Hunter was in the race from the beginning, and never got over 2%. There are arguably 60% conservatives in our party, but certainly close to 50% at least.
So apparently 49% of the conservatives didn’t back that “perfectly good candidate”, Duncan Hunter. So if you want to blame somebody, start with the 49% of the conservatives who didn’t support him before going after all the RINOs who probably never even HEARD of him.
Oh, and I think the Hunter people will be attacking those of you “so-called conservatives” who rather than supporting a solid conservative like Hunter, went out and drafted a guy who had not expressed any interest in the job, Fred Thompson.
If ANY conservatives have a right to scream bloody murder about back-stabbing and malfeasance, it is the Hunter supporters who had to put up with people EVERY DAY saying “Hunter’s a great conservative and a fine candidate BUT”, while they were all sending money to a guy who wasn’t running trying to talk him into it.
Me, if I had a choice between Hunter and Romney, I would choose Romney. Not because he was “more conservative”, but because on places of disagreement, I liked Romney’s position better, and because Romney had executive experience. But I never attacked Hunter other than to note the fact of his lack of executive experience in explaining my position.
Of course, I didn’t support Romney when he first entered either. And I was on the bandwagon for Fred Thompson, so I’m at fault on that one. I thought it would be easier to get Fred elected than to fight for Romney.
Oh, and I think the Hunter people will be attacking those of you “so-called conservatives” who rather than supporting a solid conservative like Hunter, went out and drafted a guy who had not expressed any interest in the job, Fred Thompson. If ANY conservatives have a right to scream bloody murder about back-stabbing and malfeasance, it is the Hunter supporters who had to put up with people EVERY DAY saying “Hunter’s a great conservative and a fine candidate BUT”, while they were all sending money to a guy who wasn’t running trying to talk him into it.
***That’s how I see it. Thanks for nuthin’, Fred.
My position was anti Rudy McRomney from the start. Not because of their stated goals and ideals they campaigned upon, but because of their histories. Yes, people can and do change, but usually not so drastically in a matter of a couple of years.
FOr example, Rudy was EXTREMELY hostile to the 2nd amendment. Had been for 20 years. Yet here is Hannity giving him cover/talking points to assuage the conservatives....and even then he screwed it up....because he does NOT understand the importance of the 2A, and never has.
Mitt had similar positions on issues in which he turned upon a dime. He bragged of an ability to push the homosexual agenda in ways that democrats couldn’t when he ran for office in the 1990s. As Guv, he colluded with gay rights orgs to put filth/propaganda in front of gradeschoolers in MA. But listen to him now, he’s the picture of Norman Rockwell wholesomeness.
Those are but two examples. I do not believe in Road to Des Moines conversions. One issue or two, maybe. 3, 4, and 5, forget it.
It’s the same reason I argued so hard for Hunter over Fred. Not because I could not vote for Fred, but because of flip flops, but in that case, a reluctance to even acknowledge a change of position.
I’m not bitter. I understand the way politics work. Name ID is beyond huge. But after hearing Rush bellow for days about no longer carrying the GOP’s water and freepers dead set on electing conservatives only “from now on” after the 2006 elections, I thought Hunter’s timing on the scene was just what the Dr. ordered. How wrong I was. LOL
Despite what some folks have accused you of round here, I’ve enjoyed your commentary on the candidates, even when I wholeheartedly disagreed.