Bye.

Yup. The ones with real ethics (regardless of their political beliefs) never stick around long.

Tom (Not Tom) @ 2:

Did I miss something, or is this totally out of the blue?

I agree. Where is this coming from? And why?

I'm worried about Bob Kerrey after reading the Moyers interview transcript

I think he see's that the next 6 to 10 years are going to be a beating trying to fix all the fuckups that this admin had accomplished.......OT...am I the only one who is having a hard time getting through...or is the govt fucking with us again...

He was CEO of the voting machine company ES&S.
The same company who's machines counted the votes in his election.
It was called "an amazing victory".

Hagel's presser a couple months ago that had all the pundits declaring he was going to announce a pres bid, and then he announced nada. That was weird as hell by itself, but his decision now to retire is really strange. I wonder what the hell is really behind all of that? It's almost as if he's being pushed.

justabill @ 13:

Hagel's presser a couple months ago that had all the pundits declaring he was going to announce a pres bid, and then he announced nada. That was weird as hell by itself, but his decision now to retire is really strange. I wonder what the hell is really behind all of that? It's almost as if he's being pushed.

Larry Flints list maybe??...make ya wonder don't it?

mudshark @ 15:
Larry Flints list maybe??...make ya wonder don't it?

I didn't want to say it, but that's exactly what I was thinking.

Bob Kerrey will take his place--but that's no blessing. I'm afraid he'll just end up being another Joe Lieberrman.

Norcal @ 18:

mudshark @ 15:

justabill @ 13:

Hagel's presser a couple months ago that had all the pundits declaring he was going to announce a pres bid, and then he announced nada. That was weird as hell by itself, but his decision now to retire is really strange. I wonder what the hell is really behind all of that? It's almost as if he's being pushed.

Larry Flints list maybe??...make ya wonder don't it?

Chuck is to boring to have any sexual kinks.

....Says who?..Seems to me they thought the same thing of Haggard.

Although I personally like Sen. Hagel i often found that his connection to the electronic voting scam was extremely troubling. However, in a "bigger picture" way, i am concerned so many are starting to opt out of re-election runs. Is it because
a) They are all aware our country is nearly completely down the tubes?
b) They all being forced out with someone threatening to release skeletons in the closet.
c) Do they realize there is no longer any way to beat the corporate-controlled state?

My fear and initial thought is a fourth answer: All of the above.

he realizes he can't win.........

Norcal @ 24:

mudshark @ 21:

Norcal @ 18:

mudshark @ 15:

Chuck is to boring to have any sexual kinks.

....Says who?..Seems to me they thought the same thing of Haggard.

justabill @ 22:

Norcal @ 18:
Chuck is too boring to have any sexual kinks.

Yeah, but aren't they always the ones. :P

Haggard was alweays flambouent.

That I don't know...so I'll take your word for it...and I'll stand corrected..thanks

Hagel was on the right side of the war and on the wrong side of everything else. His voting record: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

Nebraska is one the deepest red states in the nation so there's little doubt that Hagel's replacement will be just as big of a wingnut extremist as he was....only more so because I'm sure his replacement will most likely be pro-war to boot.

mudshark @ 27:

Norcal @ 24:

mudshark @ 21:

Norcal @ 18: ....Says who?..Seems to me they thought the same thing of Haggard.

justabill @ 22:

Norcal @ 18:
Chuck is too boring to have any sexual kinks.

Yeah, but aren't they always the ones. :P

Haggard was alweays flambouent.

That I don't know...so I'll take your word for it...and I'll stand corrected..thanks

Ah, if only someone had caught Santorum having his way with a pooch. That would have been in grand style.

The Daily Show on Hagel’s Non-Announcement
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/13/the-daily-show-on-hagels-non-an...

BlueKnuckle @ 32:

Ruthless People @ 29:

Hagel was on the right side of the war and on the wrong side of everything else. His voting record: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

Nebraska is one the deepest red states in the nation so there's little doubt that Hagel's replacement will be just as big of a wingnut extremist as he was....only more so because I'm sure his replacement will most likely be pro-war to boot.

Do you really think that a fresh GOP face can afford in 08 to be gungho on Iraq? I have significant doubts in that regard.

I would think not but, this IS Nebraska after all.

Ruthless People @ 35:

BlueKnuckle @ 32:

Ruthless People @ 29:

Hagel was on the right side of the war and on the wrong side of everything else. His voting record: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

Nebraska is one the deepest red states in the nation so there's little doubt that Hagel's replacement will be just as big of a wingnut extremist as he was....only more so because I'm sure his replacement will most likely be pro-war to boot.

Do you really think that a fresh GOP face can afford in 08 to be gungho on Iraq? I have significant doubts in that regard.

I would think not but, this IS Nebraska after all.

Touche'

(Blueknuckle is a former resident of both Louisiana and Idaho, but now resides in blue CT, though he retains his rather shameful status as a RINO).

I read that the nukes on the B52 wasn't an accident.......anybody got anymore info?

BlueKnuckle @ 37:

Ruthless People @ 35:

BlueKnuckle @ 32:

Ruthless People @ 29:

Do you really think that a fresh GOP face can afford in 08 to be gungho on Iraq? I have significant doubts in that regard.

I would think not but, this IS Nebraska after all.

Touche'

(Blueknuckle is a former resident of both Louisiana and Idaho, but now resides in blue CT, though he retains his rather shameful status as a RINO).

As a native southerner who moved to NYC I say welcome to political civilization!

Ruthless People @ 41:

BlueKnuckle @ 37:

Ruthless People @ 35:

BlueKnuckle @ 32:

I would think not but, this IS Nebraska after all.

Touche'

(Blueknuckle is a former resident of both Louisiana and Idaho, but now resides in blue CT, though he retains his rather shameful status as a RINO).

As a native southerner who moved to NYC I say welcome to political civilization!

Thank you. Thank you.

Now I'm waiting for the Dems to give me a reason to switch. And waiting and waiting and waiting. See, in CT, I can't vote in primaries if I declare as an Independent. I see myself, at best, as a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. Oh well...

BlueKnuckle @ 37:

Ruthless People @ 35:

BlueKnuckle @ 32:

Ruthless People @ 29:

Do you really think that a fresh GOP face can afford in 08 to be gungho on Iraq? I have significant doubts in that regard.

I would think not but, this IS Nebraska after all.

Touche'

(Blueknuckle is a former resident of both Louisiana and Idaho, but now resides in blue CT, though he retains his rather shameful status as a RINO).

....why don't you call yourself a Dem?

justabill @ 36:

If "Nebraska is one the deepest red states in the nation" (I honestly don't know) then why is it the "Washington Post called his 1996 election - the first Nebraska senatorial Republican victory in 24 years - “the biggest upset in the country.” "

just askin

Don't take my word for it. See for yourself http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NE/P/00/index.html Nebraska voted for Bush over Kerry by a 2-1 margin in 2004.

Doesn't get much redder than that my friend.

mudshark @ 45:

BlueKnuckle @ 37:

Ruthless People @ 35:

BlueKnuckle @ 32:

I would think not but, this IS Nebraska after all.

Touche'

(Blueknuckle is a former resident of both Louisiana and Idaho, but now resides in blue CT, though he retains his rather shameful status as a RINO).

....why don't you call yourself a Dem?

I find the stereotypes to be too true . . . still. Dems are spineless. Where is the end to the War? Where is the end to lobbying support? Where is the emphatic bucking of corporate America?

Meanwhile, the GOP is equally true to their perceptions of divisiveness, hypocrisy, mendacity, you-name-it.

I want a positive reason to be a Dem . . . and I'm desperate to find it.

BlueKnuckle @ 49:

mudshark @ 45:

BlueKnuckle @ 37:

Ruthless People @ 35:

Touche'

(Blueknuckle is a former resident of both Louisiana and Idaho, but now resides in blue CT, though he retains his rather shameful status as a RINO).

....why don't you call yourself a Dem?

