Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: sitetest; TheBattman

The difference between 2000 and 2008 is that Bush, even if not a Reagan conservative (despite him saying he was) was clearly better than McCain, who was (and still is) unstable and not loyal to conservatives (despite Fred co-chairing his campaign). The Bauers and Keyes and whatever other creatures running had no business doing so. So from the available candidates, it was pretty easy to pick GWB. Also, coming off eight years of slick willy, even GHWB would have sounded good for a new term. If Rudy, Mitt, and Fred had run in 2000, Bush STILL would have been the best choice, because he would have been the most conservative, today’s road to Des Moines rhetoric notwithstanding.

But from 1988 to 2007 we have seen a slow drift away from the party platform, with a brief interruption from 1994 to 1996 with the Contract With America.

Also, we are in the middle of a worldwide war against jihadis who need to fear us more than they do now. We see a China rising to challenge us, making alliances with rougue states and attempting to further undercut our industrial might. We see Iran emboldened. We see a fascist POS with oil causing trouble in our hemisphere. We see further errosions in our sovereignty being planned. We see North Korea diligently working on its missile systems that can deliver a nuclear payload. We see a political class that does not have the will to stamp out illegal immigration. We see a Putin in Russia who is threatening to aim missiles again at the west.

In other words, we see the absolute need for a man of Hunter’s no-nonsense, no nuance, no equivacating convictions.


174 posted on 08/07/2007 5:50:09 PM PDT by pissant (Duncan Hunter: Warrior, Statesman, Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies ]


To: pissant
Dear pissant,

“If Rudy, Mitt, and Fred had run in 2000, Bush STILL would have been the best choice, because he would have been the most conservative,...”

I don’t think that Mr. Bush is more conservative than Mr. Thompson. A review of Mr. Thompson’s Senatorial career does show someone who was a pretty consistent federalist, which, for me, is a strong element of conservatism, especially social conservatism.

A review of Mr. Bush’s record doesn’t show the same commitment to federalism. By a stretch.

I don’t think that Mr. Thompson will equivocate on the war against the jihadists.

I don’t think that Mr. Hunter has what it takes to rally the nation against the importunings of the Democrats, just as it appears to me that Mr. Bush doesn’t really quite have what it takes, either.


sitetest

178 posted on 08/07/2007 6:10:09 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson