tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post664781225136281571..comments2023-10-26T01:59:40.483-07:00Comments on The Dividist Papers: Now is the time for one good man to come to the aid of his party.mwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-17694681461294767832007-08-24T10:26:00.000-07:002007-08-24T10:26:00.000-07:00As I have said in other posts, on other blogs, and...As I have said in other <A HREF="http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2007/06/political-blogger-switches-party.html" REL="nofollow">posts</A>, on <A HREF="http://donklephant.com/2007/08/06/the-antibush/" REL="nofollow">other blogs</A>, and in other comments, I like Ron Paul. I actually consider Ron Paul's views to be closer to my political views than Chuck Hagel. <BR/><BR/>Clearly Ron Paul has taken a principled stand against the war and has been more consistent in that stand than most politicians. I acknowledge that in <A HREF="http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2007/02/president-vs-congress-round-six-seven.html" REL="nofollow">this post</A> and this <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzFMo6w-hsk" REL="nofollow">Ron Paul speech</A> which I posted in YouTube. <BR/><BR/>My use of the word "credible" in this context is based on exactly one factor - electability. Ron Paul cannot be elected President. I know that Paul supporters disagree with this assessment as an act of faith. That is great. We disagree. From prior experience with RP supporters, we'll never agree until he withdraws. <BR/><BR/>I think Ron Paul's candidacy and the enthusiastic supporters he inspires are a huge plus for the country and the Republican Party. He still can't get elected President. <BR/><BR/>Chuck Hagel is a credible anti-war because he would be elected president if he got the nomination. Getting the nomination in the Republican party may be as difficult for Hagel as Paul, but even there I think he has a better shot. That is how I am using "credible"<BR/><BR/>Regarding the 2002 Vote. There was good reason to vote for that resolution in the expectation that it would force Saddam's hand and not lead to war. If you want to really appreciate how far Hagel was ahead of the curve on Iraq, check out this <A HREF="http://ome.ksu.edu/lectures/landon/video/hagel.ram" REL="nofollow">video of his speech at Kansas State University</A> in February of 2003 (Landon Lecture Series - warning it is long some 50 minutes).<BR/><BR/>Filmed a few weeks before we went into Iraq, Hagel warns about almost every single thing that has happened as a consequence over the last three years. Not hindsight, real foresight. It's scary how on-target he was - He sounds like a friggin' prophet now. It makes you want to cry to watch it. Nobody was listening to him. Not in the administration. Not the American people. Just a voice lost in the winds of war fever. I include myself among the deaf, as I was as gung-ho as every other yahoo at the time.mwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-39832525693230087502007-08-24T08:21:00.000-07:002007-08-24T08:21:00.000-07:00I suspect this won't get posted. There's no way y...I suspect this won't get posted. There's no way you can make such a weak argument and get no comments.<BR/><BR/>You wrote: <I>"Hagel is the only credible anti-war Republican"</I><BR/><BR/>Sen Hagel voted FOR the Iraq War.<BR/>Dr Paul voted AGAINST the Iraq War.<BR/><BR/>Voting for it then whining about it is stale. It was stale when Kerry tried it in '04. And now it's just plain pungent and nauseous when recycled by hypocrites like Hillary, Edwards, Biden, Dodd and pretty much then entire Democratic party.<BR/><BR/>There is ONLY ONE CREDIBLE Repbulican antiwar candidate, and it ain't Chuck!<BR/><BR/>RON PAUL 2008!!!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14203279041373068129noreply@blogger.com