Maybe you can explain why you don’t think he could beat Hillary.
Personally I don’t think the democrats are even remotely prepared to beat someone like Hunter. He doesn’t struggle with answers or have a history of flip flops to explain away. He’s sure of himself and honestly believes what he says. He doesn’t reform his answers to tell each different crowd what they want to hear. While everyone else was whining about democrat sneak attacks after the CNN debate, Hunter sent a letter to Hillary telling her to send more.
He’s the type of man who would say “The poor bastards have us surrounded”.
Well said.
When you have to pretend that you believe that the Constitution actually matters while in fact you believe its language to be an obstacle to “social progress,” your language is not going to be as confident....
They despise the language of the Consitution but they can’t openly say it, so they are forced to call their organizaiton “the American Constitution Society.” They must playact. They can never, ever say what they mean. That’s why they sound unsure of themselves.
The lie, for all its power, always trembles in the face of truth.
8 posted on 07/08/2007 10:56:48 PM PDT by denydenydeny (Expel the priest and you don’t inaugurate the age of reason, you get the witch doctor—Paul Johnson) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862843/posts?page=8#8
You summed it up perfectly. It is through no fault of Hunter the man and his record that he could ‘not win’. Rather it is pushed forth that he ‘cannot win’ because of his lack of ‘name recognition’. BS. I can honestly say I will be voting FOR Duncan Hunter. Can’t say that for the others.