Hillary Calls On Dem Congressional Leaders To Keep Demanding Withdrawal | Home | 
Dodd: End The Cuba Embargo »
NE-SEN: Hagel To Announce Retirement On Monday
In a move that opens up another Senate seat for a possible Dem pickup, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) will announce his retirement at a press conference on Monday, according to this morning's Omaha World Herald. He'll also take himself out of contention for the Presidency, the paper reports:
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 news will set in motion a scramble to succeed him. Two Republicans -- Attorney General Jon Bruning and financial adviser Pat Flynn -- have already announced, and former Dem Senator Bob Kerrey has said he's interested in returning to the Senate.
A Kerrey entry into the race would give Dems a real shot at picking up another Senate seat and at the very least would add to the mounting 2008 Senate woes of the GOP. The party is already dealing with Senator John Warner's (R-VA) announced retirement and Senator Larry Craig's (R-ID) almost certain resignation, as well as the increased vulnerability of GOP Senators like Norm Coleman, John Sununu, and Susan Collins, all of whom face reelection next year and are badly weakened by the Iraq War. ( Via Think Progress.)
Late Update: The New York Times is now reporting the same thing, citing anonymous aides to the Senator.
Later Update: The paper adds that Kerrey declined to comment today on his intentions, but last month, he said: “These moments don’t happen very often. It’s a possibility.”
Also of note today, the first Senate poll out of Colorado, pitting Republican Shaffer v. Democrat Udall. Good news for Democrats, though it could be better.
September 8, 2007 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for sending that in, Daniel, we'll def try to post the poll
September 8, 2007 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
please, please, please, let someone other than odious Bob Kerrey run for the Democrats.
September 8, 2007 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could it be that it is easier politically to not seek reelection than to speak out against the party? Or is it meant to create more political confusion in their party, sort of a political snub of the nose?
September 8, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shame, Hagel, while so off the charts conservative, nevertheless stuck me as a man of integrity, something his posistion on Iraq only reinforced. Of course he could've aided a bit more than he did in the cause to end the war, but nevertheless, a man who i'd certainly extend my trust to, which is bad because he'll likely be replaced by some GOP idiot a la Trent Lott. It's a shame, between Warner and Hagel retiring a good 10% of all the Republicans i admire in Congress will be out before a single vote is cast.
September 8, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Nebraska relatives, some of whom campaigned for Hagel in both previous elections, have been expecting this for months. When he campaigned the first time he frequently said that 2 terms was all he'd serve.
That said, it is interesting that all of them say that if Brunning gets the nomination that they will either not vote or vote for the Democrat.
The gotten on the ground indicate Brunning has a good shot at the nomination, but will probably lose a large fraction of Republicans in the general election. Especially if the opponent is Kerry, who is generally respected by all as a very smart guy.
September 8, 2007 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans here in Nebraska think of Hagel in roughly the same terms that netroots people think of Liberman. I'm not saying they're right to feel that way, but they do, and he was almost certain to lose.
I really hope that Kerry doesn't run, both because I don't think he's a solid enough Democrat, but also because I don't think he'll win.
He's really pompous, and he has an air of entitlement about him. He's really out of touch with the state -- it's hard to find anything further from Nebraska than the New School in Manhattan. People here like him mostly because in many ways he is an extraordinary person, a high caliber guy. He's respected, but not well loved.
In a lot of ways, I think that Tom Osborne's failed campaign for governor is important when it comes to reading the climate here. When he announced, everyone assumed he'd win without any trouble at all. He had a debate performance that the wingnuts didn't like, and that's what's usually blamed for his loss, but I think a lot of it was a rejection of that whole coronation thing, that sense that he could have it if he wanted it. And that's the way Kerry sounds. People here like a bit of humility in their politicians.
On the Republican side, Hal Daub is almost certainly going to run. He's sort of geeky technocrat kind of guy -- a former congressman and mayor of Omaha. Not very charismatic, but very earnest and energetic.
When I was a kid, I visited Washington, and met him and he spent a couple of hours with my brother and I. My dad was a judge, and I think that had a lot to do with it -- I don't know if he would have hung out with someone off of the street. But really, he might have. I liked him.
Daub seems to me to be almost certain to be a straight party man if he wins. But he's one of the closet people to Hagel in the state party, so maybe I'm wrong.
In the last congressional races, a lot of national people got excited by Kleeb, who was running in the 3rd district. He has a lot of that camelot magic, and was so clearly superior to his opponent that people thought he might have a chance. But he didn't, and anyone who followed politics here knew he didn't. It's very hard to explain just how conservative parts of the state are to someone who hasn't gone out and talked to people there.
So to people who want a progressive candidate -- it ain't gonna happen. Sorry. If we get someone who will caucus with the Democrats, that's a solid victory.
September 8, 2007 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
An extraordinary person, a high-caliber guy, doesn't sit silent for 30 years, until his actions are going to be exposed, about his part in the murder of a dozen women and children.
(Search on Kerrey and Thanh Phong if this is news to you.)
No who says things like this in March 2006, validating the worst wingnut Saddam-al Qaeda b.s. to a neocon "journalist" should expect Democratic support:
A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
...
"I personally and strongly believe you don't have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."
Mr. Kerry also answered affirmatively when asked whether or not the release of more of the documents captured in Iraq could possibly shed further light on Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda. The former senator was one of the staunchest supporters of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which made the policy of regime change U.S. law.
http://www.nysun.com/article/29746?page_no=2
Oh, if elected, he'll vote correctly on one bill out of four, but he'll be another embarrassment to the party. He still thinks the Iraq invasion was the thing to do, and he'll support keeping troops there forever.
September 8, 2007 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Kerrey. The moderate Democratic war criminal egomaniac.
September 8, 2007 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Kerrey is certainly not a perfect progressive and I could not disagree more with his conduct in regards to the War in Iraq. In fact, a lot of his behavior has been outrageous.
But I would much rather have a Democrat in this seat as opposed to some right-wing nutcase like Jon Bruning who will obstruct the agenda of a Democratic Congress and (hopefully) a Democratic President.
September 8, 2007 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hagel and Warner are leaving the party - the new GOP just isn't their Party anymore.
It's like that guy said on Friday's Bill Moyer's show - a Republican who said that Bush's wiretapping was so atypical of conservatives, because conservatives have fought for generations to maintain strict interpretation of US Construction.
Warner and Hagel are symbolic too, in what is happing to the GOP - the party is hemorrhaging voters too. And now it's lossing old style conservatives.
I suspect Broder is more of a Jeff Sessions kind of guy, a Bushie bootlick – but that un-ordinary man, Warner appears to have sharp disagreements with Bush – and ditto for Hagel too.
I still expect Broder will pile on with more talk about those awful libberals, and those foul mouth liberal bloggers. Broder and Brooks are quite the pair - a couple of Gollums - unable to rid their addiction of the preious Bushie - no matter how destructive Bush has been to the Repug Party. Bushism is every bit as mind wasting as a meth addiction.
This is your brain on Bush.....
September 9, 2007 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a transcript of an interview Bill Moyers did with Kerrey last June, where Kerrey gets to explain his Iraq opinions in some detail.
While I sympathize with his sentiments, I completely disagree with his analysis. That he constantly refers to "the Iraqi people" as if they were an ethnically cohesive nation state suffering from serious political disagreements tells me everything I need to know about how mistaken he is.
On Iraq he's just Joe Lieberman light.
September 9, 2007 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink