Is Kerrey in?
Before Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska announced his Senate retirement, former Sen. Bob Kerrey -- president of the New School in New York City -- confided his intentions to a political friend.
If maverick Republican Hagel sought a third Senate term, maverick Democrat Kerrey would support him -- whether Hagel switched to the Democrats or stayed in the GOP. If Hagel didn't run, Kerrey would return to Nebraska to run for the Senate.
Kerrey, undefeated in campaigns for governor and the Senate, is one of the most popular Democrats in Nebraska's history. Although he has been in New York for seven years, he would be heavily favored in 2008. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, who resigned as governor to join President Bush's Cabinet, might be the only Republican capable of defeating Kerrey.
(emphasis added)
Let's break this down.
Bob Novak wrote this piece; Plamegate aside, Novak does have a fairly good track record when it comes to this sort of thing. Well-sourced political gossip is how the man makes his living, and by well-sourced, I mean people feed him this stuff. So let's stipulate that he's likely telling the truth about this.
The Iraq War aside, Chuck Hagel was (and is) a doctrinaire conservative while in the Senate; indeed, if memory serves me right, Hagel was easily one of the most conservative Senators, in the same category as folks like Coburn and Santorum. It says a lot that Kerrey would overlook that record in order to support him in a bid for re-election against a generic Democrat.
Which brings me to my third point: why would Kerrey do that? Hagel opposes the war fairly passionately; Kerrey, from what I can gather, is a best neutral about it, and at worst still supports it. The only commonality I can see is that they were both Vietnam veterans, though that same commonality didn't cause Kerrey to come to the support of John Kerry in 2004 when the latter was being smeared.
From everything I can gather, this is essentially Bob Kerrey being a Maverick for the sake of being a Maverick, because that's what he does; not because there's some higher principle at stake.
Which brings me to this question: why should I bother supporting or even acquiescing in the nomination and election of someone like this? I don't need to be conversant in local politics to ask that question; this goes straight to the heart of being a partisan. If I were to support the election of say, Republican David Petraeus as President despite being a Democrat, everyone here would be right to question my allegiance to the Democratic Party.
So why wouldn't it be right to question Bob Kerrey's candidacy for the Senate in a similar fashion? |
STATE BLOGS