I find the stereotypes to be too true . . . still. Dems are spineless. Where is the end to the War? Where is the end to lobbying support? Where is the emphatic bucking of corporate America?

Meanwhile, the GOP is equally true to their perceptions of divisiveness, hypocrisy, mendacity, you-name-it.

I want a positive reason to be a Dem . . . and I'm desperate to find it.

I find that Dems throughout the last 60 years have shown plenty of backbone.....look at the repubs for being spineless...thay can't even risk voting their concience for fear of retribution from the party for not toeing the party line(Iraq)...not to mention this is the most corrupt and POWERFULL admin in history.....and yet again this Dem majority is still only less than a year old...no offense blueknuckle...but me thinks you buy into the hype too much.........

mudshark @ 51:

BlueKnuckle @ 49:

mudshark @ 45:

BlueKnuckle @ 37: ....why don't you call yourself a Dem?

I find the stereotypes to be too true . . . still. Dems are spineless. Where is the end to the War? Where is the end to lobbying support? Where is the emphatic bucking of corporate America?

Meanwhile, the GOP is equally true to their perceptions of divisiveness, hypocrisy, mendacity, you-name-it.

I want a positive reason to be a Dem . . . and I'm desperate to find it.

I find that Dems throughout the last 60 years have shown plenty of backbone.....look at the repubs for being spineless...thay can't even risk voting their concience for fear of retribution from the party for not toeing the party line(Iraq)...not to mention this is the most corrupt and POWERFULL admin in history.....and yet again this Dem majority is still only less than a year old...no offense blueknuckle...but me thinks you buy into the hype too much.........

Yea, you have to go back 60 years to find a Democrat with backbone. But what haye you done for me lately?

Chuck is the only Repub I ever liked.

curiousme @ 55:

Chuck is the only Repub I ever liked.

Spector? Chafee?

Maybe it's common sense; a nice neat departure from Washington while he still has a good name. 2008 ain't gonna be pretty for the Republicans, nor is the lead up to it. Observe now...

flamethrower @ 10:

Don't fall for the good cop/bad cop act. Hagel nearly always voted Republican and for Bush's intiatives. Since he is from Nebraska the chances of the seat going to a Democrat is slim. Hell, even with a Nebraskan Democrat Bush almost always gets his support.

Good riddance to an election fixing scum. Google Hagel's history with electronic voting.

very accurate , hagels just another repig doushbag!

Anyone with an ethical standard is fleeing the repugnacan party, the only thing left are the bottom feeders.

Smart man. i guess that's why he's been so outspoken against Bush.

Edwin @ 64:

Ruthless People @ 52:

BlueKnuckle @ 49:

mudshark @ 45:

I find the stereotypes to be too true . . . still. Dems are spineless. Where is the end to the War? Where is the end to lobbying support? Where is the emphatic bucking of corporate America?

Meanwhile, the GOP is equally true to their perceptions of divisiveness, hypocrisy, mendacity, you-name-it.

I want a positive reason to be a Dem . . . and I'm desperate to find it.

What, the lesser of 2 evils reason ain't enough for ya? Not an exciting reason I admit but it's all I can come up with myself these days.

I'm not American, so I'm neither. I am anti-right-wingnut, and anti-religious zealots, wherever they hail from. All politicians are a bit twisted, everywhere you go. Where does that leave us? The lesser of two evils. Looks like.

Anyone given a 100% by the Taliban Coalition.......I mean the Christian Coalition..... should tell you all you need to know about Hagel.

Ruthless People @ 67:

Edwin @ 64:

Ruthless People @ 52:

BlueKnuckle @ 49:

What, the lesser of 2 evils reason ain't enough for ya? Not an exciting reason I admit but it's all I can come up with myself these days.

I'm not American, so I'm neither. I am anti-right-wingnut, and anti-religious zealots, wherever they hail from. All politicians are a bit twisted, everywhere you go. Where does that leave us? The lesser of two evils. Looks like.

Anyone given a 100% by the Taliban Coalition.......I mean the Christian Coalition..... should tell you all you need to know about Hagel.

