Throughout his career, Senator Chuck Hagel was loyal to his party and voted the party line. However, he was not a lemming. His courageous stances against the Iraq War resulted in his party creating opposition to him in the upcoming election. Wouldn't it be sweet justice if the seat fell into Democratic hands?

Nice job, Chuck. You served your country well.

Senator Chuck Hagel has called it a career. The AP reports that the senator from Nebraska has announced that he will not seek re-election in '08. Now, while such an announcement usually gets Republican voters somewhat worried about having to work harder to defend the seat, there is very little lamenting in conservative circles regarding Hagel's departure. To put it bluntly, many conservatives are happy to see him go as Hagel has hardly been a favorite of the conservative base.

Hagel's problems with the base centered on his pro illegal immigration amnesty stance and his very public anti-Iraq war posturing. In fact, the base was so annoyed at Hagel there were calls on talk radio and on the internet for a primary challenger. This led to the bizarre rumors that Hagel (acting out of spite if a primary challenger was selected) would act as VP to NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's presidential bid on a third party ticket for the White House. Of course, these rumors were never validated although there were some credible rumors that Hagel would seek the Republican nomination for president, but to say such a win would be a long shot would be the understatement of the century.

Overall this is more bad news for the GOP strategy of taking back the Senate. Chuck Hagel is retiring, and will not run for the presidency either (although that was always a long shot).

This leaves yet another open seat in a deep red state in the West. Normally conventional wisdom says that these seats are locks for Republican candidates, but the election last year of Jon Tester in Montana proved that Democrats can win these seats with the right candidate.

Last week Larry Craig announced his resignation, leaving an open seat in Idaho and earlier this year, the untimely death of Craig Thomas left an open seat in Wyoming. But Democrats may find this latest open battle in Nebraska may be the easiest to pickup. The article above reports that former senator Bob Kerrey has voiced his interest in running again and would be a formidable candidate.

For the Republicans, chances of taking back the Senate are dimming, forcing the party to win or die with the presidency.

Fred Thompson is the great white hope for the Republicans. If you look at him in just the right light he might remind someone (not me) of Ronald Reagan. However, his fundraising is half of what his supporters were hoping for and he's been through three campaign staffs before not announcing yet again. The more one gets to know Thompson, the less there is to like. Have you heard him give a speech or speak off the cuff? Not good.

Michael Bloomberg. He said he would launch a third party candidacy only if he's pretty sure he can win. Anyone could say that, what's the risk in that? A national run requires 'infrastructure' like 2-300 staffers and the ability to collect signatures and get on the ballot. No movement in that area means Chuck Hagel is likely out as well. Looks like he will announce he's out of D.C. and will not run for re-election to the Senate. Giving up a sure thing means he's either reading a run for prez as an independent or he's just had it. I'll vote for the latter. His replacement? Bob Kerrey has all but announced so that's a likely pick-up for the Dems.

That leaves us Al Gore who, if he is teasing, is doing a masterful job. It's either the best 'non-campaign' ever or he really doesn't want to run. Unless. Unless he sees the current Democratic front-runners as not able to win. Certainly all three have handicaps. If I were on the other side I could run effective (negative) campaigns against the current leading Dems and I think Gore knows that. He may not want in but he knows full well that with a Republican in the White House, the stalemate and partisanship, not to mention the endless war will be the order of the day. Climate change won't be on the agenda. Bottom line, I won't be shocked if Gore gets in this fall and I'll put $10 on the table to back it up.

Even though I'm a political junkie, not to mention the fact that I get paid to follow the election, I still sometimes grow exasperated by grand pronouncements about a vote that's 17 months away. The landscape could very well be unrecognizable by the time November '08 finally rolls around. But does that stop me from making such predictions myself? Heck no! And it's not stopping the National Journal's John Mercurio, who has a piece out today listing "10 things that will surely have a decisive impact on the presidential race."

