care, also funded by closing tax loopholes.

As to the “it costs too much” argument, I will quote myself from my May 30 piece, “The bill is estimated to cost $45 billion [update: $52 billion] over the next 10 years. At the present rate of expenditures for the Iraq war–including the billions of dollars wasted, fleeced and not accounted for–we are talking about an amount equal to what we spend in Iraq in about six months. Is this too much to spend on our troops who are getting shot at, injured and maimed every day?”

As I first mentioned, Congress will hopefully have a final vote on the new G.I. Bill this week. I sincerely hope that Senator McCain will be present, and that he and others who are presently opposed to this good bill will have a change of mind and of heart and vote “Aye.” Our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans deserve nothing less.

I have snoozed through all of the vice president talk — as in who should be the running mates for Barack Obama and John McCain — because it’s much too early to get serious about that stuff. But then I had an epiphany, at least as far as the presumptive Democratic nominee is concerned:

Charles Timothy “Chuck” Hagel.

Inviting the retiring Nebraska Republican onto the ticket works every which way but one.

He is the consummate straight talker, a hero from the same war as McCain but share’s Obama’s views on same, ditto on civil liberties and immigration reform and a host of other issues, has beaucoup foreign policy experience and balances the ticket with his prairie populist Nebraska roots.

The one downside?

Hagel likes to wear costumes to work on Halloween, typically masquerading as colleagues (like Joe Biden in the photo above), and how could we live with a veep like that after Cheney and Gore?

Earlier this week, I interviewed the author and political pundit, Cliff Schecter about his latest book, The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don’t Trust Him - and Why Independents Shouldn’t. You can read more about the book at its website and I also recommend this article in U.S. News and World Report.

In his book, Schecter makes the case for why, although he supported McCain in his run in 2000, McCain no longer deserves support and in fact, his candidacy should be fought actively, without hesitation and on all fronts. Schecter outlines his reasons for these sentiments and fills in those reasons with more details than you may be able to absorb. Schecter draws a portrait of both McCain’s political trajectory and the parallel trajectory of how his political choices since 2001 are a thumbing of his nose at the very people who got him to the presidential precipice in the first place.

A couple of disclosures before I offer you my phone interview with Cliff: I’ve never been a McCain supporter. And I haven’t known of Schecter that long either - here’s the first post I ever wrote about Schecter. However, it was fascinating talking to someone with a seemingly vast knowledge base about someone whom I’ve never really studied.

JMZ: You argue on behalf of former McCain supporters who should be able to realize that McCain isn’t what he once was. Who, then, is the alternative and why?

CS: Well. There’s always, “What we have versus what we’d like to have.” I’m an Obama supporter and he has a lot of appeal to Independents. But he hasn’t done it the way McCain did it – by attacking his own party in big speeches. Obama has done it by standing up, not by splitting. Obama talks about rising above partisanship and reaching out to all people on all sides and getting past the muck where politics has gotten so nasty. Obama says, I’m going to talk to you like an adult. And that’s what McCain had called “straight talk” – but he hasn’t given us much of that [this election cycle.]
Read the rest of this entry »

If he wants to end it sooner than later, Barack Obama should announce now that he intends to ask Hillary Clinton to share the Democratic ticket with him.

Clinton herself opened the door for such an invitation yesterday. Asked about the possibility on CBS’ “Early Show,” she answered “that may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of the ticket.”

That decision has already been made by the voters and, in the coming days, will be ratified by the defection of superdelegates. With her “35 years of experience,” Hillary Clinton is a seasoned enough politician to know that.

For his part, Obama has been reaching out far enough to indicate that he might ask Republicans like Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar to serve in his cabinet as Secretaries of Defense and State. Making a move toward Clinton would not be that much of a stretch for a candidate whose theme has been uniting the country.

He can start with the Democratic Party. A declaration that he wants Hillary Clinton to run with him need not be coupled with the demand for an immediate answer, but it would relieve Obama of any pressure to go negative against Clinton and help disarm her recent tendency to tear him down.

In 2000, George W. Bush claimed he was a uniter. This year, Obama can prove that he is one and go a long way toward the White House by doing it.

Cross-posted from my blog.

Former OK senator David Boren was on NPR yesterday (audio here) to talk about Monday’s tripartisan conference in Tulsa, where various former and current centrist officeholders will discuss the potential for a “government of national unity.”

Chris Cillizza of ‘The Fix’ says that dream has deflated.

In the sad-but-probably-true department comes a Politico story about how GQ killed a piece about in-fighting in Hillary’s campaign for cover-story access to the former President.

One of the strengths of magazines is, unlike daily hard-news media, freedom of choice about what to cover and when. But along with that comes more dependence on sources for interviews in depth and cover sittings, among other needs.

