As much as it is a good thing, Hagel's Iraq stance is starting to make me nervous.

[hopein08]

I am very, very grateful that a top Republican is willing to come out so strongly against the current situation (and the proposed situation) in Iraq. But a top Republican who is seriously considering running for President? I don't know about you, but that makes me nervous.

I know that the polls are showing huge numbers of Americans (from all sides of the aisle) that oppose the current handling of the war and even more who oppose the proposed troop surge. And that only feeds into my worry about what Hagel is doing. What if he turns out to be more appealing to the "would like to support everything that this administration does, but this is getting out of hand" demographic in the polls than a Democrat who voted for the war before s/he came out against the war and now would like to take a position of "what's happening is not right and we've got to fix it by continuing relatively the same course but certainly not calling it the same course"? If that happens, we'll have President Hagel and while I like his position on Iraq he's still a Republican and I don't know enough about him not to worry about all the other Republican ideas he holds steadfastly to that could really screw me.

Please, I'm nervous, make me feel better! Or tell me I'm wrong.:scared:

[montanacowboy]

1. You are not wrong

Many Independents, Dems and Moderate Repukes will love this guy; he will be hard to beat. He is attractive and has all the military credentials, comes across as a real moderate and has opposed the Bush Regime for a long time.

Democrats should be very worried about him. I think he is the only Repuke we need worry about.

[Alamom]

2. I just told my husband the same thing. n/t

[MoonRiver]

3. But he has to make it through the primary first.

That will be hard since most Rethugs still support the Thief in Chief.

[Wiley50]

4. Not To Mention That He is a Founder Of The ES&S Voting Machine Company

and was first elected in Nebraska after selling his machines to the state
and being elected by the very first vote on them

Be Afraid. Be very afraid

[WiseButAngrySara]

12. Damn! I had forgotten about that. Thanks for the

reminder.

[roody]

5. He made a lot of money from and got elected

by electronic voting machines.

[lisa58]

6. Don't worry...

...the Republicans hate him. He would have to run as an independent to be on the ballot in '08.

[drm604]

8. If he did run as an independent

he could be a spoiler for the Democratic candidate. :(

[MoonRiver]

9. I don't see why, as long as we nominate someone who is against the war.

That would rule out Hillary, of course.

[drm604]

11. Because there would be two anti-war candidates

and he could take a percentage of the votes away from the other.

[MoonRiver]

15. What I was trying to say is that aside from his position on Iraq,

Hagel wouldn't appeal to many if any Dems. I think he is anti-choice for one thing.

[bluewave]

14. Rule out Hillary? Fine with me. eom

[tbyg52]

7. Never forget

His little relationship with ES&S....

An official at Nebraska’s Election Administration estimated that ES&S machines tallied 85 percent of the votes cast in Hagel’s 2002 and 1996 election races.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx

[walldude]

10. Well I'm not nervous about it...

First off I'd rather see him get the nomination than McCaine. The fact is though, that Bush has made it clear that he is the Dictator here and for the next 2 years we will be following this moron into hell no matter what everyone else in the worlds says. By the time his 2 years are up there won't be anyone left with the exception of the "nuke em' all" base that would willingly put another republican in office. If we manage to survive two more years of Bush I doubt they could find another republican moderate enough to win an election.

[hopein08]

17. You'd rather see him the the nom. even if it could mean a Dem. loss in Nov. 08?

I'm glad you're that confident, I'm not. Not one bit.

[bluewave]

13. That's why we can't nominate a "yes" vote on the IWR

No Hillary. No Edwards. Yes it's sad, but they should have known better. They should have taken a stand when it was the principled thing to do instead of now when it's the obvious thing to do.

[hopein08]

18. I agree. They're getting a bit too good at hedging their bets...

and covering all the bases for me. Obama too. (I know he didn't have the chance to vote or not vote for the IWR, he's just getting too good at it.)

We need people willing to take a stand and stand there for pete's sake.

As Mark Twain said, "In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

Clinton and Edwards (as much as I hate to say, I was for Edwards in '04 and really wanted to be for him again) fall directly into the second sentence. Kucinich (of the presidential contenders who voted on the IWR) may stand alone in the first.

[Kahuna]

16. I'd much rather a president Hagel then a president McCain.. I'd prefer

to go up against Hagel. I don't think he's as odious or dangerous as McCain or Guiliani. And like it or not, there's always a 50% chance that a repuke could be elected. I'd rather the least dangerous repuke to run against.

[hopein08]

19. Quite true. Lesser of two evils is good. But I'd like no evil, in a perfect world. n/t

[goforit]

20. Yes! The powers that be will want both sides of the issue to run, yet they

will have total control at the end when the new president is chosen.

Scarey?.....Hell yah!!!

But if the common man chooses to arrest and not impeach the Vice-president and President
a message will be sent to all candidates in the future.

[mdmc]

21. I would rather have an anti- war, anti drug war, pro union GOP president

then a Zell Miller democrat.

Hagel is beat, and I think Hillary would wipe the floor with him.

[Samantha]

22. I posted this same sentiment here this week

I think your political instincts are correct. A Republican anti-war candidate could easily derail the Democratic nominee, i.e., someone like Hillary who signed that resolution authorizing Bush* to go into Iraq. I believe the voting public did not necessarily vote for Democrats in 2006 as much as it voted against the war. This is why I firmly believe the Dems MUST run an anti-war candidate to attempt to capture the White House in 2008. It must. Someone like Al Gore (or Feingold) who spoke out from the beginning. (Yes, I know we don't know if Gore is running and Feingold has dropped out but anything can happen at any time in American politics ....)