Replies

And just who might that be, Duncan Hunter, who can't even get above 10% of Republican voters?

Duncan is my first choice of course, and I wouldn't mind Tancredo. The rest don't deserve the vote. There are no other conservatives on the field.

Do you HONESTLY think he could beat any Democrat who is nominated in 2008?

As far as Hunter is concerned, I think he is the only one who could beat the dems with a mandate and coattails. Tanc might win, but wouldn't have as good a chance as Hunter.

[...] will still be able to appoint Justices who will uphold the values you and the others here proclaim to hold so dear.

Or, at least they say they will appoint conservative justices; but then, that just depends on what their definition of "conservative" is.

I believe there is a vast difference in the way a Republican President will handle the Islamic threat versus what a Democrat would do. I don't want to give the Democrats a chance to put us in that kind of danger.

So... Where does Fred get his war credentials? "Hunt for Red October"? The ONLY candidate on the field to support for our troops sake, is one of their own. The Republicans still hold the war card (I don't care what the polls say) provided they hold up a candidate that the nation can accept as CiC, One who has credibility.

You may argue, you may rail, but those same 19 million hard right conservatives and quite a few of their broken-glass compatriots (including myself) must be on board before you think of any independents or blue-state calculations. If your candidate cannot carry the base en masse, your candidate will certainly lose.

That is the basis of my reasoning in fact. The primary is the important selection. We must put forward a true conservative, with faith and confidence. You tell me, who stands a chance at bringing the right, the hard right, and the Libertarians along? WHo has the record to prove it?

How long shall you run to your prophets with itching ears?

See tagline.

I don't expect any President to have 'war credentials'. I expect him to listen to and pay attention to the men who will be directing the planning and fighting of any wars, because it is THEY who have studied it their entire careers. I frankly think the President should STAY OUT OF IT, after he's made the decision, along with the advice of those military leaders, to wage war. We don't need politicians running wars.

I'm not willing to put this country at risk because some candidate doesn't agree with me 100%. It's a nice idea, and it would be great, but I'm not going to allow my non-vote, or vote for a third party candidate, with whom I feel more 'comfortable', to make it possible for a Democrat to sit in the oval office again. There is just WAY too much at stake for that to happen.