When I retired two decades ago, the subjects of pieces and their publicity people, especially in show business, were getting very aggressive in bargaining for conditions that journalists should not accept. But in those days, when a major magazine cover story meant more than it does now, it was easier to resist.

But before bloggers and other finger pointers get too huffy about “selling out,” they should check the other side of the ledger. In the past year, GQ interviews have given us, among other news, Chuck Hagel’s unvarnished account of how the Bush Administration ramrodded the 2002 resolution to invade Iraq and the closest to a mea culpa from Colin Powell that we are likely to get.

In the lack-of-virtue-is-its-own-reward department, the Clinton campaign will probably sustain as much damage from the news of its arm-twisting as it might have from the story that never ran. Moreover, the juicy bits will leak out one way or another.

Cross-posted from my blog.

Retiring Republican Senator Chuck Hagel was on Bill Maher’s HBO show and he was as blunt as an elected official ever has been on his views on the significance of the Iraq war and the administration.

DETAILS AND VIDEO ARE HERE.

When Chuck Hagel announces his retirement from politics tomorrow, Congress will lose that rarest of men — a principled maverick who was not afraid to stand up to his party and his president.

In an era when politics in America has slouched inextricably to the right, the 60-year-old Nebraskan was difficult to pigeonhole. No mistake about it, Hagel was a conservative and usually reliable Republican vote over two terms, but charted his own course on Social Security and foreign policy — and most notably on Iraq.

The decorated Vietnam veteran’s break with the president on the war and his fierce opposition to the surge, which he called “the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam,” had a gravitas few congressfolk can claim.

When Hagel stood in the Senate to declare in his deep and somber voice that

“Any president who says ‘I don’t care’ or ‘I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else’ or ‘I don’t care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed’ — if a president really believes that, then there are . . . .ways to deal with that”

people listened to him, especially the independents whom pundits thought he would attract if he ran for president.

Hagel, who won reelection in 2002 with 83 percent of the vote and indeed flirted with a presidential run, surely returns to private life a disappointed if not bitter man. While he and four or five other Republicans voted with the Democrats in a series of largely symbolic end-the-war votes earlier this year, the war he has so vehemently opposed shows no signs of ending anytime soon.

His maverick status aside, Hagel’s retirement will provoke further chest pains for the GOP.

He would become the third Republican senator to announce his retirement, following Senators John W. Warner of Virginia and Wayne Allard of Colorado. The party will be defending 22 Senate seats to the Democrats’ 12.

Nebraska was once a reliably safe state for Republicans, but anger over the war and Bush’s presidency in general may provide an opening for former Democratic senator Bob Kerrey, who says he is interested in returning to Washington.

But which of the two parties or not-of-the-two-parties would he run on?

Before the 2002 resolution to invade Iraq, Robert Byrd warned that, when Senators changed their minds, it would take a two-thirds vote to get out. After 3500 lives, billions of dollars and four years of bitter defeat, that number is within reach.

Dick Lugar’s speech Monday night will give colleagues cover for retreat. He was joined yesterday by Sen. George Voinovich with a letter to the President saying that the Iraqis should “know we are indeed disengaging.”

Add these two respected defectors to the Republican list of Chuck Hagel, John Warner, Norm Coleman, who has Al Franken nipping at his heels for reelection in Minnesota and Gordon Smith, who has called the war “absurd, even criminal.”

Endangered John Sununu, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are ready to fall in. Sam Brownback can take the opportunity to become the first ’08 hopeful to separate himself from the pack.

That adds up to 60, with pressure on Mitch McConnell, Elizabeth Dole, Lamar Alexander, John Cornyn, Saxby Chamblis, Pat Roberts, Pete Domeneci and Jeff Sessions who will have to face voters with falling approval ratings and/or U.S. Attorney scandals, among various other Bush-induced deficits.

Jockeying for the best surrender terms will begin next month with John Warner’s amendment to the defense authorization bill. There will be other face-saving proposals as well as disputes over timetables and benchmarks, but the numbers for getting out are getting there.

Cross posted from my blog

Will New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg run as an independent candidate for President or won’t he? He absolutely insists he won’t, but some believe he is still sending out feelers that he’s not ruling it out. Is this a case of “hope springs eternal” — or actual analysis?

Will the Republican Senator Chuck Hagel run as an independent candidate for President, or won’t he? Some think he just might.

And if they run, would they run together? Will it be an independent ticket offering two of the country’s most un-lockstep politicos — a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket? Those who think this will happen point to Hagel’s praise of Bloomberg and a dinner they had together recently, but on Monday Bloomberg again pooh-poohed the idea:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg again rejected supporters Monday who wanted him to run for president. That includes Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel’s suggestion that the nation could use an independent presidential ticket with Bloomberg and Hagel on it.

“I think he was probably joking,” Bloomberg said in an Albany news conference pushing his environmental plan for New York City. “He speaks his mind … he’s not happy with the same things that I’m not happy about.”

Hagel, a frequent critic of the Iraq war, made the suggestion on Sunday’s “Face the Nation” on CBS.

Bloomberg, serving his last term under the city’s term limit law, said a New York Daily News poll this week that found him ahead of Republican Rudolph Giuliani was flattering, but “the current mayor always has a real advantage.”

Even so, expect speculation: Did he really mean it? Was this just a smokescreen while he further explores how viable this would be? Was he serious? Does this mean he’d give money to Hagel or another third party? Read the rest of this entry »

I’m afraid that I missed this column by E.J. Dionne Jr. earlier this week, but better late than never, as they say. It’s a great, highly interesting column about Hagel (and the other Republican candidates).

A thing worth mentioning, something that everyone should realize is that although Hagel seems to be a ‘maverick’ regarding his view on the war in Iraq, he isn’t much of a maverick regarding his other voting behavior. The National Journal ratings show that Hagel is more conservative than John McCain and Sam Brownback.

In other words, Hagel is the most conservative of (potential, as Dionne points out, he has ‘hinted’ that he might run) contenders. The only thing that makes him seem less conservative than he is, is his opposition to the war in Iraq. Now, if the war would suddenly become a great success Hagel will be doomed, but if it doesn’t… well, if it doesn’t, Hagel might have a shot.

To whom will disillusioned conservatives turn? McCain? Nah. Giuliani? For now, yeah, but what once people find out about his not-so socially conservative views, or his family problems, argues and wonders Dionne.

Dionne’s conclusion, though: “But disillusionment is not the same as rebellion. Republicans, usually not a band of rebels, still pray that Bush can succeed in Iraq. Thus Hagel waits, hyping a non-announcement to say he’s around if the world and the party move his way. What he really wants is to overturn the foreign policy of Bush 43 and restore the old-fashioned Republican approach of Bush 41. He may have to split his party and run as an independent to do it.”

It seems to me that Hagel has a lot of potential: his opposition to the war in Iraq - and the accompanying ‘maverick’ image - will make him acceptable to a lot of Independents / independent-minded voters, while, at the same time, his conservative voting record on other issues might him (somewhat) acceptable to (quite some) conservatives.

On the other hand, conservatives are indeed quite a loyal bunch. This means that they’re not willing to abandon a president during wartime and that they might consider speaking out against the war, or war policy, hurts the war effort, etc. This might cause many conservatives not to support Hagel.

Independent run? Will Hagel be able to run successfully as an Independent? Won’t Bloomberg have a better shot at that?

Well, who knows? He may or may not run for president — as the Omaha World-Herald reported yesterday, he is “postponing a decision” on his political future:

The decorated Vietnam veteran and chief Republican critic of the war in Iraq today stopped short of making a decision about either pursuing a White House bid or seeking a third Senate term. He said he wants to keep his options open.
“I believe there will still be political options open to me at a later date,” he said during a press conference at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.
Several political analysts said Hagel could have a much tougher time running for president by waiting.”
He’s a substantial long shot. For the Republican nomination, literally, the Republicans would have to decide to completely abandon (President) Bush and the Iraq war. And it would probably tear the party apart,” said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato.

A Hagel candidacy would be a statement candidacy, not a viable candidacy with any chance of winning the nomination. He is right about the Iraq War, and some Republicans (and perhaps many) may privately agree with him, but the Republican Party is generally not a party of mavericks (see McCain, 2000). And Hagel isn’t just a maverick, he’s an outspoken critic of the president and the party’s orthodoxy on the key political issue of the moment. He’s more conservative than his sympathizers on the other side — including the author of this blog post — would often care to admit, but there is no forgiveness among Republicans. And I suspect Hagel doesn’t want any right now.
And yet I hope he runs. I may disagree with his positions on most issues, but I admire him and find him to be one of the most credible of America’s public figures. With no chance of winning the nomination, at least he’d be in a position to speak his mind and to demand of the leading Republican candidates — Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Brownback — that they defend their pro-war positions on Iraq free of nonsensical spin.
Although, come to think of it, this might be good for the GOP. So scrap that. I hope he doesn’t run. I hope he remains a voice of reason in the Senate, a voice of sanity in a party that hardly has any left, a thorn in Bush’s side. And I hope he leaves the stage of wannabe presidents to the stale cast of characters who have already made up their minds and decided to run. Let them fight it out, let them support Bush, let them defend the Iraq War or propose what to do next, let them pander to the GOP base on the right-wing fringe of American society.

Why should Hagel sully his credibility by joining them?