Hagel hints of independent presidential run

He can't win in a republican primary, because they still overwhelmingly support Bush's Iraq war policy.
 
uscitizen said:
Yes but for how long will that continue Cypress ?
Click to expand...


Because the "Just give us six more months!" crowd is lying their asses off. Bush and his minions are never leaving iraq, and have no intention to. Reportedly, this morning its being reported that members of the Bush admin are saying that we need until next spring (2008), to see if the surge is working.

Unless rightwing talk radio, and the GOP base plan on bailing on Bush, the GOP foot soldiers will never abandon bush, in any meaningful way.
 
I odn't know about the "foot soldiers" but a couple of Ex generals are coming out speaking against it in a political ad...
See my other post.
 
uscitizen said:
Yes but for how long will that continue Cypress ?
Click to expand...

Hagal has almost no chance. Yes he might get the support of some conservatives who have had it with the war but his overall voting record is supposedly very conservative. That is not going to appeal to many on the left which is where he would also need support if he runs as an independent.
 
cawacko said:
Hagal has almost no chance. Yes he might get the support of some conservatives who have had it with the war but his overall voting record is supposedly very conservative. That is not going to appeal to many on the left which is where he would also need support if he runs as an independent.
Click to expand...

Still, it'd be interesting to see what a Hagel and/or Bloomberg ticket would do to the race. I think they'd, either on their own or on a joint ticket, would gain a lot of independent votes, but I don't know how that would skew the actual election.
 
cawacko said:
Hagal has almost no chance. Yes he might get the support of some conservatives who have had it with the war but his overall voting record is supposedly very conservative. That is not going to appeal to many on the left which is where he would also need support if he runs as an independent.
Click to expand...
What it would do is be a Perot, who regardless of the left insistence, pulled mainly from the R Party and insured a victory of the Ds for the WH.
 
Damocles said:
What it would do is be a Perot, who regardless of the left insistence, pulled mainly from the R Party and insured a victory of the Ds for the WH.
Click to expand...

You think so Damo? Gosh, I wouldn't want to see anything like that happen.

Where do you think Bloomberg would pull votes from?
 
Darla said:
You think so Damo? Gosh, I wouldn't want to see anything like that happen.

Where do you think Bloomberg would pull votes from?
Click to expand...
I think the main ticket pulls the votes, not the possible replacement after the death of the first. He may pull some votes from the left, but not nearly as many as Hagle would from the right.

Of course, it is all speculation that Bloomberg would join him in his effort.
 
Damocles said:
I think the main ticket pulls the votes, not the possible replacement after the death of the first. He may pull some votes from the left, but not nearly as many as Hagle would from the right.

Of course, it is all speculation that Bloomberg would join him in his effort.
Click to expand...

True. It's going to be an interesting election I think.
 
Damocles said:
What it would do is be a Perot, who regardless of the left insistence, pulled mainly from the R Party and insured a victory of the Ds for the WH.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that Hagel would hurt the republican nominee more than the democratic one.

If iraq is as bad as it is now, and the top issue for voters is iraq, it comes down to two choices: Stay the course (republican nominee), or Get Out (democratic nominee).

Hagel, being more of a "Get Out" guy, would siphon votes from the democratic position, I think.
 
uscitizen said:
Naah Cypress mostly only from the "independents" that are actually embaressed Republicans.
Click to expand...


You'd be suprised how many blue collar democrats, and working class conservative democrats would vote for a Hagel, over a Hillary. Especially since Hagel has been more vocal about getting out of iraq.
 
Lets wait and see who the demoncratic nominee is it might not be Hillary....
Most democrats do not like much of the rest of hagels voting record.

You are forgetting that by nature Democrats are not one issue voters like many cons tend to be.
 
Damocles said:
What it would do is be a Perot, who regardless of the left insistence, pulled mainly from the R Party and insured a victory of the Ds for the WH.
Click to expand...

GH would've lost anyway. GHB lost by such a large margin, and Perot's votes were so evenly distributed amongst the left and right (mainly amongst the totalitarian, protectionist sides of each party) that even if he had not run GHB would've stood no chance.
 
Watermark said:
GH would've lost anyway. GHB lost by such a large margin, and Perot's votes were so evenly distributed amongst the left and right (mainly amongst the totalitarian, protectionist sides of each party) that even if he had not run GHB would've stood no chance.
Click to expand...
This "pulled from" both sides thing... Yes, I mentioned that. However he pulled far more from the right than the left. It is not a certainty that GHWB wouldn't have had the votes to win without that extra pull. It would certainly have been a far closer election, and one of them would likely have gotten to 50% of the vote.
 
Iran contra killed GHWB, people had not forgotten the traitorous act and had not forgotten Bush's pardon of all involved, including himself...
Dealing weapons to an avowed enemy by military personnel is treason and should not be pardoned.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top