Last week, Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel announced he would be leaving the Senate, opting not to seek re-election in 2008. I'm not going to pretend to be a political expert/analyst/blogger, but, as a citizen, Hagel's departure leaves me a little empty.
Lately, bashing the president and the war has become more fashionable than tiny dogs using celebutante handbags as temporary kennels. As public opinion on the war has plummeted, politicians seeking '08 election have been the first to criticize the present, usually without making recommendations on the future. Make no mistake, I hate this president, his administration, politics, character, demeanor and pretty much everything about him. I don't agree with the platform his party purports, or how they push it. But the same people who are trashing Bush now are many of the ones who supported him earlier. And while changing your mind is certainly legal, doing it to appease public opinion is gutless and unethical.
So back to Hagel. In a time when stump speeches are dictated by unscientific CNN polls and passion-laden punditry, Chuck just said what he thought. It was unpopular (at the time), sometimes poorly delivered and almost always controversial. But it was what he felt. And it seemed, at least, to be devoid of influence from public opinion. He went against his party and spoke out honestly on a polarizing topic. He did it before it was popular. And he did so with blatant disregard to its effect on his viability as a presidential candidate, making statements that stole headlines from his own contemplation of a run for the White House.
In short, he said what he felt was right without worrying about the consequences on his career or likability. That ought to be the m.o. for any politician (or person, for that matter) but in today's world, it's not. He embodied the junior high guidance counselor adage, "What's popular isn't always right and what's right isn't always popular." And as lame as that saying is, it's a simple sentiment that has been all but forgotten by many of our elected leaders. Love Chuck or hate him, you have to admire unapologetic honesty in an arena that so regularly neglects it.
cheers.
.charlie
ps. Sorry about the serious post. We'll get back to making fun of rival Big 12 schools, worshiping Dave Coulier and Celebrating Rejected Nebraskans right away.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
good post Charlie - i agree with you about Hagel he was definitely a straight shooter who I was disappointed didn't make a bid for the white house - lord knows we need someone to be a good candidate, I saw him speak when I lived in DC and he was one of the first guys i ever heard truly deliver a moderate speech it was amazing and refreshing...especially since he was from Nebraska :)
Sorry Chuck, gotta disagree here friend. Hagel only started speaking against the war when it became fashionable to do so. In 2003 and 2004 when support hadn't turned dramatically against the war, he was on the president's side ( I ran through our archives at work and found a curious quote from Hagel about Democrats and the war the other day; specifically about Howard Dean) and turned right around May/June 2005 when Bush's approval dipped below 35% for the first time. He's an opprotunist, much like any other politician. And a carpet bagger to boot; he only moved back here from Virginia when the seat was open. He hadn't lived here since his days in Omaha radio in the early/mid 70's.
Post a Comment