Chuck Hagel '08

The candidate I most agree with is Ron Paul. But it is good that another antiwar candidate is entering the Republican field. In debates, two critics of the war is better than one, and Paul and Hagel could reinforce each other's arguments. And then, when the conversation turns to domestic issues, the audience might be more inclined to pay attention to what Paul says, and this will force other candidates to go into something of a "me-too" mode.

If Paul's candidacy doesn't go anywhere, Hagel's my second choice of the candidates from either side - at least until I hear Bill Richardson's views on the war. Left and Right doesn't mean as much as pro-war, anti-war. And while I prefer a realist non-interventionist to a realist internationalist, I agree with Justin Raimondo:

I am well aware of the criticisms of Hagel from a libertarian, noninterventionist perspective. Yes, I do realize he voted for the Military Commissions Act [.pdf], a bit of legislation that may have marked the end of constitutional government in America, but this objection merely underscores my point: that the present state of emergency requires the broadest possible movement in response to the threat posed by rampant militarism at home and abroad.

And, yes, I realize he's not a consistent noninterventionist: again, this merely makes my point. Under the circumstances, with the U.S. occupying Iraq and poised to strike at Iran – i.e., the prospect of a regional war, extending from Beirut to Baghdad to Kabul and reaching into the wilds of Central Asia – I am willing to settle for a Republican "realist" who would steer us well away from that abyss.