To: trumandogz
I disagree, Huck would be a strong candidate. He would do best against Obama, then Hillary. Edwards would do best against him.
25 posted on
01/03/2008 9:36:20 PM PST by
Hugin
(Mecca delenda est!)
To: Hugin
You’ve *got* to be joking ? You *honestly* believe a guy who once said that women should submit to their husbands could actually get elected in the general ? The MSM would play that stuff on an infinite loop. (Not to mention it bugs me almost more than his expansion of the AK govm’t from 1B to 6B/year). Yea. That’s 6x. And you can’t tell me he grew the economy in AK by a factor of 6.
33 posted on
01/03/2008 9:42:00 PM PST by
farlander
(Try not to wear milk bone underwear - it's a dog eat dog financial world)
To: Hugin
Huck could not even pass an 8th Grade Geography test.
He has no business running for President and is not fit for the Hope, Arkansas City Council.
44 posted on
01/03/2008 10:04:11 PM PST by
trumandogz
(Hunter Thompson 2008)
To: Hugin
Huck...strong candidate
Just be warned--this cigar smoker will _never_ vote for Huckananny for President.
Never, never.
I don't think he will be the nominee, but if he is this will be the first time I don't vote for a Republican.
There are other smokers out there--and we vote.
70 posted on
01/04/2008 12:45:22 AM PST by
cgbg
("2009-2017: Gnarled and ugly,loud and preachy, fiscally and morally depraved.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson