"That will only carry Hunter so far. Most voters look first and foremost for someone who aptly articulates what they are looking for. In a war-weary nation (and you can disagree with this war-weariness, but it is very real), being a defense committee chairman won't carry him very far. Having a son in the military will certainly engender respect, but it does not automatically lead to anyone's vote."
Yeah, what am I thinking on substance? Especially with the vast majority of Republicans nowadays! It is more important to stand out as an actor than to have been an Airborne Army Ranger. Yes, the actor will attract more votes, you say! Hell, THAT should make him a sure thing for 'electability'. And you will find NO ONE better at articulating the positions than Duncan Hunter. How many Republicans do we hear call out the Demonrats and the media on their propaganda? Hunter stands nearly alone. And Fred Thompson doesn't get it done. Thompson's lack of service would be an issue, count on it. He would have to sell a war in which the Republican is going to have to answer for service.
"Let's grant this for the sake of argument. I personally disagree (I myself am inclined towards Guiliani and Romney, given their history turning around lost causes), but will grant this for discussion. Even if Hunter is the best possible choice, even if he would make the best President, that doesn't mean that the American voter will agree. America, as a nation, isn't especially conservative. It can be cajoled into conservatism if the candidate is able to communicate it in a compelling manner (e.g. Reagan), but at the end of the day, they will vote for the guy who promises what they most want. In 2006, the promise was to get us out of Iraq. That may not be wise - and may not even be possible - but it is what the Country wants. When the Democratic nominee will run on a drawdown strategy, the Republican has got to be someone who can articulate that he has experience turning around lost causes. Being Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee won't be enough. Especially for someone who simply is not very charismatic and who has no name recognition."
I repeat, Hunter is a master at articulating and getting to the heart of an issue. If you want to go with popular opinion on the war and pull out-go with Brownback, Paul, to a degree Huckabee-but as the Republican is going to have to sell this war, it is important to have the strongest possible candidate to break through and communicate well what we are facing and have CREDIBILITY. And, yes, Hunter has it.
Hey, I'm no fan of Fred Thompson's either. I'm more a Giuliani or Romney guy. I think most of his supporters are following him because of lingering memories of Reagan, so they subconsciously equate Thompson with Reagan. The problem with this approach is that it neglects that Reagan was an active governor before he was President, and he was president of the Screen Actor's Guild union before he was governor.
And you will find NO ONE better at articulating the positions than Duncan Hunter. How many Republicans do we hear call out the Demonrats and the media on their propaganda?
I haven't heard Hunter much either, and what I have heard seems to be underwhelming. It appeals to the asterisk base, but how much broad appeal will he have?
I'll go out on a limb - if Hunter were the nominee, prepare for a shellacking on the scale of Dukakis. For better or for worse, hardline candidates (whether conservative or liberal) cannot win national elections. Bush is pretty much as hardline a candidate as can win a national election, and that is because the Democrats ran uninspiring candidates and because Rove's machine was designed to maximize the Republican base turnout. You saw how close those elections were.
In an election where the Democratic nominee will be either Clinton or Obama (both of whom are fairly charismatic and will do well to turn out their respective bases), we will not win by running a hard-line candidate. The Republicans will only win if they run someone perceived to be able to turn around the war. That pretty much means Giuliani, or to a lesser extent, Romney.