I'm telling you, folks...Hagel's the one to watch out for...

[cynatnite]

Once he states his intention to run for '08, he'll pull ahead of both McCain and Rudy. He's got the RW credentials and majority is against the war. He's got a hell of a good chance of getting the repuke nomination, IMO.

[Clark2008]

1. My hubby - a "New England Liberal" in every sense of the word -

said he'd vote for Hagel over Edwards should they both receive the nomination.

While he knows Hagel is conservative on many issues, he thinks Edwards is a flake when it comes to national security and foreign policy.

[atre]

39. Well, that's a surprise...

...coming from you :)

[EFerrari]

44. Ask him how he feels about every vote for Hagel's first run being counted

by Hagel's company. It's efficient but it's not democracy.

[blm]

2. I have thought the same for some time now.

.

[tridim]

3. He has everything but the backwash

and without the backwash, no Repuke can win.

[Gold Metal Flake]

4. He's got the full backing of ES&S.

Nice when you can get your own machines to vote for you.



edit: traded a ; for a '.

[KittyWampus]

47. Hagel won't need ES&S

[Hosnon]

5. I agree. I have no problem voting for a Republican if s/he is the best for the job and

my radar has begun to go off with Hagel.

As things stand (very early in the race) I think he stands a good chance.

Edit: That said, I probably wouldn't vote for him over Obama and definitely not over Gore. Hillary? Dunno.

[pnwmom]

8. Could an extreme conservative be the best person for the job?

[Hosnon]

12. Probably not. Depends on the situation. nt.

[pnwmom]

21. What if Hagel was "the situation"? Are you saying you could vote for

an extreme conservative, like Hagel, solely because of his position on Iraq?

[Hosnon]

27. I don't imagine I'd ever vote for a candidate for a single reason.

Read what I am saying.

Because one is a Republican does not mean I will vote for him/her. However, it also does not mean I will not vote for him/her.

[pnwmom]

34. I have been reading what you are saying. Why would you POSSIBLY

vote for him over Obama or Sen. Clinton? Or any other announced candidate?

[Hosnon]

38. I don't know at this point. I find it is best to not speak in rigid terms.

There is the possibility that I would vote for him over a Democrat. I am honest and open-minded enough to allow for that.

I don't see it as likely but I refuse to close the door on any person who is a Republican. The door is largely shut but not closed.

[bdamomma]

50. we do not need another republican majority, haven't we had enough?

[cynatnite]

13. No other senator has voted as much with the WH as Hagel...

I don't have the link, but it was in a Newsweek article.

[Hosnon]

17. Voted with the WH? You mean voted according to the wishes of the

WH?

I don't doubt that that is the case. After all, he is a Republican.

[cynatnite]

19. Says a lot when he surpasses the other republicans

:)

[Hosnon]

20. Sure. I'm merely agreeing that he is going to be a contender and indicating

that his membership in the Republican party is not an automatic disqualifier to me.

[cynatnite]

24. If you even think about voting repuke over dem...

DU is probably not the place for you to be. We promote dem candidates here. Period.

[Hosnon]

26. I will most certainly consider voting for whomever I deem appropriate.

I am a liberal and tend to vote Democratic but I will not willfully blind myself.

[cynatnite]

28. Vote for who you want...

but DU promotes and supports ONLY Democratic candidates. If you choose to support someone who is anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-poor and every other thing that a Dem is not, this is probably not a good place for you.

One issue does not a candidate make.

[Hosnon]

30. "One issue does not a candidate make."

Exactly. Membership in the Republican party is not an automatic bar to me.

I've been here for quite some time so take your veiled threats elsewhere. And reread the rules:

Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

DU does not require Puritanism.

[cynatnite]

32. Read it again...

"generally supportive of progressive ideals"...that's one...

seperate with the 'and'

"to support Democratic candidates for political office"...that's two.

I was not making any veiled threats and I have no idea how you read that into what I wrote. DU supports Dem candidates. It's a simple statement not subject to your interpretation.

As I said, if you plan on supporting a republican DU might not be the place for you.

[Hosnon]

36. I thought about that interpretation but decided against it. If DU is not

absolutist with regard to ideology, I think it is reasonable to presume that it is not absolutist with regard to support for candidates.

Incidentally, I believe it is a progressive belief to sometimes look beyond party affiliation.

And I can certainly tell you that DU is the place for me.

[cynatnite]

41. DU does not support candidates that are repub or third party...

That's been my experience since I've been here from what the rules say and what the mods have said in the past.

If I thought for one second that DU would support a repub OVER a dem DU would not be the place for me. I've had enough of repukes. The six years is proof of how badly a party can ruin a country.

Now, maybe if the moderate repubs took control of their party from the fundies, from the neocons, from the war mongers and so on, maybe I might reconsider my opinion. That includes Hagel because he's as RW as they come. Just because his anti-war views are the same as ours doesn't mean we want him in the WH.

You've proven one thing to me. Hagel will have a lot of influence here at DU which is not good, IMO.

[Hosnon]

42. My point is that mere membership in the Republican party is not an

automatic disqualifier to me. I think that is short-sighted, stubborn and closed-minded but that is my opinion.

Perhaps you are right and DU only supports Democratic candidates but I would hope that doesn't extend to its members as well. I won't advocate a non-Democratic candidate here but if I can get banned for voting for someone other than a Dem, perhaps you are right that this is not the place for me (I don't think I can, by the way). Would DU ban Carville if his wife ran and he, as her husband, supported her? Do I have to vote for a corrupt local Democrat over an honest, personal Republican friend?

[ProgressiveFool]

48. LOL Carville would be

virtually tarred and feathered, and then run out on a rail if he ever showed up here.

