Posted on 01/31/2007 8:46:24 AM PST by 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.
Well, finally we agree; there was nothing wrong with MY grammar; it was YOUR reading of it that was wrong.
You lose.
I want to revise my guess on your age: first grade.
WOW, your comprehension sucks! You ragged on me earlier in the thread for wha you said was gramatically incoorrect, and is not. You ain't too sharp if you can't even read properly, are you? I gave you all the info you needed, and still couldn't follow. Geesh. Sorry you have that little condition.
My condolences.
I see you're working on adding more evidence of your untruthfulness on this very thread.
I never said YOUR grammar was wrong; I said you were wrong about your interpretation of "you all."
You're the only with the reading comprehension problem, but what should we expect from someone of your maturity.
Okay, so here's what we've established. You don't know anything about Hunter, don't want to know, think Romney can beat Hillary because of his looks, and think I must have been a Buchanan supporter.
In other words, you don't know what the hell you're talking about on any level.
Thanks for letting everyone know that you have nothing to contribute to this dialogue. It'll save time in the future.
DH4WH
You're not saving me any grief. You're avoiding a substantive reply to my challenge. You're only saving yourself from - and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, because you seem sincere and thoughtful - having to re-assess your position when your arguments are dismantled. Rather than string them out over months, wouldn't it be more fruitful to present them so we can hash them out early and - in theory, at least - come to an agreement that will benefit party unity and increase the chances of victory? Otherwise, it seems as if you simply don't want Hunter to win, and your arguments about his viability are a smoke screen.
I'm too modest to post a vanity. /s
Actually, take it, polish it , add to it and post it as your own if you wish.
Lord help me now Hunter is not conservative enough.
I think the message is that Hunter is a fiscal liberal.
None of those men are liberals. McCain is right of moderate while Rudy and Mitt are moderate conservatives a little to McCain's left.
No strong Law and Order man with a strong outlook on National Defense is a liberal.
It shows how weak your arguments against them is to claim they are liberals.
And conservatives will vote for them if necessary. You appear to have mixed up "conservatives" with "whiney babies who sulk when they don't get their way."
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."
It's a little early to settle for a lib unless that's your preference anyway.
"No strong Law and Order man with a strong outlook on National Defense is a liberal.'
So Joe Lieberman is a conservative? I don't think so.
Hunter needs to frequently get on all of the conservative radio talk shows again and again and not just on Rush's show! He also needs to frequently "make the rounds" on all of the major conservative blog sites as well. When is Duncan Hunter scheduled to talk directly with people on Free Republic, Lucianne, Red State, etc.?
I cannot believe Hunter truly believes he has a chance and hope he is realistic enough to be trying to finagle the VP slot which would be an excellent means of becoming a viable candidate in the future. If there were only one or two roadblocks standing in his way I would not be so skeptical but there are many outside the huge one of no name recognition including history.
Those believing he has a chance are viewing a different electorate than the one I see. It was the latter which voted for Al Gore, which gave AN OUTRIGHT TRAITOR 48% of the vote and which threw out every Conservative star from the Senate last election. Where are all these conservatives who would put him in the White House hiding?
How do you figure an electorate which considers Bush and the GOP extreme right wingers will elect a man far more conservative than either?
"Cold political analysis" should recognize that there are too many factors in play for several months for such predictions to have any more reliability than next week's weather report. [I can predict with near certainty that the temperature next week will not be above 40 degrees in Chicago. Now I cannot predict that it will be exactly 38. Hence I can confidently and with near certainty predict that anyone who is unknown two years before the election will NOT beat all those whose names ARE known. Now I cannot predict with anything like that certainty that Mc will beat Guiliani or vice versa. I can predict with near certainty that Vilsek or Kukinch will NOT be the RAT nominee but not that Hillary will beat Obama or vice versa.]
I do not believe we have the resources to waste on Quixotic campaigns even if I would like the guy. My favorite would be Rumsfeld but I know that he would also have NO chance. Same with Cheney.
And for the record, "cold political analysis" by definition excludes active participation. [Not at all that only means I do not let my emotions swamp my analysis or confuse my wishes with the likely. If Guiliani did not become the subject of so many attacks here I would have little to say about him. Hell I even defend McCain from unfair attacks and he may be the most hated man for FReepers.]
Have you looked at the parenthetical that follows your tag recently? Now think about that in relation to who has been dubbed "GOP frontrunners."
I stand by my comments, and suggest you read history with a little more eye to detail.
DH4WH
You are incorrectly equating the Far Right wing with the base. That 2% will not be missed when a viable candidate will pick up ten times that number. I have watched how that 2% operates and the damage it did to the party last election. Anything which increases its power is bad for the party and bad for the country since it plays in the hands of the RATs.
Speaking of light bulbs when are they going to go off over the heads of those who push for the election of the Right Wing equivalent of Dennis Kukinch? We recognize how disastrous for their party such a nomination would be for the RATS to nominate someone from the extreme Left but completely ignore the fact that someone from the extreme Right would be equally disastrous for ours.
The VAST majority of American voters are moderates and they reject the fringes. Only a tiny number of districts could elect a man as far right as Hunter or as far left as Kukinch.
To many conservatives, having a liberal as president, even one with an "R" after their name, is a defeat. [Neither McCain nor Guiliani is a liberal. It is such lies which leads many not to take you folks seriously. Both are moderate conservatives.]
If only liberals can be elected, whether they are Democrat or Republican, then elections have little meaning. [My guess is you consider President Bush a liberal too.]
I see here on FR, and among conservatives in general, the beginning of a groundswell of support for Duncan Hunter,[Don't confuse a burp with an earthquake. The same folks had Katherine Harris elected to the Senate and Diana Irvey to the House while your opponents told you that neither would occur. Those candidates were powerhouses compared the Hunter.] the conservative. You push your liberal [McCain and Guiliani are not liberals so don't lie.] and we'll push our conservative against your liberal and the Democrats liberal. The American people will decide. [I am amazed to hear you say that when everyone "knows" it is some huge conspiracy.] Not the MSM. [Unless it is neutered it will do just that just as it did in Nov.] Not the pollsters. [Never has why would it now.] Not the party apparatus. [If you think anyone can win without the party apparatus you must not have studied any American political history.] Not $100 million.[And certainly not $2 million.]
#258 takes care of that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.