Hagelberg! Bloomha! For '08! Maybe

posted by John Nichols on 05/14/2007 @ 10:42am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (88)

Subscribe Now

"This country is in trouble. The world is in trouble. And we need some new, fresh, independent ideas to lead this country forward."

Sounds a like the opening line from a presidential campaign announcement speech. And it may just be.

Or, perhaps, it is a line from a vice-presidential campaign announcement.

What it almost certainly is not, however, is the message you'd expect to hear from a sitting senator who plans to seek reelection next year.

So it goes on Chuck Hagel Watch, which is rapidly becoming the most unconventional beat in American politics.

Today's indicators suggest that the renegade Republican solon from Nebraska is leaning toward launching an independent bid for national office.

Which office remains a matter of speculation.

Which party may be coming into focus. And here's a hint: It is neither grand nor old.

Hagel met two weeks ago with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, another outsider Republican who has made little secret of his interest in stepping up the political ladder. Bloomberg has been exploring prospects for an independent run at the presidency for at least a year, even going so far as to make 2006 campaign appearances with an eccentric collection of non-New York candidates that included Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, a different breed of maverick who was reelected last fall as the candidate of a self-named third party but caucuses somewhat uncomfortably with the Senate Democrats.

Now, Hagel is openly speculating about a Hagel-Bloomberg ticket, or perhaps a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket running on an independent line next year, or perhaps on the line of the Unity08 movement. Unity08 is the multipartisan grassroots coalition that has for months been trying to forge what its spokesman, actor and Nation reader Sam Waterston, refers to as "a third force in the middle" to fix a system that he describes as having been "broken" by consultants, spin doctors and hyper-partisan Democrats and Republicans.

Bloomberg has openly flirted with the Unity08 crew.

Hagel, who has flirted with a Republican presidential bid, an independent presidential bid, a campaign for reelection on the GOP line or an exit from politics, now sounds as if he is reading from the Unity08 playbook.

The senator says his Republican party, the party "of Eisenhower, of Goldwater, of Reagan" has been "hijacked by a group of single-minded almost isolationists, insulationists, power-projectors." He peppers his commentary -- most recently on the CBS Sunday morning show "Meet the Press" -- with that talk of "new, fresh, independent ideas." And he says there is something appealing about "a New York boy and a Nebraska boy... teamed up leading this nation."

No, that's not an announcement. Just a big hint.

Bloomberg and Hagel still have a lot of differences to sort out.

The two men may be essentially on the same page regarding the Iraq imbroglio -- both are critics of President Bush's approaches, though Hagel is by far the more aggressive objector. But they have said very different things about U.S. relations with Israel. And when it comes to domestic policy, well, these guys are not just out of tune with one another, they are singing from different hymnals altogether. Bloomberg is a social liberal of the first order: pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-diversity, pro-strict separation of church and state, pro-gun control, pro-drug law reform, very friendly to immigrants and very open to raising tax rates when revenues are needed to maintain schools, public services and basic infrastructure. Hagel tends toward the other side of the debates on those issues.

Then, of course, there is the matter of who would top the Hagelberg ticket.

That said, Hagel really wants to be in the White House. And Bloomberg, a billionaire who can self-finance a national campaign, may be holding the best ticket. By the same token, Bloomberg also appears to be desirous of a 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue address, and he knows he could use a Midwesterner with military and legislative experience to broaden his appeal.

So the two men are talking, and hinting.

Bloomberg aides suggest that an in-or-out decision by the mayor won't come before early next year.

Hagel says he'll make some kind of announcement by late summer -- although if his track record is any indication it may only be the declaration that he isn't seeking a third term in the Senate.

For now, Hagel says, "I don't forgo any options."

Truer words have never been spoken by an American politician.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (88)

Hagel can't win his own seat back in Neb this time around so a national run is good for him..following the Edwards model..trouble is it leaves you unemployed...Hagel and Bloomie...a recipe for how to run and win less states than Mondull...go for it boys...it will give the media something to do...

Posted by john maasch at 05/14/2007 @ 10:52am
Republicans: your nominee is Jeb Bush. Accept your new leader.

Posted by conshame at 05/14/2007 @ 11:11am
NICHIOLS: ....Hagel really wants to be in the White House....For now, Hagel says, "I don't forgo any options."

Quick, book him a night at the Lincoln Bedroom for the (going on senile) Senator!

However (and a huge IF) he enters the race, he will bring up the rear of both main parties....even behind that boy from Ohio!

Posted by Happy at 05/14/2007 @ 11:21am
If these guys want to split up the conservative vote so that the Dem wins (a la Nader), be my guest.

Posted by BlueTexan at 05/14/2007 @ 11:27am
Maasch: I do not agree that Hagel could not be re-elected. It does sound like he might be mighty tired of being a legislator in the minority. He didn't sound like this from 2002 until it appeared the GOP might lose the majority status in '06. Either way, he will flare a little bit and then die out.

Posted by The Goods at 05/14/2007 @ 11:42am
Hagel and Bloomberg would both have a tough time; given that the mainstream front-runners John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Uhh Romney - not to mention the inevitable nominee Jeb Bush - have all said they believe in Jesus Christ - and I just dont see how either Hagel or Bloomberg are going to overcome that.