Funny I've heard Republicans say the same thing about Democrats and the ACLU.

mudshark @ 70:

...
the funny thing is the ACLU serves ALL Americans...can't say the same for the CC

Yeah, republicans didn't seem to mind it one bit when the ACLU succesfully represented Rush Limbaugh, Ollie North, or Jerry Falwell.

Christian Coalition Citizens Project......CCCP....

Which brings me back too.....What have the Republicans EVER done for you?

CD @ 76:

mudshark @ 70:

CD @ 69:

Ruthless People @ 67:

Funny I've heard Republicans say the same thing about Democrats and the ACLU.

the funny thing is the ACLU serves ALL Americans...can't say the same for the CC

Yeah well just because the CC supports him doesn't mean that's all we need to know about him.

A 100% rating by the Christian Coalition? I have to disagree. I think it does.

But in case you need more reasons, here they are again http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

Zenrage @ 3:

Yup. The ones with real ethics (regardless of their political beliefs) never stick around long.

Ya know, I was thinking about this.

Hagel and Warner, both people I may not agree with on most issues, but definitely do on Iraq... both are retiring.

Both have seats that have a fair chance to be captured by a Democrat in the next cycle with them being open. (I'm fairly sure both would have held their seats fairly easily if they'd chosen to stay on, but now its an open race)

I'm thinking there's a combination of things at play, a big part of which is a final "eff you" to the Republicans who both Warner and Hagel realize have pretty much turned their party into a corrupt cesspool.

There's more to it I'm sure as well; but I think in the end this could well have been a very smart and calculated move on both of their parts.

It's just too sudden for there not to be a reason beyond the simple "Eh, I'm done here" bit.

Then again, I freely admit that while disagreeing with Hagel on virtually everything else, he has always struck me as a man with some integrity and guts. So perhaps I am just looking to see this in the best possible light as well.

Regardless, the results mean we have a much better chance of getting a progressive into that seat than we ever did before. Not a *great* chance - we're looking at a pretty moderate Democrat if there's going to be a win for this one, but still; it could be a good thing regardless of intent.

Perhaps Hagel is going to make a CLEAN exit while he can.
Maybe, the years of voting for the bush agenda is weighing heavy on his mind.

Whatever the reason, my sainted Nana from Sicily always said;
"Goodbye and good luck."
I wish the same.

slippytoad @ 78:

RickMac @ 23:

Although I personally like Sen. Hagel i often found that his connection to the electronic voting scam was extremely troubling. However, in a "bigger picture" way, i am concerned so many are starting to opt out of re-election runs. Is it because
a) They are all aware our country is nearly completely down the tubes?
b) They all being forced out with someone threatening to release skeletons in the closet.
c) Do they realize there is no longer any way to beat the corporate-controlled state?

My fear and initial thought is a fourth answer: All of the above.

Hagel is a Republican. He's beginning to realize that as a brand the GOP is going to be about as popular as Malaria in the next decade or so.

I once again submit that Bush may well be the last Republican President ever, if not for a very, very long time. If the GOP ever comes back as a political entity in the next generation, it will be after a huge purge of the maniacal elements of the party. I think the GOP of 20-25 years from now will likely resemble and have absorbed today's Libertarians.

It seems increasingly obvious that the people driving the bus of today's GOP represent the views of a tiny, vocal, acerbic minority who are completely out of touch with reality.

I generally agree with you.

The GOP of the next generation will almost certainly be of a more libertarian bent.

I also believe we'll see a big rise in Liberal Christianity over the next 20 years.

Why? Because in talking with a lot of folks my own age who self-identify as Christians, almost all of us are of a very liberal progressive bent on things. Even those who think of homosexuality as a sin tend not to think it should be a crime or anything; and a fair number don't even go that far with it.

Now obviously my scope is fairly limited here; but I'm 24 right now, if people in my age group and thereabouts are thinking this way, then what will politics be like in 20 years? I'm sensing a drastic shift for the better; and I'm also sensing a distinct drawdown in the power of the Church in secular affairs; as much because of religious folks pulling their churches back into the realm of the spiritual as anything else.

