[CFstantony]

There is a superb article in today's Sunday New York Times magazine on Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Senator. He is the best of what the Republican Party has to offer: a true conservative in the best sense. He is pragmatic and well-informed in regards to foreign policy; he supports traditional fiscal responsibility, and he holds to traditional views on social issues. He is intensely critical of the outrageous spending of both parties and is very tough on the GOP - and he should be.

He knows how to listen and when to speak. I watched an interview with him on CSPAN with Brian Lamb. Now there is an article in the NYT (not exactly an unbiased source, but in this case, fair and reasonable) that presents Hagel primarily through his own words. It would be wonderful to have this man of quiet integrity in the White House. He is disliked by the neocons, which makes it difficult. The Dems do not stand a chance against him. The squealing antics, frenzied rage and self-indulgent narcissism and hysteria of the Dems are in direct contrast to Hagel's class and diginity and independence.

Hagel for President! The odds are long, but I can hope.

[TepSteade]

Hagel's chances are actually pretty decent if McCain doesn't run. McCain and Hagel are pretty much identical.

If McCain does run ,he's gonna dominate the reformist vote, which leaves Hagel in the cold.

[suilusargaino]

I like Hagel - he's said some things about Iraq and the domestic spy program that I have agreed with. But these days, it seems that every politician has something in their past that come back back to bite them. With Hagel, one thing may be questions about a company he was affiliated with in Nebraska that installed and operated the voting machines used by most voters in Nebraska in 1996 and again in 2002. Might be nothing, but then again, when you run for President, all the dirty laundry is hung out there for people to see ...

[TolleyBoymn]

I like Hagel - he's said some things about Iraq and the domestic spy program that I have agreed with. But these days, it seems that every politician has something in their past that come back back to bite them. With Hagel, one thing may be questions about a company he was affiliated with in Nebraska that installed and operated the voting machines used by most voters in Nebraska in 1996 and again in 2002. Might be nothing, but then again, when you run for President, all the dirty laundry is hung out there for people to see ...

Yup, and no matter how good a person you are, your not getting anywhere unless your a better and tougher lier. ^.^ Or better at manipulating the people, whatever. Like when Bush bashed McCain even though he's a freaking POW and yet skates on clear ice despite being only a member of the national guard in his days. Face it, really good people don't become politicans, and when they do they don't last long without compromising here or there. So much for the idea of a /true/ republic.

[Marc Spilkintin]

Yup, and no matter how good a person you are, your not getting anywhere unless your a better and tougher lier. ^.^ Or better at manipulating the people, whatever. Like when Bush bashed McCain even though he's a freaking POW and yet stakes on clear ice despite being only a member of the national guard in his days. Face it, really good people don't become politicans, and when they do they don't last long without compromising here or there. So much for the idea of a /true/ republic.

Well, perhaps you and Curly are right. I still wrestle with that. Ronald Reagan became president without destroying everyone in sight. I still believe that Hagel is a man of integrity. Does he have embarassing episodes in his past? I'm sure he does. Everyone does. I am still hopeful regarding his prospects.

[stuntduood]

Hagel's chances are actually pretty decent if McCain doesn't run. McCain and Hagel are pretty much identical.

If McCain does run ,he's gonna dominate the reformist vote, which leaves Hagel in the cold.

True - I think Hagel is a more appealing candidate, but I agree that they are very similar.

[MexicoCity]

Well, perhaps you and Curly are right. I still wrestle with that. Ronald Reagan became president without destroying everyone in sight. I still believe that Hagel is a man of integrity. Does he have embarassing episodes in his past? I'm sure he does. Everyone does. I am still hopeful regarding his prospects.

Well, perhaps I was a little too pessimistic with that first post. Its just that 99 percent of the time, thats exactly what happens. Maybe there is a chance for a good person to carry the presidency again, but whoever that is has to carry the people as well (Bush is too much of a bully for my taste, but who cares about Bush anyway? He can't run again anyway). I just hope whoever we get can unite this nation again, because a house divided among it self, will fall.

[Michaelnewerb]

Well, perhaps I was a little too pessimistic with that first post. Its just that 99 percent of the time, thats exactly what happens. Maybe there is a chance for a good person to carry the presidency again, but whoever that is has to carry the people as well (Bush is too much of a bully for my taste, but who cares about Bush anyway? He can't run again anyway). I just hope whoever we get can unite this nation again, because a house divided among it self, will fall.

I agree with this post. I think that Hagel can work with the reasonable Dems, and there are many of them; unfortunately they are not the public face of the party, but they are the future. Kennedy, Boxer, Pelosi, Biden, Durbin, Gore, Carter, Hillary and Schumer belong to the old world when the Dems ran the country and their power was unquestioned and backed up by numbers. Today the posturing and tantrums of the left wing elite are relics of a world that has disappeared. There has to be some cooperation, and the Gang of 14 in the Senate is a promising start.