Posted by conshame at 05/14/2007 @ 11:51am
What has Chucky done to alienate the Nebraskan electorate?

Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2007 @ 11:51am
"Republicans: your nominee is Jeb Bush. Accept your new leader.

Posted by CONSHAME 05/14/2007 @ 11:11am

Another Bush? No way..just as not another Clinton..I would think we are all sick of both names...

conshame=still out to lunch

Crab,

Chucky was a McCain wannabe..liked the national attention McCain had for years and thought he could do the same by being and "Independant Rep"(rino)...it may work in a number of places but in nEB I don't think it will fly...Ben Nelson captured a solid majority, and I know 2 people who are getting ready to run for Hagels seat...I think he will pull an Edwards and see he can't win, so he will bail out..retire....maybe even governor..

Posted by john maasch at 05/14/2007 @ 12:11pm
The Goods,

I don't think being a minority Senator in this senate makes a difference, as the dem "lock on power" is a spider web away from defeat..

..it is about what he does that the folks back home like or dislike..many feel Nelson and Hagel should just change partys and be done with it..Neb is the most conservative place I have ever lived..and Chucky is in deep manure...cattle ranch lingo, so to speak.

Posted by john maasch at 05/14/2007 @ 12:15pm
" don't think being a minority Senator in this senate makes a difference, as the dem "lock on power" is a spider web away from defeat.. " - Maasch

What planet are you living on?

Posted by brantl at 05/14/2007 @ 2:02pm
Posted by BRANTL 05/14/2007 @ 2:02pm

Earth..and you?

Posted by john maasch at 05/14/2007 @ 2:20pm
What planet are you living on?

Maasch..and you?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/14/2007 @ 2:20pm | ignore this person

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/14/2007 @ 2:29pm
Maaschman:

Ricketts and Bruning will split the evangelical vote in the primary and Hagel will get the nomination. If only one of them runs, Hagel will have a tough fight.

Posted by bjkron at 05/14/2007 @ 2:35pm
Meanwhile, Bruning wastes your and my tax dollars running publicly funded campaign ads masquerading as PSAs about internet child predators.....

Posted by bjkron at 05/14/2007 @ 2:37pm
BJ,

How are you doing?...Bruning has been raising money from friends of mine and Ricketts already received Hagels blessing...I don't think Hagel is running for anything other than the Presidency...you live here too and you know Hagel isn't what he used to be and has lost favor. His heart isn't in the Senate and hasn't been for a long time.

Now Ricketts vs Bruning should be intertesting. As far as Bruning wasting money on ads,,he isn't nearly as inefficient as our old mayor,Seng, who drove business out of Lincoln and into Omaha faster than Welsly helped Gallop out of town...the tax revenues lost are staggering.

BJ,

Check out Pioneers Blvd betyween 70th and 84th..closed for over a year and 1/2...govt project and construction company..has become the laughing stock in the construction industry here.

Are you a student at UNL or are you working in Lincoln?

Posted by john maasch at 05/14/2007 @ 2:58pm
"Another Bush? No way..just as not another Clinton..."

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/14/2007 @ 12:11pm | ignore this person

John Maasch hates his President. I just called up GB Senior and this is what he said over the phone - just now:

"John Maasch has Bush fatigue. But you'd still prefer another Bush family idiot to a Liberal Genius, riiiiiiiight? OK, so go along. Bow down and lick the boots of Jeb Bush your new GOP nominee or get the hell out of the Republican Party."

Posted by conshame at 05/14/2007 @ 3:24pm
I mean Commander in Chief.

Posted by conshame at 05/14/2007 @ 3:31pm
Why do Republicans hate Bush, so damn much?

Posted by conshame at 05/14/2007 @ 3:32pm
con, they are right to do so, he destroyed the republican party by his hubris. among other things he destroyed of course.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/14/2007 @ 3:49pm
Con,

Most people when trying to fire a put down using humour use one thing your attempt at put downs doesn't have...humour..

Phone call to GB is not funny...

John Massch doesn't hate this president or anyone else..I will try once last time for you..I am a conservative and lean more toward libertarian...Bush, 1 and 2, never have been conservative and have lead the repubs down a path of rinoism..therefore, your post regarding myself and Bush are so way off mark as to make no sense..

All humour,even bad hunour involves a degree of truth, no matter how small, ...this is why you are not funny, your put downs are not put downs but just ackward and off mark that onlt one who doesn't know his subject could produce.

When you understand my positions, then I can discuss with you the rights and wrongs of them, but since you obviously have never read my posts, otherwise you wouldn't print the last group of brattle,you leave me in a position with nothing to say to you..other than this waste of space and time.

Posted by john maasch at 05/14/2007 @ 4:01pm
" onlt "

Should read ..only...

Posted by john maasch at 05/14/2007 @ 4:23pm
"When you understand my positions..." Posted by JOHN MAASCH

Government bad. Taxes bad. Democrats bad. Unions bad.

That's about all there to know about his "views".

Posted by mtspence05 at 05/14/2007 @ 4:58pm
Modest correction: Chuck Hagel was on CBS's Face the Nation. NBC hosts Meet the Press on which John McCain appeared on Sunday.

