Replies

I think Mr. Hunter's biggest problem is that we live in an era where "image is everything." If you asked people who was the more masculine candidate, Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson, I think most people would say Fred Thompson. Because he grew up in Tennessee, I assume that Fred Thompson has done some hunting, but Duncan Hunter likely has more outdoor experience and more hunting experience. People remember Fred Thompson in a uniform in the movie The Hunt for Red October, but Duncan Hunter is the man who has worn the real uniform in combat for this country. I think Duncan Hunter's biggest problem is that he's not as effective at shameless self-promotion as some of the other candidates are.

A second problem is that he wouldn't lead the country or the party in the direction that the media or the party bosses would like us to go. The media doesn't want to anoint someone who would make either the country or the party more conservative. The party would rather have hacks that they can control than a leader who will do what's best for the country. Without the help of the media or the party bosses, Mr. Hunter has a tough time getting the "buzz" that one needs for people to take seriously.

One problem that can be traced to Mr. Hunter is that he doesn't have any real executive experience. He may have run his own law office for a few years back in the 70's, but he hasn't highlighted the entrepreneurial aspects of having his own law office, and people don't see lawyers in private practice as entrepreneurs or administrators. As a legislator, he's not exercised executive authority, and particularly not exercised any kind of authority from an elected executive office. He may be a very effective executive, but we don't know that based on his past.

No one else agrees with me, but I also believe that successful Republican presidential candidates need to have had a real life outside politics for a significant period of time. President (GW) Bush was a fighter pilot, an oil man, and a baseball owner before running for office. I'm not saying that he was a self-made man. His father's connections helped, but he lived a significant portion of his adult life in the "real world" as opposed to being in politics. His father, President (GHW) Bush spent a little less time in the real world, but he flew planes in WWII and was in the oil industry before he ran for Congress and then entered government service as an ambassador and CIA administrator. President Reagan had a pretty full acting career before he ran for office the first time. While Mr. Hunter should be proud of his service to our country both as a ranger in Vietnam and as a Congressman, he's not had as significant a private sector career as most successful Republican candidates have had.

I don't know whether it's too late for Mr. Hunter. I know that if the people who see him as the best candidate don't support him, then he has no chance. Because I see him as the best candidate, I'm going to support him and try to give him that chance. He believes that he can win, and I've talked to some of his campaign people who believe that he can win.

I'm hoping that he will do very well in Iowa this weekend and again in Texas over the Labor Day weekend. If he could make good showings in both of those contests, he would get some attention. Maybe that attention would bring him money and votes.

Bill

I’m uncommitted right now but see your point.

There’s this push to support someone “electable” early on.

I think there’s time to wait and consider the options.

Mine are for a real conservative candidate and not to be steamrolled into supporting an “electable” candidate.

A lot of blogging is aimed at pushing us into someone’s column and increasing their poll numbers to wipe out opposition including candidates with convictions like Hunter.

My bottom line is that candidate support on this blog and others is often generated by the campaigns themselves (Rudy,Mitt,Fred,etc.). Its not by chance.