Excellent. Now maybe John McCain will find something else to sniff about, something other than Sen. Obama's geographical gaps in his passport. If the Democrat is smart, though, he won't mention anytime soon any policy worries over the effects of global warming on the Arctic Shelf.
Sure, there's that policy affection between Obama and Hagel on the Iraq war, but their affair starts and ends right there. As the Politico quoted NOW's president, Kim Gandy: "Having someone who is against abortion, against gay rights, even protections against hate crimes, who would privatize Social Security, support school vouchers and no limits on gun ownership -- he’s a Republican, and he’s a conservative Republican. I honestly don’t understand why there is even speculation."
I don't either, Ms. Gandy. But your severely abbreviated list of Hagel's true political colors put me in mind of something I wrote back in early 2007, right after the Washington Post had done some rather dubious reporting on the rather dubious groundswell among "die-hard liberals" for a Hagel presidency, no less.
To wit ... "Just check out the following, representative voting record of Senator Hagel, which I’ve reproduced here from the nonpartisan research organization of OnTheIssues.org. But be warned: Your progressive hair is likely to stand on end.
*Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
*Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration.
*Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
*Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
*Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
*Voted NO on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
*Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
*Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
*Voted YES on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
*Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
*Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
*Voted YES on permanently repealing the ‘death tax.’ (Jun 2006)....
*Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
*Rated 36% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education. (Dec 2003)
*Rated 0% by the [League of Conservation Voters], indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
*Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
*Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
*Rated 12% by the [American Public Health Association], indicating an anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
*Rated 8% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
*Rated 22% by the [Alliance of Retired Americans], indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
And, finally, the right-wing pièces de ré·sis·tance:
*90% conservative voting record; 95% support of Pres. Bush. (Dec 2006)"
These perfectly dreadful details of Hagel's reactionarianism are generally omitted from media reports on the likelihood or non-likelihood of his being chosen as Obama's running mate. More often than not, all one hears is merely that Chuck Hagel is "conservative." Right. And Joe Stalin was "pink."
At any rate, perhaps the re-airing of the above-cited particulars will help decelerate any progressive enthusiasm for Hagel that is, in fact, running amok. It would have hit a lethally nasty blockade at the nominating convention anyway, so it was never a viable concern, but why, for heaven's sake, even ponder the non-possibility?
In closing, if I were so bold as to slap down a two-bit wager on who it is that Obama will actually choose, I'd have to go with Joe Biden. That's not necessarily a preference, just a reasonably educated guess. On the other hand, offered favorable enough odds I might indemnify that bet with another 35 cents on Jack Reed, who's getting a lot of one-on-one time with Obama these days.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
Hagel would be a great Defense Secretary....
The only republican
Would you PLEASE stop calling them "pro-life"?
Opposing women's reproductive control is anti-life.
What you mean is that Hagel has a pro-forced-pregnancy voting record.
AC
More liberal media at The Sideshow
It's rare, but there are stupid lefties.
No, they can't even see Iraq.
Sorta like the way McCain opposes torture.
AC
More liberal media at The Sideshow
Why In the World...
The ES&S connection is a PLUS!
AND the 1997 Ethics Committee Investigation which tied to ES&S
Reported in The Hill. Can't find it on their site, but it's been archived here: http://tinyurl.com/5f84yh
First few paragraphs:
JANUARY 29, 2003
Hagel's ethics filings pose disclosure issue
By Alexander Bolton
On May 23, 1997, Victor Baird, who resigned Monday as director of the Senate Ethics Committee, sent a letter to Sen. Charles Hagel requesting "additional, clarifying information" for the personal financial disclosure report that all lawmakers are required to file annually.
Among other matters, Baird asked the Nebraska Republican to identify and estimate the value of the assets of the McCarthy Group Inc., a private merchant banking company based in Omaha, with which Hagel had a special relationship.
Hagel had reported a financial stake worth $1 million to $5 million in the privately held firm. But he did not report the company's underlying assets, choosing instead to cite his holdings as an "excepted investment fund," and therefore exempt from detailed disclosure rules.
Questioned by The Hill, several disclosure law experts said financial institutions set up in the same fashion as the McCarthy Group Inc. do not appear to meet the definition of an "excepted investment fund," — at least as the committee had defined the category until Monday.
Hagel has not been accused of any legal or ethical violation and his staff denies that there has been any wrongdoing.
William Canfield, a former Senate Ethics Committee staffer, said the committee originally intended an "excepted investment fund," an exemption to cover mutual funds that buy or sell thousands of different holdings over the course of a year.
Hagel, who was reelected last November by a lopsided majority, declined to comment on the ethics filing matter.
The McCarthy Group Inc. owns fewer than 20 assets.
Hagel's filing underscores the currently murky world of Senate disclosures rules in which definitions are subject to change and interpretations can be accepted without further question.
(go to link for rest of article)
THERE'S ALSO THAT LITTLE ISSUE OF..................
What time wasting unimaginative b.s..
Politico has been from day one -a pure gossip rag. And we know the MSM has long given up anything resembling 'news'.
Have you heard at any time, either of the above doing any intelligent speculating on a subject other than their colorful electoral maps/toys?
Of course not because (a) it's no longer profitable to waste air or print time and space on anything not generating a profit and (b), if anyone in the MSM or our government did any intelligent speculating we wouldn't all be in the shit hole we're in now and (c), had the new centrist Obama done any intelligent speculating on FISA, more voters would have shown up at the polls in November of 08 to dump Hoyer and Reid as ineffective Democratic leaders because they too retained centrist positions rather than act and (d), since they've all failed to act responsibly and decisively they've proven once and for all that centrists, whether in the MSM or in Government are completely useless and are nothing more than the equivalents of black holes - entities that slowly suck the life and intelligence out of all things and replace them with pretty flashy gadgets and useless rhetoric.
Nationalism is not terrorism. And an adversary is not an enemy.