For the Last Time: Chuck Hagel is Not a Liberal!

January 30, 2007 at 1:30pm By: Mr. Wilson Posted in The Lincolnite Blog

I’m getting tired of this, I really am. A good chunk of Nebraska seems to think that Chuck Hagel is a liberal. Maggie Seeman is the latest:

Senator Betrayer (formerly Hagel) should register as a Democrat; he is a regular liberal. The terrorists really love liberals.

During World War II, his kind was held for treason.

Maggie—and everybody else out there who thinks that Chuck Hagel is a liberal—you’re a fool. Even if we accept the extremely dubious proposition that being against a war is an inherently liberal thing to do, one issue does not a liberal make. To wit:

  • Chuck Hagel is rated 0% by NARAL
  • Chuck Hagel is rated 87% by the US COC
  • Chuck Hagel is rated 36% by the NEA
  • Chuck Hagel is rated 0% by the LCV
  • Chuck Hagel is rated 100% by the Christian Coalition
  • Chuck Hagel is rated 92% by CATO
  • Chuck Hagel is rated A by the NRA
  • Chuck Hagel is rated 12% by APHA
  • Chuck Hagel is rated 0% by SANE
  • Chuck Hagel is rated 8% by the AFL-CIO
  • Chuck Hagel is rated 22% by the ARA
  • Chuck Hagel is rated 78% by the NTU
  • And last but not least, Chuck Hagel votes with President Bush 95% of the time

Senator Chuck Hagel is most certainly not a liberal.

Reply to this post

The Comments

Mr. T January 30, 2007 at 2:40pm

“Senator Betrayer” - Strike 1.

“The terrorists really love liberals” - Strike 2.

“During World War II, his kind was held for treason.” - Strike 3. You’re out Maggie.

Hopefully Maggie will spill her lucky charms and milk on her computer this morning and spare us from more of her commentary in the future. Hate to sound catty, but God comments that lame deserve it.

jwiltshire January 30, 2007 at 2:56pm

Were the Japanese liberals?  They were the ones that were locked up in WWII.  Is that why they were held?  I must have missed out a lot in American History class.

Dave K January 30, 2007 at 3:31pm

I disagree with the part about Hagel being a regular liberal.  Right now he just seems to be a selective one.  I did some research, and treason charges were brought upon some during WWII. 

Snap prediction—she’ll be ridiculed on the LJS comments page by the same people who applaud Hagel for exercising his right to free speech.

Fletch January 30, 2007 at 4:33pm

Does calling someone a fool for not agreeing with you constitute a personal attack? I thought this was a personal attack-free zone.

He’s clearly no liberal, but he ran as and was voted in by a mostly conservative constituency, and I think most of those voters feel betrayed by him. His chance of re-election here at home now rests at about zero (I’d like you to meet Senator Bruning.. say it with me, Chuck). If he thinks he will be more than a blip on the radar in a presidential run, he’s been smoking some of that stuff that Mr. Clinton did not inhale.

As I suggested in an earlier thread, maybe Mr. Nelson and Mr. Hagel could swap party affiliations, as each seems more popular in the party he is not currently in than the other.

Mr. Wilson January 30, 2007 at 5:01pm

Does calling someone a fool for not agreeing with you…

Ms. Seeman and others can call an elephant a donkey all day, and they will deserve the label of fool every time. If they instead call that elephant a jackass, well, that’s something a person can agree or disagree with.

Neal January 30, 2007 at 5:22pm

When did a right to free speech become confused with a right to not have anyone disagree with you?

Dave K January 30, 2007 at 6:29pm

Who said it did?  My point is that there are certain people who respond to a point of view by talking about one’s right to express that point of view, and others who respond with something like this: “Hopefully Maggie will spill her lucky charms and milk on her computer this morning and spare us from more of her commentary in the future.”


In other words, there are people who are all for freedom of speech until they disagree with what is being said.  The LJS comments sections are full of those people.

Neal January 30, 2007 at 6:34pm

Yeah Dave, all those crazy MoveOn liberals on the Journal Star comments section want to take away Maggie Seeman’s right to free speech.

Dave K January 30, 2007 at 6:49pm

Is that where they come from?  I always wondered.  Some of the stuff written in there leads me to believe that some left-wing blogs or sites have links to the opinion areas of the LJS (and probably most papers) encouraging responses.

  Josh2, who we can count on every day to bring some great stuff, starts his comment off by saying he found Maggie’s comments offensive.  Then he goes on to cite historical figures’ statements about the value of challenging authority.  So if he supports a challenge of authority, how can he find Maggie’s comments offensive?

Charlie January 30, 2007 at 6:55pm

What I don’t get is why people think he’s a liberal on ANYTHING.  His opposition to the war is from a traditional CONSERVATIVE point of view.  His foreign policy views are right in line with Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Bush (41).  He is a traditional realist in what used to be a party full of them.

