[veronica]

The Duncan Donuts crowd went bonkers when I posted ONE anti-Hunter article from a left-wing source, just an example of what is out there about him (his connections to Randy Cunningham). Yet we are challenged regularly to defend Rudy against old charges from leftwingnuts. *sigh*

[Ultra Sonic 007]

The Duncan Donuts crowd went bonkers when I posted ONE anti-Hunter article from a left-wing source, just an example of what is out there about him (his connections to Randy Cunningham). Yet we are challenged regularly to defend Rudy against old charges from leftwingnuts.

Did they refute it with factual information? I distinctly recall that being the case.

I would like that to be the case here.

[CharlesWayneCT]

If it was just once, I think I remember that, and I believe you posted a blog entry.

We regularly post stuff from the Nation, Salon, and other left-wing publications because we want to refute them.

I will note that the poster in this case didn't say "I believe all this stuff and think Rudy is pathetic". Maybe that is the intent, but the stated purpose is to see what the answers are to any factual inaccuracies in this article.

The Nation does use questionable 'facts', but it is a real publication with an editor and a circulation, and is considered a "news source". It's different than posting what some kid in his basement claims Hunter did that was evil, when there is no documentation included other than the guy's own word.

[George W. Bush]

The Duncan Donuts crowd went bonkers when I posted ONE anti-Hunter article from a left-wing source, just an example of what is out there about him (his connections to Randy Cunningham).

Just keep posting it all. We need to know before all the political money and the nomination are committed to a very vulnerable candidate.

Scrutinize all of them. We have quite a few choices. There have to be at least a few that measure up and aren't too vulnerable because of their record.