Political analyst says [Duncan] Hunter can move into GOP top tier

Hunter for President website ^ | 1/31/07 | OneNewsNow.com

[Antoninus]

Political analyst and former Democrat insider Keith Thompson says even though Duncan Hunter is considered a long-shot for the White House, the California congressman could move into the top tier of GOP hopefuls as the 2008 presidential campaign progresses.

Hunter officially entered the 2008 presidential "sweepstakes" last week, Thompson notes. He says the candidate, as the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has a strong conservative voting record working in his favor; and he is particularly known for his support of the military and his opposition to illegal immigration.

For these reasons, Thompson feels the California representative is at the top of the second tier of Republican hopefuls right now and is capable of moving up. Hunter has "a fairly decent financial base right now [and] some key supporters who are helping him get his campaign to the next level," the political analyst points out; "so I think he could come right into that first tier very quickly and be a significant candidate for the nomination."

Hunter's biggest problem is name recognition, Thompson acknowledges. He says that is one advantage early GOP favorites John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have over the California lawmaker.

But even though Hunter does not come in with the years of exposure that those virtually "mythological figures" have, Thompson observes, he says "the name recognition factor could change," and Hunter could become a force to be reckoned with in the coming 2008 presidential campaign.

[Howlin]

You should have been pinged to 189.

[NapkinUser]

More people here agree with me than agree with you....

I'm pretty sure you don't support Duncan Hunter for president. How's he doing in the FreeRepublic poll currently?

Mostly people want to know why it is you're trashing candidates as if their lives depend on it.

That is like asking why people here are trashing Hillary Clinton or Obama or Biden or Dodd or Edwards. Many or even most people here see that Giuliani is a leftist regardless of that almighty 'R' next to his name. They see his stances on just about everything except the war or terror, and note he is just like Joe Lieberman (who I bet everyone here hated back in 2000) or Ed Koch. So they vehemently attack him like they do any other leftists running for national office.

[ElPatriota]

Time to lend a helping hand?... :)

[Dave S]

Why do you think the liberals took control again ~ conservatives didn't vote.

Maybe you sat on your finger but most conservatives I know voted at least once on election day. We lost because independents who dont normally vote in non presidential elections, said enough is enough and voted us out.

[tiger-one]

Ah ...yes Dave S from the show me state, just wants to critisise Duncan Hunter and he knows only his name. Sooo Long Dave

[Prokopton]

"Unfortunately I have seen only a few Hunter fans who say they would vote for whomever wins the nomination."

To many conservatives, having a liberal as president, even one with an "R" after their name, is a defeat.
To some Republicans, having a Republican as president, even if they are liberal, is a victory. "Our liberal is better than their liberal" type of thinking.
This dichotomy has come into clear focus on the "Ruddy" and "Hunter" threads.
Many pro Rudy posters admit that he is clearly not conservative but back him because they believe he is electable.
Many pro Hunter posters admit he is a long shot but back him because he is conservative.

If only liberals can be elected, whether they are Democrat or Republican, then elections have little meaning.
Many of us will not give into defeat so easily. We will work to get a conservative elected regardless of the naysayers from both parties. The name recognition we want for our candidate is people recognizing him for having the right (conservative) stand on the issues. Some are willing to accept the name recognition for their candidate as created by the MSM and the pollsters. So be it. Their are always those who must be led.
I see here on FR, and among conservatives in general, the beginning of a groundswell of support for Duncan Hunter, the conservative. You push your liberal and we'll push our conservative against your liberal and the Democrats liberal. The American people will decide. Not the MSM. Not the pollsters. Not the party apparatus. Not $100 million. The American people will decide and I'm willing to bank on they don't want a liberal president of any stripe.
It will be interesting!

[GulfBreeze]

Come on Hunter fans. After leading in the poll by tremendous margins "Non-member Votes" have pushed another candidate to within striking distance of Hunter's lead.

Because he is solid on:
Borders
Immigration
War On Terror
Strong Military
American Economy
Lower Taxes

FREEPERS WANT DUNCAN HUNER FOR THE 2008 GOP NOMINEE - SO PLEASE FOTE IN THIS POLL.

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=170

[garv]

Why are you reposting your own statements to me? Has being hoisted by your own petard got you all a twitter?

I usually just gloss over your posts because there is nothing intelligent or interesting to be gleaned from them, but the hypocrisy was just too delicious to resist.

I'll resume my indifference now.

[SJackson]

Congratulations. As a Rudy supporter, now you're not only a supporter of those "Endless War Hopefuls" centered in the middle east, but a Nazi as well. Rudy supporters have all the bases covered.

[txrangerette]

Well said.

[Howlin]

I'm pretty sure you don't support Duncan Hunter for president.

I'm pretty sure you're trying to put words in my mouth so you can puff yourself up.

I advise you to stop it.

That is like asking why people here are trashing Hillary Clinton or Obama or Biden or Dodd or Edwards.

That is utter rubbish; there is a certain subset of you folks that spend ALL your time trashing the GOP and never bother with the Democrats at all.

You're part of the problem right now; you spend all our time arguing AGAINST anybody and everybody who doesn't march lockstp with you your "over the the cliff" demands that you never even bother to fight the people you should be fighting.

But you just keep it up; people are sick to death of the bashing and trashing and they'll just all band together, pick candidates, and go on with trying to save this country WITHOUT YOU.

Not for the first time, I am sure.

[Peach]

Here it is:

Despite Bill Clinton's signature of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which was designed to establish a legal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the issue of gay marriage has reared it ugly head again.

I say ugly because the radical gay agenda is about recruitment of our children, lowering the age of sexual consent and re moving the cultural taboos regarding pedophilia. Gay marriage will provide access to children that was previously not available to the radicals within the movement.

Among the many books available about the subject, one of the most informative s Tammy Bruce's best selling book "The Death of Right and Wrong." Bruce is a liberal lesbian and former president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW as well as a national columnist and television commentator. She has worked with Congress to change the Department of Education's support for the radical gay agenda and is an outspoken advocate against the radicals who are actively working with judicial activists who subvert the laws currently in place in our country and harm our children. Her book outlines the grab for our children and how the radicals are going about fulfilling their desires.

Bruce's book is well researched and quotes directly from dozens of outspoken advocates of the gay agenda as well as the Department of Education. One such quote is from Judith Levine, author and activist: "sex is not harmful to our children...there are ways the smallest children can partake in it."

Research on this topic is readily available and much of what the agenda proposes is unprintable in a family newspaper, but a review of some of the material provides the following:

1) In Vermont, a program was instituted called Outright Vermont. Vermont schools advertise this program on bulletin boards and the materials contain links to web sites which lead to adult gay male porn web sites. Last year, New York City opened the first gay high school in the nation; one has to wonder what the curriculum looks like.

2) Former Governor Gay Davis of California signed a sex education law that requires students to adopt a healthy attitude toward homosexuality. The National Education Association has been developing programs to incorporate the gay agenda into our public schools for children of all ages. Many programs have been in place for over 20 years and the curricula is getting more radical each year. In addition, the NEA is trying to force governments to require both home-schoolers and private schools to teach pro-gay agendas or refuse to validate their diplomas. Not content with the 20-year "Heather Has Two Mommies" book,now the NEA has successfully sponsored a curriculum which some schools have adopted that requires children to partake in "Gay Day" which involves playacting.

3) In March 2002, Penn State University featured an advocate of pedophilia at a women's health conference, despite congressional disapproval and parental concerns.

4) In 1998, the American Psychological Associated claimed that pedophilia often "does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis."

5) The North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a regularly quoted member of the gay movement and pedophile themes abound in their literature. Their web site quotes "...instead of condemning pedophiles for their involvement with lesbian and gay youth, we should be supporting them." The gay movement does not condemn these comments or ask that the Association refrain from attaching itself to their agenda.

6) The taboo against adult-child sex is eroding and the New York Times and other cultural elite press regularly praise literary works containing pedophilia relationships. One of the hundreds of examples: Poet Allen Ginsberg was a pedophile and member of NAMBLA. His poetry contained explicit references to pedophilia and yet when he died in 1997, journalists praised him as an icon whose poetry was without rival.

Researchers differ on the numbers, but approximately 25% of gay men report they were molested as children which they blame for setting htem on the road to homosexuality. This is not to paint all gays as having predatory motives, but I believe that gay marriage will provide an access to children through adoption that is unprecedented and dangerous. And yet, we are told that praying in school is dangerous to our kids. Moral relativism is standing on its head.

[Peach]

There's a typo in there but I'm having trouble with my computer and couldn't fix it.

[Howlin]

I usually just gloss over your posts because there is nothing intelligent or interesting to be gleaned from them,

I'm not the least bit surprised you don't get anything out of them.

I'll resume my indifference now.

We should be that lucky.

[Owen]

My 2 cents is it is way way too early to be declaring that someone would have no chance against Hillary. Anyone might. There is no way to know who would or would not. So I will not disparage Hunter on that criterion (which, by the way, is the ONLY one that matters. That traitorous shrew must not sit in the White House).

I will say, skeptically, that Hunter's ability to raise money is in signficant doubt -- not for any particular reason as regards his own abilities -- but simply because the bigger names have already secured commitments and in the final analysis there is only so much money to go around. If they have it, Hunter can't have it. There is not an infinite money supply.

So, we'll see.

[Dave S]

What part of my question did you not understand?

What is your question? And why should I care? You are just going to split the Republican Party and go vote for a thurd party candidate.

[SJackson]

They see his stances on just about everything except the war or terror, and note he is just like Joe Lieberman (who I bet everyone here hated back in 2000) or Ed Koch. So they vehemently attack him like they do any other leftists running for national office.

He's been attacked for his stance on the WOT, which is similar to Lieberman's and Koch's.

Unsubstantiated over the top stuff is stupid when attacking leftists too. It doesn't win arguements.

[tiger-one]

So who is??

[tiger-one]

William, Dave s. just told me he knows nothing about DH and does not want to know.

[pissant]

Comparing Hunter, a true Reaganite and star among the House members to Ears Kucinich, Alan Keyes and that little weasly guy from Focus on the family is like comparing Lieberman to Cynthia McKinney.

You obviously know little about the man.