No I wouldn’t, but you need Thompson to do it, not me...
Until then...
I supported Hunter first based solely on his voting record. Then I figured out that he isn’t able to lead a winning national campaign and I started looking for someone to draft.
A good man, a good American, a fundamental conservative that isn’t a nutcase isolationist and someone who could both win and lead.
Thompson is that draftee...
Me: I really think you'd have a hard time objectively substantiating that assertion.
You: No I wouldn’t, but you need Thompson to do it, not me...
I asked you to substantiate YOUR unsupported assertion, not any claim by Thompson. You refused, even though you imply that it would be easy for you to do.
Go ahead, line them up, issue by issue and you'll still miss the key distinction that separates these two men. What Reagan had that Thompson lacks is genuine moral courage. Talk is cheap, especially in politics. Reagan took on the Soviets while Thompson shrunk from putting his neck on the line over Chinagate. When it came time for Fred to shine, he slunk into the shadows instead of calling out John Glenn for the cheap sellout that he is. Therefore I do not trust Fred Thompson to do the right thing when the going gets tough.
There's a war on. At stake is the survival of this nation and the free world with it. Fred hasn't shown me that he's capable of meeting the minimum requirements under fire. By contrast, as an Army Ranger Duncan Hunter showed that he is willing to lay his life on the line for this country. We should expect nothing less of a President. The stakes are that high.
Finally, you assert that Thompson made it in "the private sector." You call a former Senator lobbying the Federal government equivalent to private industry? Really?
My BS meter just pegged; you're a shill, and not a terribly clever one at that.