I was quite impressed, for instance, with Louisiana's Mary Landrieu who insisted that the bizarre circus created by Teddy and company during the Alito hearings was taking time and energy away from the Katrina aftermath. She made her point with courtesy but with clarity. More politicians like her are needed.

[Maserati]

I agree with this post. I think that Hagel can work with the reasonable Dems, and there are many of them; unfortunately they are not the public face of the party, but they are the future. Kennedy, Boxer, Pelosi, Biden, Durbin, Gore, Carter, Hillary and Schumer belong to the old world when the Dems ran the country and their power was unquestioned and backed up by numbers. Today the posturing and tantrums of the left wing elite are relics of a world that has disappeared. There has to be some cooperation, and the Gang of 14 in the Senate is a promising start.

I was quite impressed, for instance, with Louisiana's Mary Landrieu who insisted that the bizarre circus created by Teddy and company during the Alito hearings was taking time and energy away from the Katrina aftermath. She made her point with courtesy but with clarity. More politicians like her are needed.

Hopefully, the United States needs two parties, its beneficial to our American way of life. Currently, you have one party which everybody doesn't always like, but they'll choose it over the other because the other doesn't have anything to offer (Well, the same can be said about people of both parties). Anyway, my point is, that kind of thinking isn't helpful to our future. If we had two parties that actually had something to offer, we'd have more choices, and the more choices the less limited we are. Whoever the next President is, they'll have quiet some pressure on them, mostly to unite the US and help make a country that can move forward as one.

[CAxrrAYN]

I think the divide started under Reagan, mellowed out during Bush 1, came back from the right during the Clinton years and then got stronger and more viscious during the 2000 elections and has only gotten worse since then.

What this country needs is somebody with a good head on their shoulders, that can give a speech, that has cross party appeal, and can work with both sides of the aisle and actually get something accomplished for the PEOPLE of this great country and eventually hopefully heal the divisiviness we now have.

I dont know alot about Hagel, but from what I have read he may just be the guy. McCain may be ok, but I dont know, there is something about him that makes me wonder. I know he was a POW and he has my respect for that, not many men can go thru what he did and come out of it relatively unscathed.

My main concern is did he really come out of the POW camp relativelly unscathed, or is there something that even he may be aware of that would cause him to "lose control".

I just hope that both parties put up somebody who has integrity (in politics???LMAO), guts when needed, compassion where required, and a vision of where to take this great country during their term and beyond.

[littlePen]

If McCain is out of the running, the beneficiary would be Guliani, not Hagel.

[Verriasana]

With Hagel, one thing may be questions about a company he was affiliated with in Nebraska that installed and operated the voting machines used by most voters in Nebraska in 1996 and again in 2002. Might be nothing, but then again, when you run for President, all the dirty laundry is hung out there for people to se

It's nothing unless there was fraud. Without evidence of fraud of any sort, there's nothing to see here, except for the conspiracy minded who won't be voting for him anyway.

My main concern is did he really come out of the POW camp relativelly unscathed, or is there something that even he may be aware of that would cause him to "lose control".

He didn't come out unscathed physically, that's for sure. And most POWs came back sane.

If McCain is out of the running, the beneficiary would be Guliani, not Hagel.

Some of the votes go to Giuliani, but he's liberal on social issues. So a lot of McCain's votes would go to Hagel, because they are both social conservatives.

[KellyLynchIV]

adaher
Some of the votes go to Giuliani, but he's liberal on social issues. So a lot of McCain's votes would go to Hagel, because they are both social conservatives. But they are also both seen as being far more opportunistically hostile to major parts of the GOP base. Guiliani is pretty liberal socially, but he could convincingly make the case that in-so-far as the COURT is concerned (which is the REAL battle ground for the culture war) that he supports strict constructionists who would leave social policy to the elected branches (i.e., you can oppose Roe v. Wade as mater constitutional jurisprudence and still believe that abortion should be kept legal as a matter of POLICY; or that gay marriage is NOT a Constitutional right and that Judges should stay out of it, but that the LEGISLATURE of states should permit it as a matter of POLICY).

Guliani has never gone out of his way to attack the base as McCain and Hagel both have at times for the adoration and attention of the MLM.

[EntectCelpelm]

If McCain is out of the running, the beneficiary would be Guliani, not Hagel.

Giuliani is pro-gay rights/choice/gun control. Barring a radical change in the Republican party, he'd never make it out of the primaries.

