>> Nobody? Then what’s up with the vultures flocking around Hunter threads?
As I said - they flock, not to tear down Hunter, but to rally conservative support around a single, electable conservative candidate.
>> Hunter is a social conservative and this is a social conservative forum, so it’s a head scratcher to me why he doesn’t get support.
Hunter isn’t the only conservative in the race ... there are equally conservative candidates with a FAR better shot at winning this thing.
Is it not possible that a “conservative” would support someone other than Duncan Hunter? If not, there are ridiculously few actual “conservatives” in this country anymore ... Hunter’s support is negligible.
I am socially conservative ... and I don’t support Duncan Hunter. I refuse to dedicate my time and money to a candidate, no matter how perfect, whose chance of getting elected is slightly less than Terry Bradshaw’s.
>> Focus your efforts on the nonconservative candidates.
United conservatives can eliminate the non-conservative candidates more easily - but conservatives divided among several candidates can be more easily defeated in the primary. Plus, there aren’t many Rudy supporters here to argue with ... and I grow tired of arguing with the Paul supporters. So - I argue with well intentioned but tragically misguided Hunter supporters.
>> I am coming to the conclusion that the reason why there is so much invective aimed at Hunter is because people disagree with him.
I’ve seen little issue-disagreement with Hunter on this forum. Strategically, however, Hunter is a lousy choice. Conservatism is better served when conservatives unite behind a conservative candidate with a legitimate shot at victory.
However - in either case, I suggest the implementation of Reagan’s 11th commandment (Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican). Lets not rip to shreds our eventual conservative standard-bearer - whether that be Thompson, Romney or Giuliani ... lest we be left with President Hillary Clinton - God help us.
H
Tancredo has a shot at winning? Ohhhh, Fred is a conservative. With a shot at winning. Those are the only two conservative candidates I know of and I strongly question that Thompson is equally conservative to Hunter.
As I said - they flock, not to tear down Hunter, but to rally conservative support around a single, electable conservative candidate.
***Baloney.
Hunter isn’t the only conservative in the race ... there are equally conservative candidates with a FAR better shot at winning this thing.
***Hunter is the only real social conservative in the race. Lotsa people like to call themselves conservative. Look at Rudy. But that doesn’t make them conservative.
Is it not possible that a “conservative” would support someone other than Duncan Hunter?
***Yes, of course. But what is it that compels these people who like to call themselves “conservative” to tear down social conservatives on a social conservative forum? It’s bad manners in the least.
If not, there are ridiculously few actual “conservatives” in this country anymore ... Hunter’s support is negligible.
***Interesting point. Let’s see, where to start. First, you put quotes around the word “conservative” as if it doesn’t “really” mean conservative, because perhaps your chosen candidate is “conservative” and you steal away the meaning of “conservative”. Then you point out that Hunter’s support is negligible. And yet, if you line up Hunter’s positions with those of mainstream America, you see a real match. That means you’re engaging in straw argumentation to make whatever point it was that you wanted to make.
I am socially conservative ... and I don’t support Duncan Hunter. I refuse to dedicate my time and money to a candidate, no matter how perfect, whose chance of getting elected is slightly less than Terry Bradshaw’s.
***We’ve still got a year, and a good example was how far behind Kerry was behind Dean in the democrat race at this point in the cycle last time. No one heard of Jimmah Carter and he bolted out. I don’t mind that freepers don’t want to contribute to what they perceive as a lost cause, but the vulture circling is what doesn’t make sense to me.
>> Focus your efforts on the nonconservative candidates.
United conservatives can eliminate the non-conservative candidates more easily - but conservatives divided among several candidates can be more easily defeated in the primary.
***This is a copout. Plain and simple.
Plus, there aren’t many Rudy supporters here to argue with ... and I grow tired of arguing with the Paul supporters. So - I argue with well intentioned but tragically misguided Hunter supporters.
***Oh, so it’s just a fun game for you. OK, I’ll just try to ignore you then.
>> I am coming to the conclusion that the reason why there is so much invective aimed at Hunter is because people disagree with him.
I’ve seen little issue-disagreement with Hunter on this forum.
***That’s just it. People CLAIM to agree with him on the issues, but they don’t support him. The same thing happened with tootyfruityRudy supporters. If they really did agree on the issues, then why did they make such a big deal about leaving FR and going to WA to set up their socially liberal site? Because they do not own up to the fact that they disagree with us. I am starting to suspect the same is true of Fred Followers. Just look at the Dobson threads lately, and you’ll see the antichristian bigotry poking out its head.
Strategically, however, Hunter is a lousy choice. Conservatism is better served when conservatives unite behind a conservative candidate with a legitimate shot at victory.
***Same stuff, different day. We hear it over & over again that Hunter isn’t electable, you can point it out using different words however you want. Hiding behind strategy is baloney. There are social liberals in the fred camp that are pushing this rift with social conservatives, and y’all can hide behind strategy & electability till you’re blue in the face. If what you were saying were true, you’d be focusing on the non-conservatives in the race like McCainiacs.
However - in either case, I suggest the implementation of Reagan’s 11th commandment (Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican). Lets not rip to shreds our eventual conservative standard-bearer - whether that be Thompson, Romney or Giuliani ... lest we be left with President Hillary Clinton - God help us.
***You’re messing up here. There’s no way EVER that social conservatives are going to line up behind Giuliani as a “conservative standard-bearer”. That shows that you don’t understand the standard that is supposedly being held up.