One of the most thoughtful and intelligent comments made in this entire thread. Thank you. I suspect you’re right...but I am left puzzled how a man so cognizant of the political issues involved in his case could be so ignorant of the political landscape that he would allow himself to get so far off topic. How often do we keep seeing champions of great causes get derailed by their own faux pas?
I did see hints of that earlier, I guess, when his main argument seemed to be the fed’s right to own land within the state. Now I think he has a sound argument there, but the easier argument to win (which the Hages DID win) is the case of his grazing easement that predates the federal “possession” of the land. In trying to make the larger, more difficult argument, he lost a winnable case...which actually hurt the larger cause as everyone continues to point at his losses in court to diminish his credibility.
I do beg to differ in the criticism of Rancher Bundy. Sure he walked right into a hornets nest. I wonder if he used a computer to the effect that he was really well up on their methods? Look how Sarah Palin, an intelligent and savvy political figure, walked into a trap with Couric. The network edited her 18 times, before they showed what they deemed was most damaging. Look at what they did to decent guy Dan Quayle!
These were far more skilled and adept than Rancher Bundy. Anyway, we can agree to disagree. (cordially).
As far as I know, the issue Hage won on was actually based on the unfair/illegal treatment he had received from the BLM, that they had systematically tried to put him out of business, etc. Hage used that in a countersuit. Hage fought on many issues, in different cases but that is the only one he won on. It was overturned later but that was his only winning issue to date.