Newt advises Sarah (h/t Blue Gal. Click here for larger.)

Can you believe it? I'm actually looking forward to this morning's shows. No, not George Snufflupagus on This Week or William the Bloody on Fox News Sunday, but our very own Rachel Maddow is subbing for David Gregory is on the panel opposite Dick Armey on Meet the Press. Rachel has been relentless in the last couple of weeks on the astroturfing of FreedomWorks, so this promises to be a lot of fun. Around the dial, it's all about the health care reform bill, with HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius on This Week and State of the Union, Robert Gibbs on Face the Nation and executives from the AMA and AARP on Fox News Sunday. Arlen Specter will be on This Week, to share his take on the recent Town Hall shout fests. Fareed Zakaria will continue his interview Sec of State Hillary Clinton and you can bet her defensive responses in Africa will definitely be brought up.

ABC's "This Week" - Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius; Sens. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - White House press secretary Robert Gibbs; former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.; former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - FreedomWorks chairman and former Rep. Dick Armey, R-Texas; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D.; R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.; Gov. Bill Ritter, D-Colo.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Rick Stengel, Trish Regan, John Heilemann, Kathleen Parker. Topics: Has the domestic "change" President Obama promised stalled? How has Woodstock in 1969 impacted the politics of the past forty years? Meter Questions: Will outspoken fringe players dominate GOP for the rest of Obama's term? YES: 9 NO: 3; If unemployment is still high next year, will Obama revise his tax proposals? YES: 11 NO: 1.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Sebelius; Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Reps. Mike Ross, D-Ark., Tom Price, R-Ga., and Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - The first television interview with Michael Oren as Israel's new Ambassador to the United States. Plus, the Prime Minister of Kenya and an unusual event in Nairobi featuring Hillary Clinton and Fareed.

"Fox News Sunday" - Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala.; J. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association; John Rother, executive vice president for policy and strategy at AARP.

So, what's catching your eye this morning?

  Here's some "straight-talk" for ya from Nebraska's Senior Senator.

“I think it’s a stretch to, in any way, to say that she’s got the experience to be president of the United States,” Hagel said.

"I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,'" he said. "That kind of thing is insulting to the American people."

It's one thing if people want to support her because she's a right-wing zealot in every sense of the word. But can we please dispense already with the ridiculous notion that she has the qualifications to be Vice President?

Read the entire article.

Sens Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed appeared on "Face The Nation" Sunday to talk about their recent trip overseas with Barack Obama, and although they may hail from different political parties, both senators agreed that John McCain's latest misleading ad is divisive and inappropriate.

Download | play Download | play

Hagel: "I think John is treading on some very thin ground here when he impugns motives and when we start to get into, `You're less patriotic than me. I'm more patriotic.' I admire, respect John McCain very much, I have a good relationship--to this day we do, we talk often. I talked to him right before I went to Iraq, matter of fact. John's better than that."

As he states very clearly, Chuck Hagel has been friends with John McCain for a long time. I think it speaks volumes when even he condemns these ads and says "John's better than that."

The most ironic part about this whole attack against Obama is that while Team McCain is accusing him of disrespecting the troops for not going to see them -- which itself is a bald-faced lie -- it is actually the McCain campaign who is disrespecting the troops by using them as political pawns. Had Obama made the visit while on the official campaign leg of the trip, he would have been accused of inappropriately using the soldiers for a photo-op. When he correctly decided it was wrong to make the visit while on a political trip, the McCain team then accused him of snubbing our wounded warriors.

In other words, he would have been criticized no matter he did. I'm happy to see senators from both parties willing to point that out and condemn McCain for his opportunistic and shameless smear.

Full transcript below (.pdf):

Continue reading »

I keep hearing the name Chuck Hagel being mentioned as a possible Obama appointee if he wins the White House. And it's coming from of all people---liberals. I see it in comment sections and in some articles. As if that's some sort of bipartisan statement for Obama that will have the beltway weenies singing kumbaya across DC. I hate to speculate on something like this because I don't want to assume Obama will win the general. We do have to deal with McCain's Media at all times, but really, what is the fascination with him? Do they really believe that if Obama picks Republicans to be in his cabinet that they'll suddenly be won over and give him a very easy time trying to pass his legislation? I mean get real.

And I've also heard that Robert "Iran Contra" Gates is a good idea too. I don't know, do you think they've watched too many episodes of the the great series......West Wing?

(graphic) If the pundits are so into Hagel---maybe if Obama wins---they can ask him to appoint John McCain to be his Secretary of State---you remember---just like Jimmy Smits did to Alan Alda:

"Santos names Vinick as Secretary of State."

How about if Obama just asks Alan Alda instead?

Although I disagree with Chuck Hagel on pretty much everything else, he's one of the few Republicans who actually gets it when it comes to Iraq. There is nothing more dishonorable to our troops than forcing them to referee someone else's civil war.

Download | play Download | play

"What each of us in elected office, I think, have as our most important responsibility is a policy worthy of the sacrifices of these young men and women."

Although Hagel declined to endorse anyone for President, he made pretty clear that he has a huge problem with McCain's position on Iraq. Is it possible he would endorse the Democratic nominee?

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Chuck Hagel appeared on This Week with George Stephanopoulos to inject a rare respite from Republican spin and say that the surge hasn't worked, much to Stephanopoulos's disbelief:

GS: Now as you point out, the surge has not yielded all the political progress that everybody wanted, but clearly there have been fewer American casualties and the massacres have ended. You were wrong about that, weren’t you?

CH: No, I wasn’t wrong about that. We’ve lost over 900 dead Americans since the surge. Now if you want to dismiss that as “success,” that’ll be your interpretation. The fact is, in the end, all that matters is not a military tactical victory. Of course, when you flood the zone with American firepower, which is superior to anything in the world, we have the best soldiers, the best led, the best equipped (Nicole: the best equipped?) ….

GS: But you didn’t think that would work at the time.

CH: That’s not what I said. That’s not what I said. I said what you will do is you will further bog yourselves down in a situation, making the Iraqis more dependent on you, making it more difficult to get out. In the end, you’re not going to be any closer to a political reconciliation. If all this is working so well, George, then why are the Bush administration now talking about keeping brigades in there at 140,000, larger than what we had when the surge started? Why did Gen. Petraeus say last week—Gen. Petraeus—that there has not been commensurate political progress? That in the end is all that’s going to matter anyway. What the surge was all about, George, was trying to buy time for the Iraqis. They’ve not used that time very well. There’s no question, just like taking Saddam Hussein out, we were going to do that, we were going to do that probably dispatch him pretty quickly. That was never the issue. The issue is what happens after he’s gone.

So now George Stephanopoulos is selling the "surge is working" propaganda? *sigh* Note that neither man made mention of the exponentially higher rates of death for Iraqis (and they're not all "insurgents") or the millions displaced.  I don't know about you, but I'm struggling to find any measure of "success" that can be claimed.

Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel appeared on "Real Time" last night and had some tough words for the White House for "sending a military man to do a political job." Hagel also noted that the "Iraq war is biggest mistake in US history."

Download | play Download | play

Maher: Isn't a dirty trick on the American people when you send a military man out there to basically do a political sell-job?"

Hagel: It's not only a dirty trick, but it's dishonest, it's hypocritical, it's dangerous and irresponsible. The fact is this is not Petraeus' policy, it's the Bush's policy. The military is -- certainly very clear in the Constitution -- is subservient to the elected public officials of this country.. but to put our military in a position that this administration has put them in is just wrong, and it's dangerous."

Hagel's responses to Bill's questions were perhaps his strongest condemnation of the White House and this war yet. The truth is that President Bush had no choice but to make Petraeus the poster boy of The Surge; after years and years of misleading this country, his credibility is at zero and he needs someone with a seemingly objective and non-partisan record to do the political dirty work of selling the surge continuing the occupation. Absolutely shameful. As Hagel makes perfectly clear, the Republican Party will pay dearly for it.

Via Omaha.com:

Chuck Hagel will announce Monday that he is retiring from the U.S. Senate and will not run for president next year, people close to the Nebraska Republican said Friday.

Hagel plans to announce that "he will not run for re-election and that he does not intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008," said one person, who asked not to be named.

Hagel has scheduled a press conference for 10 a.m. Monday at the Omaha Press Club.

According to one person interviewed, Hagel told Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky on Friday morning that he had decided to retire. Hagel's staff learned of his decision that afternoon.

The North Platte native earned national recognition as perhaps the most vocal, at times angry, GOP critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policies. Read more...