[chzvacmyye]

My main concern is did he really come out of the POW camp relativelly unscathed, or is there something that even he may be aware of that would cause him to "lose control".

He didn't come out unscathed physically, that's for sure. And most POWs came back sane.

I am not concerned about physical, and I am sure most of them DID come back sane, under normal living conditions. Being President is not normal tho, the stresses are enormous, my concern is would these stresses uncover an unknown condition. I am not saying it would, but, it is a concern of mine. If he does run, I will have the opportunity to observe and make my decision. As you can tell from my previous post, I am not blinded by partisian rhetoric, I want to see the people running, listen to what they have to say, watch their body language as they speak, etc... before I make my decision. Too bad there are people out there who wont do that, they vote by the D or R next to the name and not for the person.

[irrawnWab]

JDD
Giuliani is pro-gay rights/choice/gun control. Barring a radical change in the Republican party, he'd never make it out of the primaries. He could for the very reason I elaborated. Most of the party base understands that these issues revolve around the composition of the judiciary rather than the views of our elected leaders (and that is the biggest part of the problem), it all comes down to what kind of judges they would appoint, and as I said, I think Rudy could make a very strong and credible case for pledging to appoint strict constructionists that interpret the law and not make it.

[CDCL7WKJ]

JDD
Giuliani is pro-gay rights/choice/gun control. Barring a radical change in the Republican party, he'd never make it out of the primaries.

He could for the very reason I elaborated. Most of the party base understands that these issues revolve around the composition of the judiciary rather than the views of our elected leaders (and that is the biggest part of the problem), it all comes down to what kind of judges they would appoint, and as I said, I think Rudy could make a very strong and credible case for pledging to appoint strict constructionists that interpret the law and not make it.

On what basis could Giuliani make such a pledge?
He's repeatedly supported gay rights, gun control and he's pro-choice. He's taken stands against cutting federal funding for abortions, and against so called "partial birth" abortions. He's run on the Liberal Party line in NYC, whose platform strongly supported the Constitutional right to abortion. He's been quoted as saying he would give his daughter money for an abortion if she needed it.

You're asking people who would normally oppose a candidate because of these positions to make a huge leap of faith. Giuliani may never have "attacked" the "political base" of the Repbubican party, but he's never run for office outside of New York.

[chuecafresss]

JDD
On what basis could Giuliani make such a pledge?
He's repeatedly supported gay rights, gun control and he's pro-choice. He's taken stands against cutting federal funding for abortions, and against so called "partial birth" abortions. He's run on the Liberal Party line in NYC, whose platform strongly supported the Constitutional right to abortion. He's been quoted as saying he would give his daughter money for an abortion if she needed it. He could make the case because he can make the appropriate distinction between his personal POLICY views and CONSTITUTIONAL views. Because of modern liberalisms need to raise their agenda to the issue of Constitutionality (leaving it to judges to impose policies that the voters would never support) the distinction between that which is left as a matter of POLICY to the elected branches of government and genuine constitutional interpretation has been blurred.

I can say that I support as a matter of policy a flat tax while at the same time opposing activist judges who would impose a flat tax by discovering a "right" to "equal protection" in the Constitution interpreting it to mean that people cannot be charged unequal percentages of their income in taxes. You can support the outcome as a matter of policy without supporting bad Constitutional jurisprudence to get there. I would support the impeachment of a judge who imposed a flat tax (which I support as a matter of policy) under the guise of "equal protection" every bit as much as one who would impose gay marriage.

[Patamuta]

He could for the very reason I elaborated. Most of the party base understands that these issues revolve around the composition of the judiciary rather than the views of our elected leaders (and that is the biggest part of the problem), it all comes down to what kind of judges they would appoint, and as I said, I think Rudy could make a very strong and credible case for pledging to appoint strict constructionists that interpret the law and not make it.

You may be right about this in theory - and I think you make a good point about the courts. However, this is too sophisticated a concept (unfortunately) for an election campaign. The facts is: Giuliani is too far left to be the GOP front runner. He did a superb job in NYC in the aftermath of 9/11, and will always be respected and remembered for that. But he is just too liberal on social issues.

[Galvanoidum]

Hopefully, the United States needs two parties, its beneficial to our American way of life. Currently, you have one party which everybody doesn't always like, but they'll choose it over the other because the other doesn't have anything to offer (Well, the same can be said about people of both parties). Anyway, my point is, that kind of thinking isn't helpful to our future. If we had two parties that actually had something to offer, we'd have more choices, and the more choices the less limited we are. Whoever the next President is, they'll have quiet some pressure on them, mostly to unite the US and help make a country that can move forward as one.

Well said - a third party that was not just a one-man show (Perot) could clean up.