Right now, I can see my support going to one of three canddiates: Rudy, Hunter or Romney. I honestly like all three and have tried my best to keep abreast of what they have all said recently. I like all three candidates and I think all three would do a very good job as President. Again this is all based off of what I have read about the candidates recently.
I am leaning more toward Romney at this point, but I would vote for either Hunter or Rudy in the General Election. The one thing that really turns me off of Hunter is the way the Hunter supporters on this thread have behaved. Very rude. It's gone both ways, but from an objective point of view, the Hunter supporters are far worse. (This current thread not withstanding).
I have considered my support for candidates in the primaries as an open book. I want to know the facts, and find out about how each candidate stands on each issue. That is very important to me. Of equal importance is the candidate's electability. I look at each candidate, where they stand, their policies and ideas, how they talk, how they present themselves, etc and use that to base their electability. All three, Romney, Rudy and Hunter are electable candidates. Rudy has the most name recoginition with Romney following. In all honesty, Hunter has none. Granted, were he to win the nomination, then obiviously, the name recoginition would follow.
But let's really look at the big picture. Barak Obama wants to pull the troops out immediately. It won't be long until Hillary is shilling out the same mantra. Al Gore would do the same, Edwards the same. We all know what a horrible price the United States, Iraq, indeed the rest of the world would pay if that were to happen. I don't think that Romney, Rudy or Hunter would ever consider pulling troops out of Iraq. All three seem to be strong in their convictions on conducting the War on Terror.
Rudy has said he would nominate strict constructionsist ala Roberts and Alito and Scalia to the Supreme Court. Romney and Hunter would do the same. I am personally pro-life when it comes to the abortion debate, but I think it should be a state's rights issue. I believe Rudy and Romney have held the same idea. I'm not sure where Hunter stands on the issue, but I am sure based on posts on this forum that he is strictly pro-life. Does he think it should up to the states to decide?
I am pro-gun, personally and have been a card carrying member of the NRA for quite a while. Regardless of where a candidate stands on guns and the second amendment, I don't think there is a Republican candidate that will propose any infringement on our 2nd Amendment rights. They would the support of their party, members of COngress would not let that President get away with it. He or she would never do it. Democrats on the other hand, well it's almost a given that Obama, Clinton, Gore, Edwards et al WILL most assuredly try to limit our freedoms as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment. It's just in their blood. They have to. There is a base to appease and they will succor that beast with limits on gun rights.
All in all, I will support any Republican candidate who wins the Party's nomination. I would support Hunter 100%, Rudy 100% and Romney 100%.
Right now, Romney gets my support. Why? Because of all of the criteria I mentioned earlier: his stand on the issues and his electability are winning me over. I guess you can call me a liberal Rino, and all of the other names that people who aren't supporting Hunter right out the gate are being called. But just know, that name calling is really turning away a lot of support for Hunter on this thread. I could support Hunter, but the negativity is really turning me off. In all fairness, it's gone both ways, but I have seen a lot of Rudy and Romney supporters say that they would support Hunter if he got the nom, but the rigidity of the "Hunter Only" crowd is a huge negative in my column.
I tell this to you because I have read several of your posts asking the Hunter supporters to curb their name calling and negativity. You do hold a lot of influence in your opinion. Personally, I think very highly of you based on most of the posts of your that I have read.
Let's air the issues and the facts, let's have a good lively debate about the pros and cons of each candidate, that's what the primaries are for, but we can keep it civil. We are afterall the same party and of the same political persuasion. But I think too often these threads devolve into name calling and become very counter productive.
I disagree for one reason. Whereas I don't know of any Hunter supporters who have said it won't be an uphill battle to get him the nomination, and then the general election; Hunter's detractors almost without exception lack the humility to acknowledge that the coming months will (a) give him an opportunity to increase his name value and campaign funding; or (b) allow for any number of unforeseen events that could completely shake up the race in both parties. The Hunter naysayers consistently pronounce from on high that he has no chance, will never rise above single digits, etc. That attitude tends to provoke especially hostile responses.