Posted by rfprice57 at 05/14/2007 @ 6:14pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/14/2007 @ 4:54pm

DARIN!!! The World Famous Actuary!!

Making a return from the rock you crawled under after the dems wiped up your right wing Taliban in last years election? Care to make some more ill fated predictions about how the dem controlled congress will destroy the stock market? (up over 13,000) Or some ill informed predictions about how the repubs will carry 08? or how the war in iraq will bring stability to the ME by the summer of 07?

or, did you get a dose of reality while away? I actually thought you must have tried the chlorine/ammonia mix I asked you to try. Glad to find out you didn't.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2007 @ 7:04pm
One of the more interesting tickets to come around in awhile. Though unity? It is a Republican teamed up with . . . a Republican! Though I suppose many see Bloomberg as a RINO since he was, for most of his life, a Democrat.

But there's something about this I don't like; it reminds me of "balance" on the talk show circuit. Take a uber-conservative and put him/her next to a "centrist" and that is balance. Bloomberg at best a mushy centrist and Hagel is a very conservative Republican who, contrary to what John Maasch is saying, will win reelection in Nebraska.

Posted by hhemwm at 05/14/2007 @ 8:20pm
Miller-Liberman? LOL

They couldn't carry any state, let alone any convention.

Zell is so out to lunch you'll have to remind him who he is running against. He'd be the biggest liability since General Curtis LeMay openly advocated nuking North Vietnam during the 1968 campaign!

Tell ole Yosemite Sam to stay in private life. We've had enough of him.

Posted by hhemwm at 05/14/2007 @ 8:22pm
And he sure could never get the Democratic nomination. I remember 2004.

He should spend time trying to make nice with Chris Matthews.

Posted by hhemwm at 05/14/2007 @ 8:23pm
"Hagel is a very conservative Republican who, contrary to what John Maasch is saying, will win reelection in Nebraska.

Posted by HHEMWM 05/14/2007 @ 8:20pm | ignore this person "

He may be very conservative to your point of view but too many he has been sliding to the left...he is no conservative anymore...

BTW, do you live in NE?

Posted by john maasch at 05/14/2007 @ 8:51pm
Chuck Hagel

Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005) Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001) Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000) Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001) Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999) Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005) Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997) Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005) Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003) Voted NO on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003) Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000) Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997) Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005) Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005) Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001) Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005) Voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority. (Nov 1997) Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006) Voted NO on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002) Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002) 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 limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006) Voted NO on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006) Voted NO on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005) Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001) Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006) Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005) Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997) Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005) Voted YES on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001) Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999) Voted YES on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006) Voted YES on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005) Voted YES on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006) Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)

Posted by thbarnes at 05/14/2007 @ 9:44pm
"Bush, 1 and 2, never have been conservative"

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/14/2007 @ 4:01pm | ignore this person

Bush isnt Conservative, Bush is the Liberals fault. Conservatives didnt vote for him - Liberals did.

Only a Conservative would tell such a silly LIE.

Posted by conshame at 05/14/2007 @ 10:33pm
Con,

Can you really be that dim? Jesus..

Bush was elected by republicans, both conservative and moderate Repubs...along with a majority of the independents..

It is not rocket science to the majority of us here...not complicated at all..and not you are wrong yet again..Liberals didn't vote for Bush..

Please try..OK?

Posted by john maasch at 05/14/2007 @ 10:38pm
What caused all of the cons to vote for a non-con?

Methinks he is a con. Worse, a neo-con.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2007 @ 10:43pm
John Maasch makes a very astute point, I spoke with a friend of the Bush family (not one of the Bin Ladens).

You may not already be aware, but Jeb Bush is actually run on the "Liberals are to blame for Bush and Iraq" argument in 2008.

Posted by conshame at 05/14/2007 @ 10:43pm
I'm for Cheney/Satan in '08

Might as well finish the job of sending the US to hell.

"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." - Dick Cheney

itmfa

Posted by COProgressive at 05/14/2007 @ 10:51pm
(not one of the Bin Ladens).

Was he an .... Al Saud?

Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2007 @ 10:55pm
"What caused all of the cons to vote for a non-con? '

Thats easy..the prospect of Kerry.

Posted by john maasch at 05/15/2007 @ 12:48am
Bloomberg is also a very big success story. made his own fortune, in contrast to Bush, where everything he touched turned to shit. he has run the biggest city in the country in a professional manner, swecret he doesn't pick stupid fights, like his predecessor. he has a great deal of personal charm and is an eloquent speaker, again in contrast to the tongue tied Bush2. he seems to br somewhat unencumbered by ideology, a considerable advantage.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/15/2007 @ 07:59am
Thats easy..the prospect of Kerry.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/15/2007 @ 12:48am

Hell of a way to pick a POTUS! See JOHANNNES post above. I seem to remember a republican primary chock full of real conservatives . But ya'll chose Chimpy. HAHAHA.

It's not really funny, the primate has done irreparable damage to our country, and others.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/15/2007 @ 08:08am
Remember RIO, LUVVY,

YOU WERE USED!!! Then abandoned like a cheap condom behind the bar. Other than tax cuts for the uber wealthy, which parts of your agenda have been met by chimpy?

