4.03.00
Hagel-ian Logic: Bush's Ideal V.P.

3.31.00
Back Stabbin' Games People Play

3.29.00
The Ink Is Black, The Page Is White

3.27.00
Pleased to Meet You

3.23.00
Diallo II?

ill Clinton's choice of Al Gore as his 1992 vice president broke a few political rules. The running mate traditionally was supposed to add some kind of "balance" — geographic, ethnic, or ideological. But Gore was practically Clinton's twin. They were both ostensible moderate or "New" Democrats, both Protestant sons of the South. Significantly, they were also Baby Boomers. Gore at least had a cup of coffee in Vietnam and seemed to do his homework on defense issues. To that extent, Gore gave Clinton some cover on the draft-dodging vulnerability. Still, at the time, it seemed like something of a gamble.

It was a gamble that paid off big time. Gore and Clinton made a dramatic contrast — for different reasons — to both George Bush and Dan Quayle. With Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop" as their theme song, the Dynamic Duo made generational change an explicit aspect of their campaign. This was even more explicit in the '96 re-election effort. Yes, if we but knew then, what we know…But the fact remains: Clinton correctly surmised in 1992 that a running mate can help a presidential candidate project an image and a "narrative" to the electorate.

This is something that George W. Bush must keep in mind as he considers who can put him in the winner's circle this November. It should be more than just a "diversity" pick like Elizabeth Dole or a one-category choice such as Catholic Bill Bennett. It should also be someone who has previously faced voters in a winning campaign. There is one person who fits the bill: Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Admittedly, this is, at first, counterintuitive. Nebraska is already solid Republican state that doesn't bring many electoral votes to the table. But again, this is not about geography, but about "narrative."

The narrative begins with the simple fact that Chuck Hagel was a McCain supporter and can be seen as a potential bridge between Bush and McCain. He has many of the positive attributes that McCain supporters loved about their candidate — while simultaneously not irritating all of his colleagues. An independent voice in the Senate, the freshman was not above mounting a brief challenge to Senate campaign committee chairman Mitch McConnell.

He sided with McCain in the analysis that if American forces were committed to Kosovo, then the nation had to be in it to win it. This was in contrast to many GOPers in the House and Senate who appeared more than ready to yank congressional support from the mission solely to embarrass Bill Clinton.

Hagel has developed his own campaign-finance reform bill, co-sponsored with his Nebraska colleague Democrat Bob Kerrey. The bill raises the individual federal campaign limit from $1,000 to $3,000 and caps soft money contributions to the parties at $60,000. Both sides of the campaign-finance debate can find problems with this bill. But raising the individual limit is a good reason for many Republicans to get behind it. Since it doesn't end soft-money contributions completely and is considered an alternative to his own bill, McCain does not support it. But that's a reason why having Hagel on the ticket would be a win-win for Bush: It would demonstrate a respect for the McCain "reform" message while also demonstrating that Bush is not slavish to one specific type of reform.

Most significantly, Hagel is a Vietnam veteran. John McCain's candidacy demonstrated that Vietnam remains unfinished business in the minds of many Americans. Voters would not be attracted to campaign-finance reform without McCain's personal story behind it. His biography allowed many people to ignore disagreements they had with the Senator based on ideology or temperament. Crowds flocked to see a man who had suffered much for his country, yet came out of the experience with a feisty give-'em-hell attitude. John McCain gave Americans their first opportunity to vote for a man who had served mightily in America's most controversial war of the 20th century. In Chuck Hagel, there stands a man who earned two Purple Hearts in less than two years in Southeast Asia.

Hagel will also give Republicans and conservatives the opportunity to publicly declare their support politically for those who served in Vietnam. That might seem a minor point, but it's not. Ironically, conservatives have reserved some of their harshest rhetoric for charismatic candidates who are Vietnam military vets. In 1995, several conservatives attacked Gen. Colin Powell who, at the time, was being discussed as possibly running for President. The primary reason for this pre-emptive strike was Powell's pro-choice views — an admittedly legitimate reason for opposing him.

Of course, these same conservatives — including Gary Bauer, Morton Blackwell, Paul Weyrich, and others — didn't hold a press conference to attack the much more blatantly pro-choice Pete Wilson the way they did Powell. But most disturbing at this event was that social issues were not the only focus for this attack on Powell. Instead, these activists attacked Powell on his military bona fides. The most insulting comments came from Bauer, who called Powell "Bill Clinton with ribbons," and Blackwell, who suggested that Powell was only being considered because he was black. Paul Weyrich called him "too cautious to be commander-in-chief," and so on.

These comments mirrored the recent conservative criticism of John McCain. In fact, the attack on Powell was at the heart of the McCain-Robertson fight over Warren Rudman. This is not to say that there weren't many reasonable and principled objections to McCain — many of which have been detailed in NR. But, the fact remains that Weyrich resurfaced with odd charges that McCain was a "Manchurian candidate." More strident comments were to be read on Free Republic and other forums insinuating that McCain wasn't really tortured or the only pain he suffered was from his initial plane crash.

Further, his stand on campaign finance was used as a jumping point to question his commitment to the pro-life cause. Admittedly, McCain's own comments on changing the platform also contributed to this.

But the depth of the irony of this conservative animus toward these particular veterans can be found in Robert Timberg's John McCain: An American Odyssey: "Throughout the 1980 campaign and well into his presidency Reagan regularly portrayed [Vietnam] servicemen not as persons to be feared and reviled — ticking time bombs, baby killers, and the like — but as men to whom the nation should be grateful, worthy of respect and admiration."

Clearly, by the end of his campaign, that long-ago image of Vietnam veterans — "ticking time bomb," "baby killer" — had traveled temporally and ideologically from the rhetoric of the '60s Left to the '90s Right. Combined with positions that Republicans and conservatives have adopted in light of Bill Clinton serving as commander-in-chief, George W. Bush should select a running mate that would send a signal that the GOP is ready to reassert its primacy as the party of defense and foreign affairs.

Which brings us back to Chuck Hagel. Hagel is not only a pro-life veteran, he has also spoken eloquently on why a partial-birth abortion ban is culturally important for America as a society. This position also makes him distinct from the other Vietnam veteran often mentioned as a Bush pick — pro-choice Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge.

A Bush-Hagel ticket would be a good-looking fresh image for the GOP. Bush brings the clear gubernatorial, executive experience and a concrete reform background in the areas of education and tort reform. Hagel adds a great personal story, foreign-policy and defense gravitas, and a campaign-finance blueprint which would at least get a hearing from Republicans. Together with Bush's already-assembled foreign policy team, this ticket would present a substantive critique of the Clinton-Gore legislative record and what would be expected in a Gore administration.

Most importantly, this is a ticket that has a story to tell: These are men who can say they recognize where America has been, but also where it needs to go. In other words, whereas Clinton-Gore presented themselves as the image of a boomer generation ready to lead, Bush-Hagel would be the real deal.

Columns / Current Issue / Goldberg File / Nota Bene
Washington Bulletin / Subscribe / Ad Info / Home