Neal January 30, 2007 at 6:56pm

Dave, I’m only going by your labeling of them as MoveOn liberals. Nice try coming up with a rationalization of their existence, though. It must be troubling to thinkg that there are actually people who believe these crazy liberal things, possibly living next door even…

I can’t figure out if you’re just playing simple to make a point, or if you actually can’t see a difference.

Dave, if you walked up to me on the street and said “Your mom eats her feces for breakfast,” I’m going to be offended. However, I’m not going to ask you to be put on trial nor will I ask for a law preventing you from making comments about my mother.

Can you really, truly not see the difference between valuing the right to free speech and disagreeing with the content of an individual statement?

Dave K January 30, 2007 at 7:37pm

I am playing simple to make a point.  I do see the difference between being offended and the restriction of freedom of speech.  But that’s not really my point.  My point is to show the hypocrisy of people who predictably lashed out at Maggie. 

Josh2 is a perfect example of what I’m talking about.  For him to be offended by Maggie’s comments challenging authority, and then to defend Hagel’s comments by citing the importance of challenging authority, is hypocritical.

Barbara January 30, 2007 at 8:23pm

I’m not seeing people “lashing out against Maggie” as an attempt to restrict her free speech. Free speech doesn’t mean you are protected from people criticizing what you say. It’s not hypocrisy to criticize. Criticism is essential to the market of ideas. I sincerely hope people like Maggie say whatever they want as often as possible, and as loudly. I’ll know who of whom to steer clear. I don’t really want to associate with people who would lock up for treason a publicly elected representative, simply because they don’t like what he has to say. THAT is a real restriction on free speech.

Neal January 30, 2007 at 8:27pm

But Dave, your accusation of hypocrisy rests upon there not being a difference.

Because if you read Josh2’s comment, in no way does he say he’s offended that Maggie dare challenge authority. He’s saying that he’s offended that Maggie wants to refuse anyone their right to challenge authority.  That’s not the least bit hypocritical - it’s completely consistent!

Dave K January 30, 2007 at 8:54pm

I guess I’d need to borrow your decoder ring to get that out of his first comment (though you’re probably referring to his follow-up comment).  I don’t think Maggie is saying that no one should be able to challenge authority.  She’s saying Hagel would be brought up on charges of treason if this was WWII.  That may be true, it may be false.  There is quite the difference between ‘challenging authority’ and treason, and some are saying Hagel and others have crossed that line.  Instead of spending so much time being offended, maybe Josh2 should go and figure out if Hagel really would/should be considered a traitor.

beerorkid January 30, 2007 at 8:55pm

tee he he   lovin it.

some great stuff has made it onto LJS.

” I think Seeman and conservatives don’t mix. “

” Oh yeah, Senator Hagel - if you like terroists so much, why don’t you just marry one!”

I love seeing parties implode by bickering within their own.  And all this for nothing.  Do you really think Bush is gonna care one bit about a non binding resolution?

Yo majority, grow a pair and do something worthy with your power to stop this administration before they attack Iran.  NOW!

Neal January 30, 2007 at 9:12pm

Well Dave, I was actually referring to his first comment, though the second one spells it out better. For future reference, I “decoded” it by reading the words and then thinking about what they might mean.

And you’re right - if people like Josh2 want to be less hypocritical, they should stop exercising and defending that freedom of speech they love so much and instead, spend that time looking into whether or not we should punish or limit Senator Hagel for exercising his.

Maybe we should set reasonable limits for how long a liberal can be offended at something. That way we can decide whether or not they’re simply speaking out on behalf of something they believe in (like what conservatives do when they post comment after comment on a blog) or if they’re just being hypocritical pests.

What do you say, Mr. Wilson? Two comments per liberal? And then maybe if a conservative is feeling sporting, he/she can offer the liberal some of his/her unlimited credits?

Dave K January 30, 2007 at 9:46pm

Interesting how you got that from a statement saying he’s offended followed by a bunch of quotes.

You don’t have to stop exercising and defending your freedom of speech, just do some research before being offended by your own inferences. It’s not my problem if you can’t do both at the same time.

 

Liberals can be offended all they want.  But if discussion is interrupted by their feelings being hurt, then that’s when they need to be called out for it.

Neal January 31, 2007 at 12:10am

All I can say, Dave, is that maybe you should read the quotes. You might learn something.

And I don’t know Josh2, and I didn’t even see that he posted twice until you said something about it, so you’re just going to have to take my word for it. Or you can keep disagreeing on a point that has nothing to do with the big issue. From past discussions, I know which one you prefer.

Case in point, your suggestion that the discussion was “interrupted” by liberals’ feelings being hurt. Okay, a guy says he’s offended that someone thinks being a liberal equates to being a terrorist, then offers several quotes to add to the discussion.

Who was it that decided to get hung up on one word and ignore the rest of the point? Or should I say, who was it that should have done some research before being offended by his own inferences?

Antibush February 16, 2007 at 4:10pm

Hi there, I’m a spammer. Please proceed to kick me in the scrotum.

[Edited by admin]

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

The Blogs

Syndication icon

Toolbox