Most of them are no-brainers, like Iraq, the debates and the fact that Bush has become the lamest of lame ducks. Others, like the energy bill, seem unlikely to have a "decisive" impact, as far as I'm concerned.

I was most intrigued by this notion:

Bloomberg/Hagel/Unity '08?: Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel generated buzz in early May when they dined together at the Palm restaurant. A few weeks later, Hagel drew a strong GOP primary challenger that could make a Senate re-election bid in Nebraska even less appealing. Will the two GOP mavericks team up to run as independents, perhaps under the "Unity '08" banner?

Hmmmm. Michael Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel. First I've heard of that. Verrrrry interesting.

Anyway, read the whole thing here... and then chime in. Do you agree with the list? What issues do you think will dominate as the election heats up?

I see David's already posted on Chuck Hagel's hints during his interview on "Face the Nation" yesterday morning. I think that Hagel realizes that he has no shot at running for President as a Republican - there's a reason why National Review sarcastically refers to Hagel as the Republican from France. Ironically, with the recent results of the presidential election in France, Hagel probably wouldn't do very well there today, either.

First dinner, then the presidency – Sen. Chuck Hagel dined with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg a few weeks ago, and the Nebraska Republican dropped a hint Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation" that the two might be plotting a run for the White House as independents.

As much as Democrats and some Republicans don't want it to be, the main issue in 2008 will be Iraq and the War on Terror. With the apparent capturing of U.S. soldiers over the weekend by an al-Qaida front group, it is getting harder and harder for even the Democrat-friendly and Bush-hating mainstream media to take seriously the Democrats' claim that we have to get out of Iraq to fight al-Qaida. As that becomes more and more apparent, it will put Chuck Hagel even more on the wrong side of the fence in the fight against terrorism.

On Sunday's "Face the Nation," Chuck Hagel was back at work, fanning the flames on what could become an Independent bid for the presidency. Evidently, he has already selected a running mate, New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg.

"We didn't make any deals, but I think Mayor Bloomberg is the kind of individual who should seriously think about this. He is the mayor of one of the greatest cities on earth. He makes that city work. That's what America wants. It's a great country to think about a New York boy and a Nebraska boy to be teamed up leading this nation."

Now that is a tantalizing thought. Than again, Independents don't seem to fare very well in national races. Maybe these two shouldn't be in such a hurry to discard their party affiliations. But maintaining a Republican identity brings up the larger question. Do Hagel and Bloomberg really see eye to eye? True, they both have a love of no-nonsense fiscal discipline, but on social issues like abortion, gun control, and gay marriage, Bloomberg is far, far to the left of Hagel. In fact, you may as well really call Bloomberg a democrat. Doing so, however, would actually qualify them to for the Unity '08 endorsement. You'll recall that they are the group who seek to put forth a mixed ticket for the upcoming presidential race to try and wrest the nation free of the Republican vs. Democrat stranglehold on politics.

Bloomberg once identified himself as a Democrat, so it's not inconceivable that he would, with the stroke of a pen, switch back. If he does, look for this dynamic duo to become the country's first Unity '08 pairing.

The Senate passed the retreat bill today by a tally of 51-46. Senator Chuck Hagel crossed over from the Republican side as did Senator Smith. Hagel is looking to burnish his credentials with... well, no one knows exactly. The bill is sure to be vetoed by President Bush.

The interesting thing about this vote is that Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham couldn't be bothered with making it to the Capitol to vote. What are they thinking? Their votes would not have changed the result, but how could two Republican senators miss one of the most crucial votes of the year? Senator Tim Johnson is still recuperating and was also absent.

With regard to the Iraq funding bill, the Democrats had a win-win here. They knew it would be vetoed and knew they could not overturn it. They appease the base, Harry Reid gets to act tough and the liberals eat it up.

Perhaps our elected officials will one day get smart and see that the troops are paying attention in this war as they've never been able to before. They are getting info in real-time instead of the old snail-mail way. They want to win this as this Marine so eloquently put it, yet the Senate chooses to vote for retreat and stall funding.

