Replies

It could be Newt, it could be Fred Thompson, or it could even be Duncan Hunter if he addresses the weaknesses in his campaign

I agree. But let's acknowledge that one of the raps against Hunter, a purported lack of humor, doesn't jive with reality. I really liked this observation Duncan made at CPAC, which was very Reaganesque in humorous tone:

After all, went the reasoning on Fox News, Hunter had his son campaigning for him the entire week before the straw poll – to which Hunter, in classic fashion responded, "You know, I woke up to ... one of the commentators saying that the only reason that Hunter beat all those guys in South Carolina is because his Marine son has been there for a week. Well, I looked down at that army of consultants – everybody who was vertical in South Carolina was hired by the other guys – and I said, 'You know, that is a good match-up: One Marine versus 550 consultants.' We did have the advantage!"
(From Hunter's speech given at Conservative Political Action Conference, Washington, D.C., March 3.)

I smiled when I read that the other day.

I'm not against Hunter per se, and issues-wise I agree with him more than any other currently declared candidate I can think of. I simply see nothing in his background or in his speeches so far that convinces me he'd be a successful candidate or that he'd be an effective executive. I also have some serious yet-to-be-addressed issues with his record on spending, particularly some of the junk projects he championed against the Navy's wishes. However, it might be worth it to have him as the nominee just to make the "chickenhawk"-squealing Michael Moore crowd squirm.