Ruthless People @ 77:

CD @ 76:

mudshark @ 70:

CD @ 69:
the funny thing is the ACLU serves ALL Americans...can't say the same for the CC

Yeah well just because the CC supports him doesn't mean that's all we need to know about him.

A 100% rating by the Christian Coalition? I have to disagree. I think it does.

But in case you need more reasons, here they are again http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

Our current Iraq policy is not worthy of soldiers' sacrifice. (Jul 2007)
Engage with Iran & Syria; follow Baker-Hamilton. (Jul 2007)
Internationalize Iraq or we'll be seen as occupiers. (Jul 2007)
Open to withdrawal timelines, but look at other issues too. (Jul 2007)
Bush administration wanted to go to war with Saddam. (Jul 2007)
No Iraq military solution; focus on political accommodation. (Jul 2007)
Outcome in Iraq will be determined by the Iraqis. (Jul 2007)
Iraq was a war of choice, like Vietnam. (Jul 2007)
Congress should oppose Bush's actions, but not impeachable. (Jul 2007)
Soldiers in Iraq deserve a policy worthy of their sacrifice. (Mar 2007)
US in "deep trouble" in Iraq. (Sep 2004)
Iraq took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan. (Aug 2004)
Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005)
CIA mischaracterized Iraq WMD & abused intelligence position. (Jul 2004)
Iraq-al-Qaida contacts, but no complicity or assistance. (Jul 2004)
CIA knew State of the Union Iraq-Niger connection was false. (Jul 2004)
Iraq was not reconstituting its nuclear program. (Jul 2004)
Iraq was not developing its biological weapons program. (Jul 2004)
Iraq was not developing its chemical weapons program. (Jul 2004)
Iraq was developing missiles, but not to reach the US. (Jul 2004)
Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted NO on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)
Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)

mudshark @ 84:

Hey Ruthless...Thanks for the link...that was great stuff...tanx again

Your welcome Muddy. I think CD is still clinging to the notion the Hagel is some sort of messiah. For the Christians extremists perhaps but not for the rest of us.

CD @ 88:

Ruthless People @ 87:

mudshark @ 84:

Hey Ruthless...Thanks for the link...that was great stuff...tanx again

Your welcome Muddy. I think CD is still clinging to the notion the Hagel is some sort of messiah. For the Christians extremists perhaps but not for the rest of us.

A messiah he is not.

A voice of reason on the topic of Iraq from an undeniable Conservative he is.

So your position is more the enemy of my enemy is my friend? I could go with that in the short run.

My own speculation as to why he is getting out relates to his involvement in electronic voting. Dan Rather just did a video report exposing that in 2000, ES&S started making very poor quality punch-cards, and a special batch of cards that were made slightly too small, on purpose, for delivery to Florida counties where ostensibly the humidity would make them expand to be normal size--well, we now know that these are the cards that failed to work properly and undercounted hundreds or thousands of votes. Rather's report has 7 individuals from the ES&S company giving their names and saying that they don't know who approved those manipulations, but they thought they were wrong at the time. ES&S was at the time involved in making new, electronic DRE voting machines, but they were not selling well. So then along comes HAVA just in time.

So It seems likely to me that there is a trail of dirt that can be followed to link Hagel to these kinds of things, and to his "miraculous", (I.e.: crooked) election to the senate. He will be less of a target for prosecution for his past deeds if he is out of politics, when all of the further stuff his the fan over electronic voting.

I think this is very good news, but it is also evidence that there *is* a lot of dirt that needs to be dug up. We shouldn't let him slink away and get away with what he did. We have all suffered 8 years of Bush because of ES&S. Remember that Gore would NOT have taken his attention away from international terrorism as Bush did. Gore would have stepped up pressure in that area, and in fact, the 911 plot just might have been uncovered. You can bet, for example, that he would have been able to connect the dots after a presidential daily briefing entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.". Remember that Bush did get exactly that briefing, and that it did mention possible use of planes as weapons against buildings.