Posted by crabwalk at 05/15/2007 @ 08:12am
How's Gonzoz Justice Dept doing?

Another one bites the dust, McNulty, #2, resigned due to Gonzos ham handed management.That is 4 so far. Moral is low, republicans are calling for gonzos resignation. But, all that matters is Chimpy luvs him.

Of course McNulty resigned for "personal reasons". Wink, wink. McNulty is a LIAR. He should be prosecuted for perjuring himself in front of the senate.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/15/2007 @ 08:18am
Actually, in 2004, Chimpy basically said there would be NO primary. 0 dissent.

above post was in relation to 2000.

Why would a man that wants democracy to spread worldwide not want to have a real primary? Because he knew if anybody good showed up, chimp would have lost.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/15/2007 @ 08:51am
It has come in hundreds of billions of dollars under budget,

really? citation.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/15/2007 @ 09:23am
Despite Mr Nichols fervant hopes and dreams, neither Hagel nor Blooomberg is going to go anywhere on a campaign. His reason for hoping for a third party/indie move by them is obvious...he's worried that, even after the disaster of Iraq and the Bush Administration, that Hillary as the Dem nominee could lose it for them. (More so, if the fumbling Senator Obama gets it).

Believe it or not, the Republicans STILL have a shot at the White House in 2008....the Dems are that bad off. Frankly, their best shot is Edwards, and not just because he's white and male, but because he's attractive and Southern, two key elements for Dems to win the Presidency.

But if it's HRC or Obama, they have a tougher row to hoe, and they'll need a conservative'ish independent/third party guy to peel off some votes. Hagel can run "anti-war" but still anti-abortion, etc. and Bloomberg can peel away votes from Rudy, as well as dump MILLIONS into his campagin from his "petty cash drawer" (hehe).

Posted by Mask at 05/15/2007 @ 09:32am
Actually, MARYBRETBRAD, everyone with whom I have spoken (clients, mainly) hate the prescription drug program.

And I'm curious how you feel about not giving the US Government, the largest single purchaser of drugs in the world right now, the right to negotiate prices down like every other purchaser (read: Wal-Mart, et. al). Are you trying to say that the free market is fine for everyone else, but not for the US Government?

Posted by jorcheim at 05/15/2007 @ 10:20am
MARYBRETBRAD:

Bush has already found himself lower that Carter, and if Cheney goes much lower he will be in the negative numbers. The election last November did, in fact prove you correct that people didn't like the way the Congress was working, so they threw the bums out... vastly Republican. So... what was your point, precisely?

Posted by jorcheim at 05/15/2007 @ 10:21am
Believe it or not, the Republicans STILL have a shot at the White House in 2008....the Dems are that bad off.

Posted by MASK 05/15/2007 @ 09:32am

NOBODY,

This is your rare chance to nail MASK on his contradictions! You're welcome!

Posted by Happy at 05/15/2007 @ 10:22am
It must not be news.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 05/15/2007 @ 09:44am | ignore this person

maybe it's not true?

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/15/2007 @ 10:58am
You must be smoking some of Darla's stash. Bloomberg is a classical old-school Democratic liberal in Republican clothing and Hagel is a Rockefeller liberal Republican.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/15/2007 @ 01:46am

I don't think so. Hagel is no Rockefeller liberal Republican. How do you explain the fact that the American Conservative Union has given him a lifetime rating of 85.2? He had a rating of 96 for the year 2005 alone. If you don't believe me go to http://www.acuratings.org/2006all.htm#NB.

Maasch, you may think Hagel is becoming liberal because he does not support the war as has been an outspoken critic for years but being against the war does not make one liberal. You might just ask William F. Buckley about that.

Hagel has remained a staunch conservative throughout the war and his voting record shows that. If you think liberal=ending the war you are entirely mistaken (one has absolutely nothing to do with the other).

And no, I do not live in Nebraska.

Posted by hhemwm at 05/15/2007 @ 11:06am
And LVLiberty, how exactly does one explain "a classical old-school Democratic liberal in Republican clothing"?

That literally makes no sense at all. It is like saying Ted Kennedy (who is, by the way, about the only classical old school democratic liberal in the Senate) has decided to join the nation's conservative party. And if you don't believe me on that one you should read Theodore Lowi's The End of the Republican Era where he discusses how the GOP has become a conservative party and is no longer a classical liberal party (which the GOP used to be).

As to the Ted Kennedy piece; British authors Adrian Woolridge and John Micklethwait said as much in their book THe Right Nation: Conservative Power in America where they specifically discuss how Kennedy is the last of that type and how conservative the Congress has become.

Resurrecting Rockefeller republicanism may be a useful tool for you, but it is inaccurate. To say Bloomberg is a democratic liberal of the "classical type" and then to try and put him in the modern conservative camp that is the GOP shows how little sense your analysis makes.

The fact that you and John Maasch think Hagel is "liberal" just goes to show how far to the Right the GOP has gone.

