"I'm not sure how you define 'viable', but there are certainly candidates I can support, i.e. Duncan Hunter. Also, it's a long time until the Presidential election. You seem kind of in a hurry to write everyone else off. Why?"
I define "viable" as someone who can beat Hillary.
Duncan Hunter has impressive conservative credentials, but IMHO he will not be the nominee.
He has neither the money, nor the organization.
I think Newt is brilliant and would love to vote for him, but I don't think he will be the nominee and he doesn't have broad based support.
If I had to vote for McCain I would but I'm not sure he can beat Hillary.
You may think it's a long time until the election, but it isn't a long time until the primaries and if a candidate doesn't have an organization and money raised soon it will be too late.
I view Hillary as very beatable. Too many people just hate her, and there are many who like her that know she would not make a good President because of her tendency to rub people the wrong way. Besides, I'm not convinced the U.S. is ready for a female President.
Duncan Hunter has impressive conservative credentials, but IMHO he will not be the nominee.
You could be right. But Reagan was not considered a viable candidate at this point in the election cycle.
He has neither the money, nor the organization.
Lots of time left to fix those issues. He sure has some enthusiastic supporters on FR.
I think Newt is brilliant and would love to vote for him, but I don't think he will be the nominee and he doesn't have broad based support.
I think Newt's 'dirty laundry' would do him in.
I haven't given up on getting a more conservative candidate on the ballot than Rudy or McCain. Since Rudy hasn't even filled out paperwork or declared himself a Republican candidate yet, he might not even be on the ballot.