Warner and Hagel tell the truth and say goodbye

I have gotten quite annoyed over the past few days about some of the crap being spouted here on Gather. Specifically, several posters have decried the anti-Bush vendetta of Senate and House Democrats, and have totally ignored the voices of Chuck Hagel, Republican Senator from Nebraska, and John Warner, Republican Senator from Virginia.  Those two voices have consistently decried the lack of progress in Iraq and criticized Bush's mistakes. Warner recently incurred the ire of President Bush by suggesting that bringing some U.S. soldiers home NOW would communicate the message to Al-Maliki that he should no longer view us as a political crutch. It might even convince him to get busy with the tough negotiations that are needed to turn Iraq into a real nation. Bush shrugged it off, trotted out Crocker and Petraeus, and is now making an apparently successful bid to run the war his own way up to next spring. Next spring is only six or seven months away from election day, and Bush's Republican colleagues are well aware of the burden that places on their shoulders. Bush on the other hand is a lame duck and apparently does not give a damn about the political problems of his Republican brethren.

Chuck Hagel of Nebraska wrote a piece back in November 2006 entitled "Leaving Iraq honorably". It contains the following lines:  "Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost. .... There will be no military victory or military solution for Iraq.... America cannot impose a democracy on any nation-- regardless of our noble purpose.... We are perceived as a nation at war with Muslims.... The world will continue to require realistic, clear-headed American leadership- not an American divine mission."  Okay, have I made my point? Can we stop whining about the Democrat hate machine against Bush, and admit that in his bullheaded intransigence he lost the moderate Republicans several months back?

What does the future hold for Warner and Hagel? Well, they are both leaving the Senate. Warner is declining to run again next year at age 80 and will claim a well earned rest after a long career as a powerful voice of Senatorial tradition and reason. Hagel is also declining to run, but this only at the end of his second term. Some thought that he would have joined the Presidential race next year, but that did not happen.

The departure of these two is a loss for the Senate as an institution, because of their brains and personal integrity (by definition, picking a fight with the President from your own party is an act of courage and not done lightly). It is also a potential problem for the Republican party in its efforts to keep it close in the Senate. Both of these men would have been unbeatable and possibly even unopposed had they run again. Since they are not running, there is at least some chance that the Dems might take the empty chairs. In Virginia, Mark Warner, former Governor, has indicated that he will run for the Senate, and even though Republicans have been strong in my State, M. Warner had very high approval ratings as Governor and will be a tough opponent. In Nebraska, Republican political control is even more traditional than in Virginia. But still, just putting the seat in play gives Dems an outside shot at it. Larry Craig's seat of course will soon be vacant too. Idaho is however a slam dunk for Republicans so ignore that one.  Colorado Senator Wayne Allard also apparently intends to retire, giving Dems a chance to contest that seat. Alaska Senator Ted Stevens faces a federal corruption investigation, and is over 80 as well. Alaska is pretty much safe seat land for Republcans, so no worry there. But Republican incumbents in New Hampshire, Oregon, Minnesota and Maine face competitive races.  We can summarize it this way: Republicans play defense in the Senate in 2008, partly due to Bush's obstinate stand on Iraq, and partly for unrelated reasons. And sadly again it is the moderates who seem to be disappearing, not the bullheaded Bush buddies.