The generally reliable Chris Cillizza posed an interesting question at The Fix this week. He is pondering the fate of several politicos widely expected to wind up in Obama’s cabinet, but who now seem destined to be left out in the cold. Three of them are fairly standard fare: Kathleen Sebelius, Tim Kaine and John Kerry. The last choice, however, left me picking my jaw up off the floor.
Chuck Hagel: The outgoing Nebraska Republican senator was seen as a potential pick as secretary of Defense for Obama given his outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq. That job no longer open, expect Hagel to remain in the mix on foreign policy issues — particularly how to responsibly end the war — and examine whether or not the Republican party might be ready for a candidate in 2012 who opposed the war in Iraq. Hagel has made no secret of his interest in running for national office and would only be 66 on election day 2012.
One has to wonder what sort of herbs Chris Cillizza is putting in his pesto to ask if Republicans would seriously consider nominating a Republican presidential candidate who opposed the Iraq war. I took part yesterday in an online chat and talk show between my friend Ed Morrissey and extreme Christian Conservative Kevin McCullough, where the discussion and the comments of the primarily partisan Republican audience exemplified the reception such a suggestion would receive. Ignoring the fact that the Iraqis are now in the process of kicking the American forces out of their country pretty much on the same schedule that Obama had been proposing, they are finding ways of declaring victory and marking the excursion down as a triumph for George W. Bush in the War on Terror. Anyone who opposed the war is still viewed vehemently as “un-American” and “not serious about the greatest threat facing our nation.” The odds of Hagel finding a friendly base to float him through the 2012 GOP primary race are only slightly less than seeing the boys at PowerLine nominating Bill Ayers for a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
These same people who repeatedly flew warning flags declaring Obama to be the “the most liberal Democrat in the Senate” have observed these more moderate, Clintonista appointments with scorn. One might think that such actions would gain their approbation, but instead they take great pleasure in watching the distress of the furthest Left wing and label the President-Elect a flip-flopper. If you expected anything different, you’re living in some type of delusional, post-partisan fantasy land, worse than any of Obama’s expectations. Hagel is facing a base peppered in large part by people who are only interested in seeing a GOP majority in Congress and a new president with an “R” after their name as quickly as possible. The outgoing Nebraska Senator is now about as welcome in his party as a fart in church.
There is no room in the current GOP for anyone who sleeps with the enemy. John McCain had no sooner finished his concession speech than his base began casting stones at him for his positions on immigration, campaign finance, and the general sin of “reaching across the aisle.” (Of course, nobody wanted to raise a finger to point in blame at the-Palin scented albatross hanging around his neck.) The one serious question to be put to the Republican base at this point is the mirror image of the one they laid at Obama’s feet regarding Iraq during the election. Would you rather see the country prosper and Americans do well under the first term of an Obama administration, or would you prefer to see things fall further into distress in the interest of doing well in the next elections? No matter which party you put such a question to, I fear we already know the answer.
The very idea of Chuck Hagel having a future in the GOP seems staggering. He has been tried and found guilty of the cardinal sin, “Working With Democrats” and will be ignominiously shown the door. If he fails to find a place in the Obama administration, I’m afraid Chuck is on his way to a well-deserved retirement and perhaps a job providing political commentary at MSNBC.