And with good reason... friggin snake.

[ThatPoetGuy]

43. "We promote dem candidates here. Period."

Quite a statement.

I decided, earlier this year, that my choice would be based on three criteria.

1) Pro-choice, supportive of gays.

2) Realist rather than idealist, since the world's problems need to be seen clearly in order to be addressed adequately. I don't think it's the time to push for a utopian vision when so much day-to-day muck needs cleaning.

3) Smartest guy in the room. It's the title of the book about Enron; the Enron lawyers were able to outwit Gray Davis and his staff, and lots of people suffered for it. I don't think they would have outwitted Bill Clinton. I don't think they could have outwitted Wes Clark.

Character issues, questions of honesty, aren't part of the debate for me. I just don't think it matters. Policy matters.

So, would I cross the aisle? Maybe. Not for any of the likely candidates. Colin Powell, possibly, if he were to run; yes, I know he lied about Mi Lai, he lied about WMDs, and he lied about Jenin, but -- see above -- I just don't think it matters. I'd cross the line for a pro-choice, pro-gay, pragmatic, extremely intelligent Republican.

But only if the Dem isn't pro-choice, pro-gay, pragmatic, and extremely intelligent.

Does that make me a bad Democrat?

[cynatnite]

46. I never said it makes anyone a bad democrat...

My understanding of the rules at DU was that dem candidates are supported over other parties. Support who you like, but I doubt you'll find many repubs who fill your requirements.

[bdamomma]

51. it was mentioned on AAR Hagel has backed bush 95%.

[INdemo]

15. A Republican is still a Republican

He can offer one thing and talk the talk but if elected he is still a Republican and his loyalty is still with the Republicans and their ideology.

[Pyrzqxgl]

53. Look! He's a Republican. He votes with Republicans on all those things like

healthcare, minimum wage, education, etc. He made one lucky speech the MSM jumped on and he's against the war and you all think he's Post Toasties with strawberries on it. He's not one of us, he's one of them. Get Real!

[Hav]

6. .

If he gets the nomination, he would most likely be the most serious candidate the Repubs have. It will be interesting to see how competitve he can be in the Primaries.

[Schema Thing]

7. I agree.

[Mz Pip]

9. He's right about the war

but wrong about everything else. One issue does not a good candidate make (or break).

Hagel is articulate and smart and right about thte war but his stand on other issues mirrors GWB.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[pnwmom]

10. I totally agree. He's a real threat -- the new McCain.

Because of his stand on Iraq, he can portray himself as "independent," but he is in reality extremely conservative.

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. But not a nutty as McCain. There lies the difference.

[mnhtnbb]

14. No argument from me. I worry about Hagel.

[OKNancy]

16. I've been saying for months that he was the one I fear

the most. I guess most of you have read his truthout.com interview.
I think he is the only one they have who isn't a nutcase.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012907A.shtml

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. I completely agree. He will send McCain, Rudy and Mitt reeling!

ES&S is looking forward to working hard for their guy.:(

[caledesi]

22. Agree. I think he will run as an Indy. nt

[Alexander]

23. Agreed - I've been warning people about this guy for years.

A Vietnam vet, 10 years younger, in decent health, with lots of right-wing credentials and his own E-voting machine company, opposed to this snafu in Iraq.

Hagel is who McCain wishes he were right now.

McCain will likely soil his garments the day Hagel runs, because Hagel doesn't piss off the right wing as much and also doesn't come across as a shameless ass-kisser like McCain does.

This is the 2008 contest as I see it today.

Dem nominees: Al Gore/Russ Feingold

Rep nominees: Chuck Hagel/Mitt Romney

[cynatnite]

25. I think you're right on about the repuke nominees...

but I think we'll see Clinton/Obama instead.

[Alexander]

33. People will get tired of the Clinton/Obama "battle".

The front runner a year before the primaries seldom wins said primaries, barring incumbency.

In 2004, first the front-runner was Lieberman. Then it was Dean. Then after Dean's verbal sparring with Clark and Gephardt, Iowans got sick and tired of them and voted for Kerry.

IIRC, Ted Kennedy, Mo Udall, Ed Muskie and Paul Tsongas were all the front-runners at this point in the primaries. None of them won.

[cynatnite]

35. True...

It's still early and anything can happen. I'm usually wrong about these things, anyway :)

[kerry-is-my-prez]

29. He could be another McCain. Buck the Admin. for a while and then flip over.

I wouldn't trust any Repub. right now. That party is still waaaay too dangerous.

[Hamlette]

31. but he's not against gay marriage, how can the GOP win without the religious wackos? n/t

[undeterred]

37. ISN'T HAGEL THE ONE WHO OWNS THE VOTING MACHINES

THE ONES THAT GOT HIM ELECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE?!

[EFerrari]

45. He's not there any more although he may still own stock. n/t

[H2O Man]

40. I agree.

100%.

[bdamomma]

49. watch out for Hagel he has backed bush's bills 95%

he may be with this on Iraq, but other than that he is Republican.

[sendero]

52. I agree totally..

... he's the only republican possible pres candidate that isn't insane.

[Edweird]

54. Hagel could easily be a ringer, anyway

How does anyone how Hagel will actually vote one a real bill about Irag. Everybody knows he's a hardcore conservative, except for Irag. Specter talks a lot of crap about bush, but when it matters he always, ALWAYS does exactly what they want. Hagel coul just be using the same playbook as specter.

[fujiyama]

55. He'd be a strong candidate

and would do well among groups republicans have lost a lot of ground to over the years.

He'd be a problem, but I'd be really surprised if I see the republicans turning against the neocon agenda. Bush still retains a majority support from his party members.