While I disagree with Hunter's anti-immigration stance, that's not my objection. My objection is that he's a porker, that he's clearly got dellusions of grandure, and that he can't win.
If we were discussing Jeff Sessions, while I would still have issues with his electability, I'd be a lot more ready to listen, because he's not a self-aggrandizing idiot and he's more electable then Hunter.
If Duncan Hunter's recommendations had been followed in weapons procurement, we would be saving money per unit. And we would be saving taxpayer money that is now flowing overseas. Which McCain wants to increase.
...that he's clearly got dellusions of grandure, and that he can't win.
The RINOs said the same thing about Reagan.
The Democrats are well aware they need a candiate who can deliver this intangible quality, and they are worried about getting bogged down in a Clinton vs. Gore power struggle. That's why the sudden uptick in "Obama the Savior" propaganda. On the Republican side, Romney has more of this quality than any of the names mentioned so far. Giuliani and McCain have enough of it to win the nomination, if they take the lead. Newt, Hunter, Allen, and the Southern Governors have no shot - no matter how ideologiaclly pure and pleasing they are to FR memeberts.
The Republican who best exemplifies this quality - at nearly Reaganesque levels - is ineligible to run: Arnold Schwarzenegger. He would take California and possibly New York and pile up over 400 electoral votes, and there is no other Republican who could come close to that total. Thus, "Who Will Arnold Endorse?" is going to become a major theme as November, 2008 draws near - because that endorsement might be enough to put the endorsee over the top.