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.
You are making this WAY too personal. This is not an attack on you, or even an attack on Fred. Whether you or I advance and vote for anyone is incidental.
It is the 20 million that matter (20 million, BTW is probably an hugely underestimated number). We need to provide a candidate who is with them on all the issues, who is a stark difference from the liberal offering not only in word (which no one believes), but in deed as well!
On the war:
Hillary vs. Thompson
-Who will keep us safe? A career politician with no experience and a record that is nominally hawkish or a candidate with no experience and a record that is nominally hawkish...
Hillary vs. Hunter
-Who will keep us safe? A career politician with no experience and a record that is nominally hawkish or a candidate who is a war hawk, who chaired the Armed Services committee, who IS a warrior, whose family are warriors, and whose son is in the line of fire...
Look at the difference... No, REALLY look at the difference.
On Immigration:
Hillary vs. Thompson
-Who will close the border and seriously evict Illegal Immigrants? A candidate opposed to closing the border and prefers amnesty, or a candidate who says he will close the border, and says he is nominally against amnesty, but is quoted as "needing to provide a path to citizenship".
Hillary vs. Hunter
-Who will close the border and seriously evict Illegal Immigrants? A candidate opposed to closing the border and prefers amnesty, or a candidate Who has already proven the worth of border control by way of a border fence at San Diego, Who WROTE the bill providing for the extended border fence, Who has firmly railed against his party leaders and may of his peers to press for the construction thereof?
Just on these two points, not to mention MANY others, and to include the subject of this thread, Hunter provides a distinct and defensible difference, backed up by an unwaivering twenty year record. Every point of conservatism is defensible, and every point can be debated and won easily and with honor.
Mr. Thompson, OTOH, is without "bonifides" on several crucial issues- We must rely upon his word, rather than his deeds. It is easy to see that on those issues the distinction is no more than his word, and a big (R) after his name.
This is a weakness that we dare not afford, as with the other top tier candidates, not because of the weakness itself, but because that weakness leaves the voter with no real distinction between left and right. That weakness will either lead to an avoidance of an issue in debate, or a series of waffles to adjust the candidate's position, either of which are doom in an election where the major issue, the primary issue is TRUST.
The disaffected hard right will not base their vote upon popularity- They are all issues driven, and they do pay attention. Each faction has their own issues they defend, and the only way to get them all to vote en masse- to really "turn out" is to offer a candidate they will all endorse. One is not "taking a chance" with Hunter- one is "taking a chance" with TrudyMcRomson hoping that popularity will win over principle, and that chance comes with very long odds.
If we do not want a repeat of 06, we'd better offer up a conservative.