MyDD:

Diarist ptmflbcs at Dailykos alerted me once again to important chapter in the story of the modern Republican Party: the current right-wing primary challenge to Senator Chuck Hagel by Attorney General Jon Bruning. This is something of a Lieberman-Lamont story on the GOP, only in reverse. But the parallels aren't perfect, and illustrate well the differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, as well as how the media treats the two.

First of all, Chuck Hagel isn't particularly moderate. His voting record was in virtual 'lockstep' with President Bush in 2004. On domestic policy grounds, he is exceptionally loyal. So what is the story here? Obviously, partly it's Iraq. Hagel has been a critic of Bush on Iraq, and even voted against Bush on the supplemental, providing an important margin of victory for the supplemental that Bush then had to veto. While Democratic officials can vote against the party line and even lash out against the base without consequence (Mark Udall did it again today), Republican officials are not given the same latitude. [..]

In other words, Republican officials are order-takers. Hagel is not. He isn't on Iraq, even going so far as to suggest that an impeachment of Bush might be on the table.

Read full article

  On "Face the Nation" this morning, Bob Scheiffer asked Senator Hagel if he was running for President and would it be as a Republican or an Independent. Although he doesn't give a clear-cut answer on the Presidential run, Hagel says he doesn't recognize the Republican party he joined back in 1968 while serving in Vietnam.

Download | play   Download | play  

His coy response about a potential Hagel/Bloomberg ticket at the end is also something to take note of.

  Fair and balanced.

Download | play    Download | play

For our video-editing gurus out there, Stephen issued a new challenge last night. Use the hilarious footage from this interview (.mov) with PBS' Gwen Ifill to make Stephen look bad, kinda like he did to Rep. Wexler. You can submit your entries here.   

 Chuck Hagel tells ABC that impeachment is an option for a monarchy...

Download | play    Download | play (h/t Scarce)

ABC supplies the transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS:  It is clear to me that you are angry about this, and you also gave an interview to Esquire magazine this month, the April edition of Esquire magazine, where you were quoted as saying, "The president says, 'I don't care.' He's not accountable anymore. He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true.  You can impeach him.  And before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment."

 

HAGEL:  Well, 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 -- what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that.  This is not a monarchy.

Continue reading »

  Senator Hagel played the media like the fools they are yesterday with his non-announcement announcement that he may have something to announce in the future.

Download | play   Download | play  

Stay tuned for an announcement. 

 Chuck takes a swipe at St. McCain, who is flopping around from one sentence to the other.

Download | play Download | play

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator McCain’s idea.

HAGEL: Yes, and then having no consequences, now that’s intellectually dishonest. So what are the consequences? Are we then going to pull out? If the benchmarks are not met by the Maliki government, are we then going to walk out? Are we then going to bring our troops home? Are we going to cut funding? Now, that falls more in the intellectually dishonest category. 

This follows along with my complaint of the traditional media furthering a narrative that does not necessarily follow reality.  Chuck Hagel has been painted as this moderate Republican, the darling of the new era of "bipartisanship."  But aside from the one (admittedly critical) issue of Iraq, how much of Hagel's vaunted moderation is the creation of the media?

Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks writes in HuffPo :

Who is this man?

If you read this interview with Hagel in GQ or hear him excoriating the administration and his Republican colleagues on the Senate floor, you think he is a godsend. A Republican who thinks clearly and acts boldly. Something we haven't seen in six years.

But then you look at his voting record, and it is abysmal. Did you know that in 2006 there was not one senator in the country who voted with the Bush administration more than Chuck Hagel? That's not in 2003, where he might argue - and he does argue - he was deceived. That was a month ago!

Matt Ortega gives us some startling statistics:

The article says Senator Hagel wants to move the party back to the "center," but an inspection of his Senate votes reveals that he is not as moderate as some may believe. Hagel scored a 96 rating in 2005 from the American Conservative Union (ACU), up from 87 in 2004. The presumptive front-runner, Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), scored an 80 in 2005 and a 72 in 2004 [Senate Ratings]. Congressman Duncan Hunter didn't measure up to Hagel's conservatism, scoring a 92 in 2005, and tied the Nebraska senator with an 87 in 2004. Only Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo bested Hagel with perfect scores both years. [House Ratings]

And Duncan Hunter is basing his presidential campaign on being the most conservative contender.