Only in the fever swamps of the very far left, could Chuck Hagel EVER be considered to be even remotely conservative.
He is, and for the most part, always has been, what would be in the “Progressive” tradition of the Republicans, tracing back to Theodore Roosevelt. It was just that sort of “Republicans” that made the most perfect foils for FDR and the New Deal, unwilling to speak up for the historical record and in defense of the rule of law. Alf Landon, in 1936, much like Mitt Romney in 2012, just could not bring themselves to stand up for the historical America, and certainly not for the defense of law as written in the Constitution.
Chuck Hagel was nominated for one reason only, to further expand and extend Bronco Bama’s “in-your-face” brash determination to make the majority conform to his very narcissitic will and narrow view of the world.
Illegitimi non carborundum. That pseudo-Latin phrase is just as phony as the all the rest of the sort of horse feces and faux “enlightenment” we are being fed by the Oracle himself, Bronco Bama. Time the Current Regime in the White Hut met up with some REAL “True Grit”.
Impeachment is highly unlikely, but there is still the potential for “nullification”, to just not pay any attentuion to his rants and threats, much as Richard Nixon was isolated in the months leading up to his resignation.
First we go after Biden....
Hagel's lifetime American Conservative Union rating when he was in the Senate was in the 80s (out of 100). I don't have his lifetime rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, but 8 and 10 (out of 100) were typical numbers for him. If Hagel was a "progressive" Republican, then just about every Republican in Congress was a "progressive."
Loudon's article is just "guilt by association." If someone from IPS supports Hagel's nomination it doesn't mean Hagel is actually "linked" with IPS. He's responsible for what he does himself, not for some IPS lady's endorsement. But look at what she says, for heaven's sake: "Chuck Hagel isnt anyone Id pick to be in a position of power ..." It's one strange "endorsement."
Ploughshares Fund is obviously a liberal group, and its board members are liberals for the most part. Some have, if you want to trace their backgrounds, more radical ties. Some don't. But George P. Schultz is on their advisory board. Maybe today we have to google his name to find out who he is, but he's no radical or Marxist and a fair article -- something more than a cheap hit job -- wouldn't have ignored his presence on the advisory board.
But okay, being on Ploughshares Board makes Hagel a liberal, like ex-Republicans Susan Eisenhower and William S. Cohen. That explains why Obama wants him, and most likely there's reason enough there to oppose his nomination. But being on the board doesn't in itself make Hagel some kind of radical or Marxist and it doesn't mean that he was never a conservative.
Oppose him all you want, but spare the whole he was never "really" a conservative stuff. Hagel wasn't, say, Barry Goldwater or Jesse Helms, but by the standards of most Senators in his day, yes, he was conservative, and wasn't any kind of "progressive" Republican, so far as I've been able to find out.