Like it or not, the candidates preferred by this board — Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, Duncan Hunter, et al — are certain losers.
So, does perfect become the enemy of as good as we're likely to get?
80%? You're obviously not talking about Rudy.
I’d long for 75%. Hell, Rudy isn’t even 25% of what I want and he’s 100% of what I outright reject!
Why are you such a defeatist?
That's not an obvious fact. I think a Thompson vs. Clinton race (for example) could go either way.
BY your deluded wisdom? LOL!!
“So, does perfect become the enemy of as good as we’re likely to get?”
I suppose Rudy and McPain are perfection in your eyes/
Both are PRO homosexual.
Both have NO time for guns.
Both are PRO abortion.
Both are socialists.
Both are EXTREME social liberals.
Hardly candidates I’d even want to shake hands with or be associated with. If you took a moment to be honest, you’d see the difference between them and Demoncrats is so small it’s not worth dickering over.
The only perfect candidate would be Christ so DO brush up on your rationalization arguments. It stinks.
As for me and others, we’ll vote for conservatives and not speed up the decline of the country - to your chagrin.
If Reagan can win 49 states, why can't Fred?
I prefer "nothing".
You certainly wrote off Fred in a hurry. He’s not even in the race and he’s generating excitement.
If you agree with Rudy 75%-80% of the time, you're a liberal.
Oh, and when you do, please explain why running a northeastern lib against a northeastern lib is the only way we can win.
On what basis do you say that in a contest between Fred Thompson and Hillary that Fred has NO chance of winning? Show me any evidence that liberalism is preferable to Americans to conservatism. Given a candidate who can put forth pricipled conservatism (and defend it in a debate)conservatism will not lose.