Posted on 02/10/2007 2:16:42 PM PST by EveningStar
He weighs every vote against the restriction placed on the federal government by the Constitution. He reads the bills before signing them. It's sad that's a rarity in Congress.
Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter need to quickly decide amongst themselves which of them has the best chance of winning the nomination and endorse them.
Personally, I like Hunter.
Imagine if, monday, Tom Tancredo endorsed Duncan Hunter with both in Colorado.
And on Wednesday, Brownback endorsed Hunter, with both in Kansas.
Friday, Ron Paul endorsed Hunter in Texas.
And Sunday, Huckabee endorsed Hunter in Little Rock.
It would be hard for the media to ignore so many endorsements AND it would provide the GOP with a single conservative to rally behind!
"Pubs don't have a viable candidate and picking from the bottom of the barrel won't do."
Sure they have viable candidates. They are at the top of the polls. (which you call bottom of the barrel)
What you mean to say is the right wing of the Republican party doesn't have a viable candidate.
Frist flunked Senate 101. Allen flunked 2006. Jeb knows the Bush brand won't sell, now. Cheney ain't runnin, like he said before--not that he is electable now.
We are where we are. We have who we have. Make the most of it.
McCain, Kucinich, and Pelosis pics still rate "Outstanding".
Carry on.
You may live in his district, but unlike others who talk about politicians outside of their own area, I actually have dome research on him; I've also made sure to see him on T.V., since he became such an "item" on FR. And I bet that there's much more to find out about him, than what the both of, combined, know about him.
If you are so certain that you KNOW how politics works, you aren't proving it, right now. Soros' money damned near got Kerry elected.
Hunter needs BIG money, BIG political backing, and a the best of the best team, to even just appear to be viable in the primary. He has none of those things and no chance of getting even one of them; let alone all three.
Don't "you people" have ANY ability in reading comprehension ? What is insulting, in stating facts? I didn't attack you, your candidate, nor even mention the cons of Hunter's positions on some topics.
HEY CYBERANT!!! CAN YOU HEAR ME?
I'm open to see better information. The GovTrack site seems to have some pretty good info that you can choose to ignore. I couldn't find the same sort of compare (for all candidates)with rated voting records. Please supply! Would like to review. THANK YOU.
I've gotta agree. He's making a ton of money on books and speeches, and he's working behind the scenes coaching the GOP on finding their collective backbone. I think I heard it on Hannity yesterday that he was the one who got them to go after Pelosi One. Plus, he's got way too much personal baggage, and the DBM and Clintons very effectively villainized him in the 90's.
I've been a bit worried about the influence of the Buchannanite elements of the party. They've been making a comeback, and will doom us.
If we're going to start evaluating the conservative legacy of our presidents by SC appointments, would you care to tell me who appointed Sandra Day O'Conner and who appointed Clarence Thomas?
McCain likes to say things that grab attention to distinguish himself as the Maverick, but when you look at his voting record -- with the exception of the Campaign Finance Reform -- he is actually quite conservative. Conservatives get it in their head that he is a "moderate" and they make assumptions about his record. A guy on another thread was accusing him of tolerating abortions of any baby slightly younger than at partial birth. When I challenged him on where he got that information, he couldn't defend the charge. I don't like McCain's "Bill O'Reilly-type" demeanor, but I am convinced he is more conservative than most people think.
Yes, Bill Clinton was an underdog. He benefitted tremendously from Mario Cuoumo deciding not to run. and also from a last-second loan from a Jackson Stephens-owned bank, as I recall. However, the Democrat Party , being the closest thing America has to a party of social and political revolutionaries, is more apt to have a chaotic nominating process. Washington Republicans, at least, tend to be as far from revolutionary as possible, so our nominations are much more predictable.
I think this is a bad thing. Our primaries are so frontloaded that, frankly, there is no chance for a guerilla campaign to capture the nomination behind the backs of the establishment. The primary system was designed to ensure that only Washington, corporate-approved candidates could win, because of the upfront cash requirement of the primary campaigns.
I believe Morton Blackwell once said that if the current primary rules existed in 1976-1980, ronald Reagan would not have been elected President.
I think that in the back of his head, One-Note Johnny knows the base will never accept him because of CFR, the Gang of 14, and being a general pain in the arse for the GOP. Throw in his age and the melanoma, and he's really a non-starter. I believe the only reason he's hanging around is to play spoiler...
Senate.Gov - all you have to do is point and click and you can see the voting records of any elected official.
Sorry .. I don't do research!
Well .. well .. well .. awfully touchy aren't we.
That's for the info... I'll check it out.
You sure talk like you do though.
He should stick to doing movie reviews and leading anti-litter campaigns.
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.