Posted by hhemwm at 05/15/2007 @ 11:12am
"Maasch, you may think Hagel is becoming liberal because he does not support the war as has been an outspoken critic for years but being against the war does not make one liberal. You might just ask William F. Buckley about that"

It has nothing to do with the war..and his ratings and votes are a reflection of the past...he has had other drives and they have been apparent for a long time...all I am saying is he will have difficult time getting re elected here...if he even runs again, which I doubt.

I am a conservative and will not vote for him...and I know of many here who feel the same.

"If you think liberal=ending the war .."

No I do not think liberal=ending the war,.. I think liberal=big govt solutions to everything with tax everyyone out of his desire and drive.

Posted by john maasch at 05/15/2007 @ 11:13am
But then again, I seem to recall you have a very difficult time defining the difference between liberal and conservative on anything other than cultural matters.

Posted by hhemwm at 05/15/2007 @ 11:14am
Maasch,

His ratings are current not from the past. Check out the American Conservative Union's website.

As to big government solutions. . . President Bush has done more to expand the bureaucracy than anyone since Ronald Reagan, himself a conservative.

You can't name one Republican president who has not expanded the federal bureacracy. They all do it.

Posted by hhemwm at 05/15/2007 @ 11:15am
Which number is the estimated budget under? the 300 billion it was sold as costing, or the 500 billion it was later assumed it would cost?

I have to agree with JORCH. My parents , in their 70's, like their program, but most of their friends do not. Why is it that when Mal-Wart announces that they will enter the drug mkt all the free marketeers are excited because this will bring massive discounts via the purchasing power of a vast company. But, when the guvt wants to do that the free marketeers scream bloody murder about the guvt undercutting the drug industry.

So, Darin, after 6 years you have a drug plan that some are happy with, others not so much. Is that all you have to show? A hand out to Pharma? Have you ever seen the lidt of former staffers (those that served on the repub committee to forward this medicare drug bill, went on to work for huge sums for Pharma industries? Most of them is the answer. They did the bidding of the drug industry, and are being rewarded above and beyond.

Public Citizen:

At least 11 top staffers who left the Bush administration lobbied for the drug industry and HMOs in 2003. White House and administration insiders working as lobbyists on the Medicare bill included several former top advisers to Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tommy Thompson.

The exodus from the administration has accelerated since Bush signed the new Medicare law. At least four key Bush administration officials – most notably Tom Scully, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) – have exited to help industry clients benefit from the Medicare bill that they wrote or promoted. Another six top congressional staffers at the center of negotiations over the Medicare bill now lobby for drug companies or HMOs.

The revolving door spins both ways. Three prominent drug industry and HMO lobbyists have recently moved into senior health policy positions at HHS. Another is now a spokesman for the Bush campaign. And the lead White House negotiator on the Medicare bill – presidential adviser Doug Badger – previously represented half a dozen drug companies as a lobbyist.

Drug industry and HMO executives and lobbyists ranked among Bush's elite fundraisers. Twenty-one executives and lobbyists achieved "Ranger" or "Pioneer" status by collecting at least $200,000 or $100,000, respectively, for Bush in the 2000 or 2004 campaigns. (In addition, two of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry's biggest backers were lobbyists on the drug industry payroll in 2003.)

Posted by crabwalk at 05/15/2007 @ 11:16am
"The fact that you and John Maasch think Hagel is "liberal" just goes to show how far to the Right the GOP has gone. "

No, I don't think Hagel is a liberal,...I think he has become more interested in Hagel, than Nebraska or the US..

Posted by john maasch at 05/15/2007 @ 11:17am
Besides, what big government solutions is Hagel proposing that are any grander than ole President Bush?

I have not heard any.

Posted by hhemwm at 05/15/2007 @ 11:20am
I am a conservative and will not vote for him...and I know of many here who feel the same.

but you voted for Chimpy twice, while claiming he is not a conservative.

Posted by crabwalk at 05/15/2007 @ 11:20am
"As to big government solutions. . . President Bush has done more to expand the bureaucracy than anyone since Ronald Reagan, himself a conservative. "

I have always believed this and is one of the main reasons I am anti Bush..1 and 2... I appreciated Reagan efforts...

And yes, the ratings from the Conservative Union are a reflection of Hagels past...again, many are not against him because of his conservative measurements, although it may be to some, but rahter where his interests seem to be heading these days.....a McCain wannabe and media darling...both will fail, the media loved McCain because he came out against Bush on some issues and same for Hagel..once that fades, they will shit on him like they are now doing to McCain...

Just sit back and watch...as our little group predicted would happen to McCain...and will happen to Hagel, unless he keeps up his anti Republican statements...these are designed....and watch all the good press for Hillary..she can't buy coverage she gets from MSM..no one can.

Posted by john maasch at 05/15/2007 @ 11:25am
I think you are probably right about Hagel's fate (as with McCain). I should add that I am no Hagel supporter and have been waiting for his alternatives on Iraq.

Am still waiting.

Posted by hhemwm at 05/15/2007 @ 11:27am
"but you voted for Chimpy twice, while claiming he is not a conservative.

Posted by CRABWALK 05/15/2007 @ 11:20am '

Yes, I did...what? I should vote for someone even more liberal, like Kerry or the uber idiot Gore?

Please...

Next time around I am going 3rd party....liberarian unless Thompson runs..I am still not sure about the rest yet....the repubs haven't really soliified anything yet...still early....

You are lucky, your candidate has had this locked up years ago and you all know who you will vote for and she appreciates that advantage ...and bnbefits from it.

Posted by john maasch at 05/15/2007 @ 11:31am
Posted by HAPPY 05/15/2007 @ 10:22am

Why is that a "contradiction", HAPPY?

Most polls shows that Giuliani can beat Hillary. It's not a lock for anybody, but she's in the lead and therefore the Dems COULD be in some trouble come Fall 2008.

As bad as Bush has been, if he or Cheney aren't running in 2008, the GOP does have a shot at it in the same way Dems still had a shot at it in 1968, despite LBJ and Vietnam.

"A shot" being a reasonable, but LOW chance of victory.

Posted by Mask at 05/15/2007 @ 12:44pm
This Chuck Hagel Bloomberg thing is nothing but a Ruse...and people should be aware of what is being offered, here, by these two Republicans... ....MORE OF THE SAME OLD TIRED CRAP.. that the American people have had to endure far too long from these Corporate, Special Interests, Lobbying Networks the (Democratic/Republican) Parties.

Chuck Hagel and Michael Bloomberg's are attempting to hijack the Third Party and bring it back into the fold of the Republican (Democratic) parameters effectively squelching the Third Party attempt before it gets started...

Chuck Hagel, an Open Borders Republican, is seriously considering running on a Third Party Ticket.

Why does he think America needs for him to corrupt a Third Party for them???

Posted by MythozDog at 05/15/2007 @ 12:55pm
This Chuck Hagel Bloomberg thing is nothing but a Ruse...and people should be aware of what is being offered, here, by these two Republicans... ....MORE OF THE SAME OLD TIRED CRAP.. that the American people have had to endure far too long from these Corporate, Special Interests, Lobbying Networks the (Democratic/Republican) Parties.

Chuck Hagel and Michael Bloomberg's are attempting to hijack the Third Party and bring it back into the fold of the Republican (Democratic) parameters effectively squelching the Third Party attempt before it gets started...

Chuck Hagel, an Open Borders Republican, is seriously considering running on a Third Party Ticket.

Why does he think America needs for him to corrupt a Third Party for them???

Posted by MythozDog at 05/15/2007 @ 1:02pm
My, what are you talking about? what third party?

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/15/2007 @ 1:07pm
Probably, be under the Unity 08 banner but it's unsure, at this point, where 08 is going.

Editor: please delete duplicate post...thanks!

Posted by MythozDog at 05/15/2007 @ 1:17pm
My, forget about duplicate posts, they happen.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/15/2007 @ 1:20pm
If Unity 08 is legitimate it will seek candidates not intrinsically tied to either the Democrats or the Republicans but someone outside of the Good Ol' Boys Club, in Washington.

Posted by MythozDog at 05/15/2007 @ 1:28pm
there is no national third party. I think Bloomberg should run on the repub ticket. give them a real choice. I don't think he'll run, as much as I grudgingly, admire him.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/15/2007 @ 1:35pm
....the Dems are that bad off.

Posted by MASK 05/15/2007 @ 09:32am

My impression for months is that, after FRANK, you are about the next firmest on conviction of a Dem win for the WH in `08! My bad or what? ReRead your own "bad" above!

Posted by Happy at 05/15/2007 @ 3:30pm
Posted by HAPPY 05/15/2007 @ 3:30pm

GOP having "a shot" and Dems likely to take the White House are not mutually exclusive, HAPP.

Only a fool would say "definitely Dem in '08"...anything can happen. If the Repubs nominate Fred Thompson....Thompson's nose is clean AND he can cut the fine line between "finish the job" and "cut and run" on Iraq....and Hillary is caught on YouTube bitchin' out a campaign worker in Pennsylvania or something...

the Repubs can hold the Oval Office. But given the way things are RIGHT NOW, that "shot" is still mitigated by a public rejection of Republicans last November, Bush's failures being easily linked to them or any likely GOP nominee, and a public that feels (on the order of 70%+ that we are "on the wrong track").

Hillary can win, despite her poor image, though not handily. Obama can win, despite his lack of experience and fumbling on "what would you do if we were nuked" on Stephanopolous....Edwards though has the best chance.

Giuliani, Thompson, maybe Romney can win, not handily either, but that wouldn't matter given present circumstances....just winning by a smidge would be a major accomplishment for the Republicans.

Posted by Mask at 05/15/2007 @ 4:58pm
Why continually dip into a pool of fools and idiots when Unity 08 can have an intellectual like Dobbs. Who cares about what they ( the Established ) want or expect. The American people should take advantage of this divisiveness and finally separate these parasites from their host.

Posted by MythozDog at 05/15/2007 @ 5:17pm
Giuliani, Thompson, maybe Romney can win, not handily either, but that wouldn't matter given present circumstances....just winning by a smidge would be a major accomplishment for the Republicans.

Posted by MASK 05/15/2007 @ 4:58pm | ignore this person

Rudy and Thompson? the former has little chance, the latter will not even run. Romney will win the nod, but he has no chance in the general. it will not be a repub. that game is over

I assume you mean Thonpson the actor.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/15/2007 @ 5:18pm
People, this is your country going down the drain. You are witnessing it on a daily basis with "every vote" from this defunct Senate and House, with much too quiet complacency.

Get some damn balls. Get out of your hypnotic Republican/Democratic ruts (roots) And, Get Mad!!!

Yesterday it was Trade...Today or Tomorrow...it will be Immigration. Call your Senator and Representative and tell them that you are watching their every vote. And, If they can't handle the job they were elected to do...you will find someone else that's qualified.

Posted by MythozDog at 05/15/2007 @ 5:52pm
an intellectual like Dobbs.

you don't mean Lou Dobbs, do you? intellectual? it must be that you have never come across an intellectual. Dobbs is Johnny one note, we have seen his kind many times in this country. anti immigrant hysteria is a recurring sickness. he is in short a demagogue.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/15/2007 @ 5:56pm
Excerpts from Power Line's John Hinderaker at 11:20 AM

People Are Starting to Notice

In January, the Democrats took over Congress with fanfare and promises. So far, though, not much has been delivered. Congressional Quarterly writes:

Democrats face a legislative traffic jam that threatens to leave the party without a single high-profile domestic victory heading into the Memorial Day recess.

.....So far, the Democratic Congress has been able to enact a mere 26 laws, 12 of which "changed the name of a federal building, post office or national recreation area."

...The latest bad news comes from Gallup,.....the Dems have achieved their current low status with no help from Mark Foley or the national press. The fact that only 25% of independents currently approve of Congress.....

....voters conclude that they...want to use their majorities mainly to conduct their war against President Bush through endless investigations and other forms of harassment. The current low ratings suggest that this may already be happening.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Power Line trio of lawyers are, bar none, the best (for lawyers)! Let me add that, for each Bush veto of an Iraq War $ Bill, Congress drops, oh say, another 3-pointer!

Posted by Happy at 05/15/2007 @ 6:10pm
That's what I said...An Intellectual...like Lou Dobbs. Apparently you have been jaded to believe that the intellectual pool resides in the two Houses of Congress.

There's not one politician out there that can debate Lou on "just about any issue you can choose". Your definition for intellectual must have been taken from the political well. Believe me, the majority of the politicians that fill these exalted positions are not all that smart...and those that are, are totally Self-Serving.

The fact that you would ignore the basic premise of the statement and instead chose to attack a non political choice like Lou means you are in lock-step with these political drones and probably a spokesman/woman for one of the two parties? And, everyone knows those two parties would probably do about anything to prevent another real Ross Perot like Third Party effort.

Posted by MythozDog at 05/15/2007 @ 6:21pm
Ross Perot was a joke. Dobbs is a rabble rouser and a demagogue. intellectual? try Arthur Schlesinger, or Gore Vidal,

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/15/2007 @ 6:42pm
there may be right wing intellectuals out there, but I'll be damned if I can think of any, or if I did, would give them any play on my posts.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/15/2007 @ 7:01pm
From `The Quotable Perot':

On Becmong an Eagle Scout: "The day I made Eagle Scout was more important to me than the day I discovered I was a billionaire." - Newsweek, April 13, 1970, Page 69

On Rescue of Two EDS Employees from IRAN:

"We took the risk because we felt it was wrong to leave two innocent men behind. It was that simple. It was the principle." - WaPo Magazine, April 12, 1987, Page 33

"If you're sensitive to failure, don't go near rescues. They're all gambles, and the chances are, you'll fail." - Life, Feb., 1988, Page 67

On Hostages as Heroes:

"We've got ourselves in a strange box in this country. Making heroes out of hostages and prisoners and not the others. Think about it." - WaPo, May 26, 1981, Page B2

On Giving Back: "When you have been as fortunate as I have been you certainly can contribute more than people who are just trying to make ends meet. You Bet." - NYT, April 25, 1992, Page A14

On Politics: "What made me a success in business would make me a failure as a politician." - Time magazine, June 29, 1992 ------------------------------------------------------

JR,

Perhaps you don't know Perot.....like I don't know much about Bloomberg!

I took the time to type these quotes in honor of a truly great, plain-speaking man. While I admire him greatly, I did not vote for him.....BUT, I do NOT hold it against him for having led to Clinton's 1992 election.

I bring this up also because of the rumors of a Bloomberg run....his folks are reportedly consulting w/Perot's operatives to learn more about a credible 3rd party run.

Perot was an obvious in peeling away GOP votes and I'm not sure that's the case of Bloomberg. Neeed to get better acquainted w/him.

Posted by Happy at 05/15/2007 @ 7:08pm
Perhaps you don't know Perot..

he was out in public, what is there not to know. he went completely looney at the end, paranoid even. he had never held public office, or won an election.

Bloomie won the first time because of his money, AND Rudy's endorsement. this was right after 9/11. the second time he did it with just his money, AND his accomplishments.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/15/2007 @ 7:32pm
Hap, this competence thing is a new york thing, you wouldn't understand.

he does not take a salary, and he works his ass off. this is also something Tories would not understand.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/15/2007 @ 7:33pm
Arthur Schlesinger, or Gore Vidal So what? Where are they? Holding court somewhere? That's usually what the self-absorbed Intellects do. Rationalization, the ability to understand something and the desire to accumulate knowledge are what makes a real intellect.

There are as many degrees of intellect as there are methods of application. Lou is involved. Lou has the balls to...Speak Truth To Power!

And, FYI, rubbing elbows with the astrophysics, in-crowd isn't exactly hogwash on the intellectual scale. ..unless, you want to risk insulting Mensa.

You keep using the word demagogue as if he (Lou) is "Not Speaking the Truth"? At some point, is it not worth raising the degree of emotion of an issue rather than to sit back like a programmed drone and accept the status quo?

You keep Arthur and Gore. I want Someone that cares enough to get involved.

Posted by MythozDog at 05/15/2007 @ 9:14pm
My, your mash note to Lou notwithstanding, he is not an intellectual, and he's wrong about immigration too. Schlesinger and Vidal too have written many excellent books, no Lou hasn't, and it is through these books they will live on, Gore of course is still kicking. and with these intellectual accomplishments they will continue to influence readers and thinkers for many decades to come. Lou just reads a teleprompter and shouts a lot. not much better than the rest of his profession.

maybe you should try reading a book. try Schlesinger, or Vidal.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/15/2007 @ 10:22pm
I want Someone that cares enough to get involved.

Arthur Meier Schlesinger, Jr., born Arthur Bancroft Schlesinger (October 15, 1917 – February 28, 2007), was an American historian and social critic whose work explored the liberalism of American political leaders including Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Robert F. Kennedy, as well as the men who surrounded Andrew Jackson. He served as Special Assistant to the President in John F. Kennedy's administration. He wrote a detailed account of the Kennedy administration, entitled A Thousand Days. During the United States decision to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, with president Kennedy and his closest advisers, the one person who opposed the strike was Arthur Schlesinger, however he sat silent - not wanting to undermine the President's desire for a unanimous decision. Following the overt failure of the invasion, Schlesinger later lamented "In the months after the Bay of Pigs, I bitterly reproached myself for having kept so silent during those crucial discussions in the cabinet room... I can only explain my failure to do more than raise a few timid questions by reporting that one's impulse to blow the whistle on this nonsense was simply undone by the circumstances of the discussion."

what has Lou actually DONE to get involved?

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/15/2007 @ 10:25pm
demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

Posted by johannesrolf at 05/15/2007 @ 10:33pm
I know what the definition of demagogue is. And, to use the word, generally, is in the context of an argument fallacy. I also, know what condescending means...so, don't continue with that approach.

Apparently, according to his own words...Author keeps quite! That's mighty noble of him. All that intellect...and, he chose to remain in the shadows.

I repeat what I said as a "matter of fact"...There are as many degrees of intellect as there are methods of application. Application, being the key word, here.

Yes! Lou speaks out against illegal immigration. Someone needs too! I'm glad we have him. Because, It, along with ill-planned, poorly executed military adventures are destroying our welfare system and our infrastructure. You ignore the facts and apparently, chose to remain in the disillusioned 60's. It would be nice but things have changed...which most Democrats have refused to acknowledge.

As a Dem of over 40 yrs and a VN Vet...I've witnessed the change...and, adnauseam, the political correctness that has virtually destroyed the Democratic Party.

Lou is involved. Lou has the balls to...Speak Truth To Power! He does it every single night in front of millions of viewers. He is very succinct and articulate. He is the only media personality that continually speaks up for Middle America, lost jobs, unfair trade practices, railroaded Border Patrol Agents, etc. You name one other media personality that gives two craps about any one of these issues or more than a passing comment. Business as usual for the corporate media whores. They don't even bother with the truth anymore...They just manufacture their own where it is convenient.

I have to ask you...Who's side are you really representing in all of this? Apparently, the American people who are losing their jobs to cheap labor, as corporate elites line their over stuffed pockets and bank accounts...are just a mild inconvenience?

When do you presume to take back that which is being taken away from our country and our society on a daily basis...or, is it that the status quo is alright with you?

Posted by MythozDog at 05/16/2007 @ 11:37am
Schlesinger seems to be your man...and, I don't want to deny you your heroes, but the obligation of a true Intellectual is to speak Truth To Power.

He may have done it behind the scenes but Arthur failed the American people in that respect. Power Hides Truth. Not only does he need to speak the truth to power...but, it needs to be spoken "openly" for the benefit of the people.

"The Greatest Homage We Can Pay To Truth...Is To Use It." --Ralph Waldo Emerson

Posted by MythozDog at 05/16/2007 @ 1:17pm
Hmm. I think PsiFighter37's diary on Chuck Hagel says it all:

Chuck Hagel: nothing more than your typical Republican http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/21/55650/0551

Also relevant:

If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm

Posted by raincat100 at 05/20/2007 @ 1:47pm
Republicans are trying to replace a Texas Oil Man with a Corporate Billionaire ( Nothing Changes ) and sidekick by marginalizing any Grass Roots effort to disrupt the status quo.

Steal the Third Party...and "Nothing Changes". It's still the same old two Party game...with a new cover.

Posted by MythozDog at 05/20/2007 @ 8:03pm