Replies

Right. And therein lies the difference: those focused primarily on polls and perception, like Romney, like Rudy, are compensating for problems in their past, with their character, and/or with their positions on issues. These men appear driven primarily by avarice. Even Fred Thompson's statement that "there are certain things only a President can do" raises red flags about his motivations.

Counterpunch is talking about the process, while we are talking about the reality of the candidates themselves, i.e. actual accomplishments, issue positions, consistency, what have you.

The real crux lies between doing what is popular, and doing what is right. The latter is itself one of the tenets of American greatness, and vital to our continued prosperity and freedom. In that vein it is my contention that, if people remain faithful and steadfast, they can build the needed momentum. Hunter has already provided proof-of-concept, so to speak, of his ability to win even in straw polls (winning within the process) - when he has had time to campaign. He has placed national obligations like helping to kill that awful amnesty bill ahead of the campaign in this instance. I have no question that he knows what he's doing, and if he had higher expectations than what came of this poll, that his campaign will make the appropriate adjustments. Maybe he never intended to finish top two or three in Ames...

All indications are that Hunter has the right combination of political experience, record, military, and consistency throughout the years to stick with what promises to be a grueling campaign and, with our help, to rise to visibility before the American people who then have opportunity to provide a judgment of their own in the final court of arbitration in the democratic process.

“It is clear our message of maintaining a strong national defense, securing our border without amnesty, holding China accountable on trade, and protecting life are resonating with the voters.

Our campaign is one of issues, not flash and expense. We don’t have a jet or an army of consultants and paid staff. We do have the conservative message that is true. In the end, that will be what Americans want.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Hunter

Counterpunch is talking about the process, while we are talking about the reality of the candidates themselves, i.e. actual accomplishments, issue positions, consistency, what have you.

Right. I'm glad you at least get it.
I like Duncan Hunter. I wish he was in Mike Huckabee's place instead.
I am looking at this dispassionately, pragmatically, handicapping the horse race that it is.

the Iowa straw poll has traditionally been the last chance for a candidate like Duncan Hunter to take off.
And all the figures point to the ship having set sail, and Hunter not being aboard.

All indications are that Hunter has the right combination of political experience, record, military, and consistency throughout the years to stick with what promises to be a grueling campaign and, with our help, to rise to visibility before the American people who then have opportunity to provide a judgment of their own in the final court of arbitration in the democratic process.

The only problem with that is you're failing to see that the one chance a one-percenter had to “rise to visibility before the American people” was today in Iowa, and Hunter blew it about as bigtime as he could.
It's already over for him.

Hunter is THE most conservative candidate, and some people want to give up on him this early in the campaign.

Political analysts say that people aren’t even paying attention yet.

The Republican Party is going to be taken over by the liberal Kennedy wing of the party (where’d I hear that before :) ), if people don’t wake the heck up.

Hunter brings out the fact that we can’t even find too many companies who produce our military supplies in this country, and why isn’t any other candidate bringing this up?

If we send all the manufacturing jobs out of this country, it will be a defense threat to our country, as well as an economic threat.