Does anyone think that Gore would have sat in the classroom reading "My Pet Goat" like Bush did?

We have the likes of Chuck Hagel to thank for getting Bush elected. He should not be allowed to slink off to hide under some rock somewhere.

GonzoD @ 90:

I can't say that I agree with most of Hagel's positions, but I do respect the hell out of the man! As far as I can tell he wasn't a panderer, and in Washington, that's saying something!

sure wasnt ,he was a dickhead like all repukes!only good repigs in the bone yard!

Hagel is my senator, and other than his principled opposition (not always followed by votes representing that opposition) to the military adventures of the Bush regime, his votes were very conservative. But he seemed to speak his mind, avoided the partisanship and his service to his constituency was solid.

He was being challenged by a neocon automaton named Jon Bruning, (NE AG) who assailed Hagel as a closet Dem, AlQaida sympathizer, and worse. There are a couple other R's who will run for Hagel's seat and they are all to the right of Attila the Hun. Bob Kerrey may think he can come back to the state and recapture the seat, but I fear he will be seen as a carpetbagger. About the only hope Dems have would be if Scott Kleeb would mount a major campaign, and it would have to be soon.

Hagel was a solid R-they could count on him for 95% of the votes, but he willing to listen and work with Dems. From this state, that is a breath of fresh air. His statesmanship will be missed, especially if he is replaced with one of the neanderthal-like neocons running now.

Wasn't it about March when the feds were trying to prevent the so-called "DC Madam" from releasing her call records? Don't get me wrong, I think Hagel was a voice of (near) sanity on Iraq. I'm just wondering about the timing.

This spineless Democrat thing is getting old....This admin and (then )majority of republicans are solely responsinble for all that ails this country....so you can't blame the Dems for that ...Now I understand everyone wants impeachment on the table and to proceed till it's conclusion resulting in the Removal of the Preznit...I'd like to see that too.......BUT IT AIN'T Gonna HAPPEN!!....Get used to it...

mudshark @ 66:

while I was in the shower It came to me........What have the Republicans EVER done for you?...I will always go Dem.

Certainly a simple and powerful point.

mudshark @ 99:

This spineless Democrat thing is getting old....This admin and (then )majority of republicans are solely responsinble for all that ails this country....so you can't blame the Dems for that ...Now I understand everyone wants impeachment on the table and to proceed till it's conclusion resulting in the Removal of the Preznit...I'd like to see that too.......BUT IT AIN'T Gonna HAPPEN!!....Get used to it...

Whether they are more civilized or "spineless" or whatever, the Democrats simply do not avail themselves of the strong-arm, disciplined tactics that are necessary for victory in the Congress . . . which the Republicans have so often used to advantage. The Dems need to close ranks and do REAL leadership instead of waiting until they're sure that they're actions will have few or no negative repercussions. You know that that is an accurate description of their modus operandi.

BlueKnuckle @ 101:

mudshark @ 66:

while I was in the shower It came to me........What have the Republicans EVER done for you?...I will always go Dem.

Certainly a simple and powerful point.

Somethings don't need to be complicated..

Hagel is too liberal for the Republic Party because he's not sure that endless war against the wrong country for nothing is a good policy.

BlueKnuckle @ 108:

Hey mudshark,

I just wanted to thank you for a thoughtful and heartfelt interchange. I found it enlightening and encouraging.

We all know the feeling of shouting into the abyss on the web.

I just wanted you to know that I appreciated your viewpoints and you have offered me even more to think about on the subject. There is, indeed, an enormous likelihood that, before the deadline for registering in CT's primary, I will have swapped over.

Per the comments by Publicus just above this . . .

Isn't it funny how the Dems can't quite get legislative discipline down, but among the Republicans, if you speak out on one issue, you're off the reservation permanently. At least Hagel has been ostracized for a principled stand and not a scurrilous foot-tapping.

What have you got too lose?

It's a shame, Hagel was one of the few I could stomach to watch on TV. Unfortunately he's going to replaced with another Republican.

Back away from the paint chips, try to think clearly now...