Replies

I like Duncan Hunter, and I agree he is (by far) the most conservative candidate in the race.

I think his electability quotient is very low.

I suppose we would not agree on what constituted the Ronald Reagan "special sauce" that got him from a unified base to a national landslide. I think most Hunterites believe it was some type of social conservatism (I wouldn't want to speak for you).

What made me a Reagan voter, twice, was the belief that if he were elected the 1970s trend to big government and high taxes (and I'm certainly including RMN here) would be arrested and then reversed.

That I can't cut down a tree on my own property (in freakin' NEW HAMPSHIRE, for heaven's sake) is what would get me out to the polls.

I haven't heard from Hunter what he's offering me to shrink the Federal government, grow freedom and Liberty, and get the government, at all levels, off our backs.

In many ways, Reagan did not (could not) accomplish the things I hoped he could. He had a huge leftist majority in Congress, and it is our representatives at the end of the day that call the tune.

But he gave me a clear sense that he "got it", at least in terms of the things I think are important, and he did that for millions of other people, too.

I don't get that sense from Hunter. He's the best man to represent what is called around here "the base", but I believe that base is less than 30% of the voters, maybe less than 25%, and that the closer a candidate comes to being perfect for the base, the less likely he is to be elected.

I understand that a lot of FReepers don't agree, and that they think the base (if energized by the right guy) can carry the day on its own.

I don't believe that, which is why I take the positions I do.

How big a fraction of the national electorate do YOU believe the base is?

I think a lot of people could identify with your comments. My take on the subject of the base, is that if you promote good conservative values, they’ll transend party affiliations. That was Ronald Reagan’s big plus. His seemingly honest approach and reasoned appeal on key issues, made him very popular.

His love of the nation and trust in people rather than big government made him more like one of us than those who had spent their lives in the body politic since graduating college.

Reagan had actually worked for a living. He may not have been able to in actuality, but the perception was that he could identify with those who worked for a living. And it seemed like he could understand their needs and that he didn’t dismiss their views as not pertaining to the direction our nation was heading.

How many times have our views been dismissed on importaint issues, as if those of children in a pre-school by our elected officials?

Look at the border. Look at parent’s rights. Look at education. I could go on, but we’re in a serious world of hurt and our present guy is MIA.

Good bedrock values aren’t the sole property of the right.

I think Hunter and Thompson get it. As they hone their message over the next few months, I’m hoping they’ll get it right.

I just popped in on Hunter’s site and it started off very powerfully. I didn’t have time to stick around, but I will go back later and take a look.

These two guys could mop the floor with the Democrat candidate, if they study Reagan and get back to basics.

I agree with your comments. I understand where you are coming from, and I just wish more candidates did. Hunter and Thompson seem to get it. I hope others can see that.

I hope you can. I know you’re hopeful like I am.