Is Hagel really all that brave?

Kaus is an idiot. Who cares if he is brave? Is he right?>

Wow. Okay, look. Nebraska only has 3 electoral college votes. This does not make for a presidential candidate. It barely "qualifies" for a vice-presidential candidate. Nonetheless, Hagel has the looks, the charm and the articulate delivery that gives him a little bit of promise, so the Republican Party has been grooming him as a potential P/VP candidate for something like 15 or 20 years. (I live in Nebraska -- it's no news around here.)

But rather, if you take a good hard look at the way politics is played on a national level by the two big parties, my gut tells me that since Hagel is expendable (only 3 electoral college votes behind him, remember), the GOP is using him to test a moderate platform among Republicans and right-leaning Democrats. Same as the Democrats have used another Nebraska senator, Ben Nelson. Middle America is notoriously good "testing" ground as any market research firm will tell you. And make no mistake about it, the GOP and Democratic parties excel at marketing.

Now a side note about Hagel, whom I've met only briefly. Last summer, I was covering the Purple Heart ceremony for our local soldiers. This included the two that were back alive and many more who were KIA. The Purple Hearts were given to the families of the dead soldiers, and each was invited to share something about their son or daughter.

The governor sent his lieutenant. Ben Nelson sent a letter, as did the reprentative from this district. Chuck Hagel came in person. And he wasn't there for a big show -- he ignored the media entirely, gave a very short speech with no sound-bites (which means it was either off-the cuff or carefully crafted to be unusable in a TV news story). He offered a simple, sincere acknowledgement of the sacrifice that each of these soldiers had made. After the ceremony, he stood for a good hour with various family members of fallen soldiers, just listening. Again, media was excluded -- these were tight circles of people and hushed tones. He gripped the hands of dad who had lost their kids and had tears in his eyes when mothers couldn't help weeping. I admit I tried to capture this image, but it was impossible to get a photo of him in this situation, with his head bowed very close to those of the families, all huddled together. Then he left without giving any statement to the three members of the press who were there to cover the event (of which I was one). If he was scheming in all of this, he didn't ever capitalize on it, nor did he tried. I believe him to be wholly sincere about his concern for the young men and women who serve in our military and their families.

Is his position on the Iraqi conflict a good one? A viable one? Who knows until it's tried?

Is it authentically his 100% belief that we should get our troops out of there immediately? Maybe, maybe not -- I think he leans in that direction and the GOP has allowed (or even subtly encouraged) him to continue with it. But only as a market test. If he's successful, the whole GOP will follow.>

Given the amount of ink that's been spilled recently (including on this blog) about how brave Hagel is being, it seems fair for Kaus to point out that he isn't, actually. If what's really important about Hagel is not that he's brave but that he's right, then folks should have stuck to saying that.>

If you're considering supporting the man for President, Rod, then it should matter whether he is being opportunistic and vain.

Character matters. Principles matter. A President short of both of them is a danger to the Republic, no matter how many of his stands you agree with on the important issues of the day.

Down with the opportunistic, trimming weasels! (Of both parties.)>

A Hagel-Webb ticket might be popular with genuine conservatives, including disaffected Republicans and independent voters, but Hagel has made it clear he's a Republican, and I see no reason to doubt him. As for Webb, he has put economic fairness and security front and center, and that is clearly a Democratic plank. In short, neither of these two look likely to break away from their parties, so I'm putting this one down as wishful thinking of the first order.>

Why not Ron Paul? Unlike Hagel, Paul was right about Iraq from the beginning. And he's right about almost everything else. Of course, he won't win the nomination, but isn't it better to vote for someone good than to vote for someone bad--or someone slightly less bad--just because he's "viable." Positive change never comes from that kind of "realism." Instead, one becomes a dupe of the trimmers and phonies (because they know they'll get your vote regardless of how bad they are).

With Congressman Paul, you get an honest man who was a Reagan Republican in 1976...back when it was unfashionable to be one. In '76, Rumsfeld and Cheney were Ford cronies working against Reagan, Helms, and the conservative movement. Neocons were liberal Democrats supporting Henry Jackson for president. Paul was one of only a handful of members of Congress to have the guts and foresight to endorse Reagan. He's been a champion of constitutionalism, freedom, and morality ever since. He's also a populist. I think he fits the crunchy con profile quite well.

Referring to congressional Democrats who supported giving Bush a blank check but then turned "against" the war when it became an unpopular political liability, Daniel Larison writes, "To admit that you were misled by Mr. Bush is to admit a level of gullibility that guarantees you are unfit for office." I welcome Hagel's opposition to the war and I give him credit for standing up to an arrogant administration but I do question his judgment and his philosophy when he backed the 2002 pro-war resolution. He did so as a member of the Senate, not as a lowly citizen relying on faulty intelligence (or lies, in my opinion).>

I'm so glad Jeff Taylor got in there ahead of me and eloquently endorsed Ron Paul for President. Ron Paul was right from the beginning. (I was not--but I'm not running for President, either!) Ron Paul staunchly voted aginst the Bush administration's restrictions upon our civil liberties before anybody else had the guts to do so. Ron Paul gets over 90% of his donations from individuals, as opposed to special interests, probably far, far better than almost any other serious politician, let alone Presidential candidate. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul & footnotes 4 and 6.) I could go on but I'd better stop here. To conclude: If need be, I am willing to change my party registration temporarily in order to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. Indeed, a Democrats for Ron Paul group has already formed ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/democratsforronpaul/ ). Thanks for reading!>

As far as I can remember, Hagel was the first prominent Republican pol openly telling the nasty truths about Iraq. His recent comment hardly makes him a shifter-in-the-wind.>

Rod: "It doesn't matter to me if Hagel is being opportunistic. So what? He's saying the right things now"

Funny Rod, that's how most progressive would feel about your anti-war epiphany.

Derek: "I could vote for Hagel, if it weren't for one thing: The Hagel-Martinez Bill."

I agree Derek. Hagel-Martinez was much too restrictive and should have been more generous in legalizing the hardworking undocumented immigrants. Hopefully the dems will be able to get even more of them legalized!

Pax!>

I'm with Messrs. Taylor and Heckmann:

DR. RON PAUL IN '08!>

I hear you, BG, but are there any serious, or potentially serious, candidates who are right on immigration (from a restrictionist point of view)?

Of course one could always not vote, or vote third party. But unless I'm reading the situation wrong, it's highly unlikely that immigration restrictionists will step into the voting booth in 2008 with one of our own leading a party ticket, or even heading a viable third-party candidacy.>

Forget it, Webb is pro-choice.
Ron Paul has two first names.
Hagel just needs to stick with the voting machines from his old company that got him elected Senator.>

I think Pat Buchanan is good. He's mean and nasty. He's conservative. He fits the profile of the Republican party very well.>

I hate the amnesty bill, but I think Iraq, and foreign policy in general, is by far the most important issue in 2008.

I absolutely disagree. Mass immigration, legal and illegal, may not be as sexy headline-wise as Iraq, but it' far more important than any other issue we'll be facing in the near future, short of, perhaps, a nuclear exchange with Russia.

Besides, are there any major candidates of either party who wouldn't be lousy on immigration, from an immigration-restrictionist point of view?

I think this points up the case for not even bothering to vote. The fact that on one of the most critical of issues (here I'm speaking of illegal immigration, not legal), you can't get a candidate in favor of enforcing existing law demonstrates that our system is broken, and probably beyond repair at that.>