Can I question the Democrats' support of the troops now?

Previously on 'The Stump':
· Missing the Benchmarks
· McCain to Gonzales: Resign
· John McCain Announces on a Downbeat

This AOL headline caught my eye: "Some See Impeachment Option, Hagel Says." Wow, coming from a Republican, I immediately assumed that Alberto Gonzales was in a lot of trouble. Can they really impeach an attorney general? For that answer, I went right to the best source possible, the U. S. Constitution.

There's the answer, Article 2 Section 4 says:

"The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The answer is "and all civil officers." So Hagel must be planning to impeach Alberto. Sounds like a great story.

I had read the other AOL story that said Senators Hagel, Specter (Arlen not Phil) and Lindsey Graham, had joined Sununu in thinking that the country would be better off with a new attorney general. As Specter said: "We have to have an attorney general who is candid, truthful and if we find out he has not been candid and truthful, that's a very compelling reason for him not to stay on."

As Phil and David blogged about here earlier, Chuck Hagel was to have had a major press conference this morning to discuss something of vital importance to the nation. Most journalists took this to mean that he was announcing a run for the presidency as an anti-war Republican. The minority pre-presser view was that he was going to announce that he was seeking another term as senator, or that he was retiring. Legions of reporters assembled in Omaha, Nebraska for his announcement. And here it was:

"I'm here today to announce that my family and I will make a political decision on my future later this year," Hagel said.

And boy did that surprise the press! Hagel, once again showing the political acuity of a turnip, held this presser to announce that he might be having another presser in the future where he might announce something important like a presidential run. Or not. As a result, there are now close to 200 stories (as tracked by Google News) on Hagel announcing that he's not announcing.

With all of John McCain's pandering in the past year in persuit of the presidential nomination, a notable vacancy opened up. Who would assume McCain's "Maverick" title in '08? It seems McCain learned the hard way that bucking the Republican establishment only takes you so far on the road to the White House. Enter Chuck Hagel. One of the Bush administration's toughest critics on the Iraq war, Mr. Hagel seems poised to assume the "Maverick" throne. Here is a man of conscience, his admirers declare. Someone who speaks his mind, and is not afraid to go up against the party elite.

But other than his reluctance to support a war that reminds him all too much of Vietnam, what other credentials qualify Hagel to hijack the centrist "Straight-Talk Express?" Er, well, not that many, it turns out. One of the most conservative voting records of any senator, Hagel receives a perfect score from the Christian Coalition for his tenure thus far. It's a sobering list, which seems to suggest that, withstanding his opposition to the war, Mr. Hagel might actually be the true conservative in the race. That's a pretty good trick, simultaneously running as a party's maverick and its most staunchly conservative voice. Now, if only he'd actually say whether or not he's running. So what do you think? Is that "Maverick" moniker is still up for grabs?

Republican Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel must think that there is a chance for a guy like him in the GOP primary:

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., plans to make his long-awaited announcement about his political future at his alma mater Monday.

Hagel will hold a news conference at 10 a.m. at the University of Nebraska at Omaha's alumni center.

There has been speculation in political circles for more than a year that the outspoken critic of the war in Iraq might seek the Republican nomination for president in 2008. Hagel has said for weeks that he would make an announcement about his future "soon" but hasn't indicated whether that announcement would reveal his presidential aspirations, if any, or whether he would seek re-election to the Senate in 2008.

Chuck Hagel has been garnering a lot of headlines as he has abandoned the Iraq war, voting with Democrats on the non-binding resolution and hammering the administration on their prosecution. So him running for president is absolutely crazy.

Not so fast, Mitch McConnell. As Nix Guy details below, the stalemate achieved by the new "GOP hero" may prove short-lived:

Senate Republicans who earlier this week helped block deliberations on a resolution opposing President Bush's new troop deployments in Iraq changed course yesterday and vowed to use every tactic at their disposal to ensure a full and open debate.

