Replies

>> Baloney.

Salami.

>> 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.

A familiar tactic of Hunter supporters - futile attempts to declare Hunter the only conservative in the race. There are several conservatives in this race ... and Thompson is clearly the most electable of the group. My determination of Thompson’s conservatism is based on his policy stances, not his “calling himself a conservative”.

>> 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.

Demonstrating that Hunter isn’t going to win is hardly “tearing him down”. Its a factual analysis of the race ... he’s not going to win.

>> 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”.

I did that because there are clearly other conservative candidates in this race, and conservatives supporting them. Thus, Hunter “conservatives” are not the only conservatives out there.

>> Then you point out that Hunter’s support is negligible.

Statistically speaking, it is.

>> And yet, if you line up Hunter’s positions with those of mainstream America, you see a real match.

Hunter does not have a monopoly on conservatism in the Republican primary. I see matches with several candidates ... and one is clearly drawing the support of far more of these matching Americans than the others.

>> That means you’re engaging in straw argumentation to make whatever point it was that you wanted to make.

Huh? What straw arguments did I make? That Hunter’s support is negligible? That Hunter does not have a monopoly on conservatism or conservative supporters? My arguments were quite clear, and you apparently understood them ... I fail to see the “straw argument”.

>> 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.

Kerry - who, if I recall, was in 2nd - took over after Dean’s implosion. Hunter is currently 9th or 10th ... a LOT of people would have to self-destruct to get Hunter to the front. Lets hope that doesn’t happen ... it certainly wouldn’t be good for conservatism to have Republican candidates imploding (ala Howard Dean).

The fact that you’re hoping that Thompson implodes makes me question whether you’ll in fact put the interests of conservatism generally above the interests of your candidate specifically. Perhaps what is best for the Duncan Hunter campaign is not necessarily what is best for the conservative movement.

>> This is a copout. Plain and simple.

Baloney. It is a fact that a divided conservative base is beneficial to non-conservative candidates.

>> Oh, so it’s just a fun game for you. OK, I’ll just try to ignore you then.

I come here for entertaining debate and commentary - as do most posters here. I fail to see where this is offensive. Ignore me if it suits you.

>> That’s just it. People CLAIM to agree with him on the issues, but they don’t support him.

If you agree with multiple candidates on the issues - then clearly the issues cannot be the only deciding factor in your vote. It is possible to agree with a candidate, and support someone else.

>> Because they do not own up to the fact that they disagree with us.

As I said - like many people, I come here for entertaining debate ... disagreement is required for debate. I’d tell you if I disagreed.

>> 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.

A Thompson supporter said something you consider anti-Christian, so you’ve decided all Thompson supporters are anti-Christian liberals?

I am a Christian ... thus not an anti-Christian bigot. Now who’s setting up a strawman argument? You’re arguing with a position I didn’t take. In my experience, most Thompson supporters on this site are conservatives who support Thompson ... where’s the harm in that?

>> 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.

Your condescending tone notwithstanding - I understand plenty. Thompson is the best chance we have at not nominating Rudy - that’s pretty much the point of this thing. I don’t want Rudy nominated any more than you do. However, though I disagree with him, I’ll not tear-down Giuliani or any other Republican ... as each of them is a better choice than the Democrat alternative.