Posted on 03/02/2007 6:41:14 AM PST by pissant
My take on Rudy is that he was good for NYC. But the country is more conservative than the east or left coasts. So why settle on him?
Conservatives looking for an alternative with solid, consistent credentials, and extensive foreign policy issues experience now have someone who has beat the odds and is emerging as a force to be reconed with. And that's Duncan Hunter.
Great News!! Go Duncan.
Courtesy BUMP.
It's hard for me, at least, to draw anything from this at all.
Less than 700 votes were cast. How many workers manned the precincts?
I'm sure they all voted. Why not? At least they were there and they certainly were all political junkies.
A few other folks associated with the campaigns of the various candidates showed up.
Whatever.
Good Lord! Rudy made New York City a safe haven for illegals!!
If your one-man jihad is, as you say, to object to criticism of liberals by conservatives, what does that say about you? and your attack on a conservative candidate?
Your actions show your quality, and it is poor.
I don't think Giuliani supporters actually realize WTF they are doing.
Imagine a democrat front-runner who is pro-life, pro-gun rights, supports protection of marriage, and is faithful to his wife. You can't? 'Nuff said.
You say we shouldn't criticize those with an (R) behind their name (even if it's with their own words, apparently). Yet, you make up a cartoon ridiculing a conservative candidate with the afforementioned (R). You promise to keep running it as long as the three MSM-annointed front-runners keep receiving criticism.
I'm trying to decide if you truly believe that two wrongs make a right... or if you're simply a hypocrite.
It gets his name (Hunter) in the papers and that's good.
Are you saying they used those Republican Diebold machines to count the votes?
His national name recognition (from 9/11 alone) and mainstream media attention should have made the gap much wider, if most mainstream polls were correct (Hunter with only 2% while Rudy has over 30%, etc.).
That the gap is only 6 votes is heartening for Hunter supporters.
Because even I can admit that, nationally, Duncan Hunter is practically unknown compared to Rudy Giuliani. This is a big boost for Hunter.
And one quick question; considering Giuliani's liberal stances on issues, isn't it contradictory for a conservative to support him when we're not even at the primaries yet?
And the Northeast RINOs simply do not understand this. The 'Rats don't even go to small towns in the South and talk about homosexual rights, but Rudy doesn't seem to understand this.
..give it a few months, then let's poll again and see who wins...
I appreciate your comments, and I have lost respect here before.
I am simply trying to prove a point to those that want to tear down viable GOP Candidates. People here should support their candidate, no matter who it is, by focusing solely on their candidate's positions, and not by attacking another GOP candidate in the race. My ridicule of Hunter isn't on his ideology, but on his chances of winning the contest. As an example, Hunter missed a very important pro-life vote during the Schiavo controversy. I could have shown him sloppy laying on a couch with a remote control saying "I dont need to vote for that Schiavo Bill, they have enough votes already". But I didn't do that. I am just tired of seeing people posting vitriol in an attempt to divide us all. That is all.
Why, we'll all support him, that's what we'll do. We're GOPers, not liberals -- or retards, abortionists or queers, as many in the Hunter fever-swamp freely spray about their fellow teammates.
A 7-year Freeper becomes all those things because he doesn't want to see Rudy destroyed. Nice bunch.
| CPAC Presidential Lineup: Duncan Hunter |
||
| Posted by ZGuy On 03/02/2007 9:44:08 AM CST Human Events ^ | 3/2/7 | Amanda B. Carpenter Rep. Duncan Hunter (R.-Calif.) reinforced his image as advocate for a muscular defense system and security hawk in his morning speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference today. Hunter devoted a large portion of his speech advocating for a larger industrial military complex. He said that in with today’s testy political climate a trade policy honed by former President Ronald Reagan was called for. “We are going to have a new policy when it comes to trade,” he said. “Trust, but verify.” He worried that too many foreign countries were producing our military resources to the detriment of American security.... |
||
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1793999/posts
Zguy just poste that article for a thread.
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.