Why the second-thoughts from senators Warner, Hagel, Snow, Coleman and the rest? Maybe those headlines declaring that the GOP had blocked Senate debate on the Iraq surge didn't play so well back home after all. Remember, what's at stake in this chess match is whether or not to debate the President's plan. Even that, it seems may be too threatening for McConnell and the White House. As the Post notes, even if a bill were agreed upon, opponents will be able to tack on pork amendments so egregious and tangential (let's make it a crime to say the word 'the') that no one will possibly vote for the final version.

You know the tired argument. We don't want to send the terrorists the wrong message. But not all of the usual suspects think that cutting off reasoned discussion on the most important issue of the day is such a great idea. Take Marine General Peter Pace, for instance:

"There's no doubt in my mind that the dialog here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period." ...He added that potential enemies may take some comfort from the rancor but said they "don't have a clue how democracy works."

Ditto that for some in our own country.

The vote for the non-binding, no confidence in our troops bill is done and the dovish Democrats are vanquished:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bipartisan resolution repudiating President George W. Bush's decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq failed to advance in the U.S. Senate on Monday, dealing a serious setback to critics of the war.

The resolution needed 60 votes before the 100-member Senate could begin debate, but it got 49, with 47 voting against. Although it would not have been binding on the president, the measure was the first serious effort in Congress to confront Bush over the unpopular Iraq war.

I agree with AP that it was just a show for the Democrats so they can say they tried to their far-left centrist base. It essentially meant nada, yet it is telling that it was so close. The result is also a stunning rebuke to Senators Biden and Hagel who wanted a much tougher resolution and were cajoled into the weaker bill voted on tonight.:

Levin, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., originally proposed a tougher resolution, but bowed to the request of Warner and other Republicans to soften the language while still voicing disapproval with the troop increase.

So the debate on the war rages everywhere but in the Senate. With both Hagel and Biden going on record with their feelings on the war and running for president, we'll have to see how this affects them politically. It could be more serious blow to Hagel with the GOP than Biden and the Democrats.

The only Republicans to join the retreaters majority party were Sens. Coleman and Collins. Sen. Lieberman joined the GOP, but no Democrats did. There were four senators who did not vote including Sen. John McCain and the still-recovering Tim Johnson.

By the way, note that Warner voted against his own bill.

Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel is a face you will see all over the news in the next few days and months. Hagel is now what the media will call a "maverick". A "maverick" is a Republican who speaks out against the President, ala John McCain The media, loathe to give him any press in the past, will now embrace him as one of the good in the GOP. That is until he supports some conservative position and they'll drop him.

Senator Hagel is against President Bush's new war plan that includes a troop increase to last year's levels as well as an unmistakable warning to the Iraqi leadership to control the Shiites or we're leaving. The Democrats and several Republicans including Hagel and Olympia Snow (RINO-ME) have signed on to endorse a resolution that is largely symbolic but could lead to other measures such as defunding the efforts:

The resolution does not call for a withdrawal of troops or threaten funding of military operations, as many Democrats have suggested. Instead, it says the U.S. should transfer responsibility to the Iraqis "under an appropriately expedited timeline" that is not specified.

So it begins. Hagel is a probable Presidential candidate and is starting to lay his groundwork for the campaign. He's not calling for withdrawal or even funding cuts, he's siding with the Democrats to show that he can work with them, that he is non-partisan and he is not beholden to Bush or any other Republican. The media eats it up, Hagel gets good press and the insurgency in Iraq including al-Qaida sit back and enjoy it. It's good for everyone except Americans who actually care about the safety of the nation and think it more pertinent than showboating for the press. Perhaps Hagel should appease the base first as he is lagging behind every other candidate according to the unscientific GOP Bloggers straw poll.

Expect other Republicans to start voicing their concerns about the war and its progress, probably with Arlen Specter (R-PA) being the next.