Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mkjessup
That is classic September 10th thinking.

Or maybe another would say, it's all about immigration, and another would claim a candidates view of abortion is the most important.

The fact is, that the public voter cares not about these things, and voted gut feelings, appearance, debate performances and personality. They don't think like you do. They have little knowledge of geopolitics and security. They will vote for anyone who makes them feel safe. That is the key to national security and all a candidate needs to know. It's called leadership.

Like I said, it the sizzle, not the Steak, and the primaries are the place to determine who you put up.

Hunter is a great asset to the house, but that where he belongs. Is he a leader??????? Or is he a policy wonk?

He won't make it through the primary, but I will thank him for improving the quality of the debate on National security.

327 posted on 01/31/2007 9:13:18 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies ]


To: Cold Heat

Your comments are based on a mentality which is admirable, but in my view, not realistic.

Under ordinary conditions, Mitt Romney would be a fine candidate for President.

I'm thinking 1996, he might have cleaned Bill Clinton's clock, instead of Bob Dole being awarded the nomination because everyone thought it was 'Bob's turn', and we got 4 more years of Billigula.

Now if it comes down to choosing between Mrs. Bill Clinton and Mitt Romney, you better believe I'm pulling the lever for Mitt, no question.

I maintain however, that in these times, which are NOT ordinary, which are not 'business as usual', the national security experience of presidential candidates this election cycle, will make or break their respective campaigns.

We can hope that there won't be another terrorist attack on the United States, but even the current Administration has told us that it is more likely a question not of "if" but "when" the next attack occurs. We have to be right every time, the terrorists only have to be right 'once', to unleash another 9/11 style attack (or worse).

And with that hanging over our heads, we can't afford a President lacking solid national security credentials, preferably with military experience, and definitely someone with forged steel balls.

I've seen no candidate except for Duncan Hunter that meets those criteria.


328 posted on 01/31/2007 9:27:44 PM PST by mkjessup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson