Replies

Hunter probably the best fit for my conservative principles but supporting him would violate my initial “rule-of-thumb” on electability.

Electability is subjective at best. It is based on the presumption one candidate can or cannot win. It might be a reasonable decision if we were well into the electoral process. There might be some validity to such a decision as it would be premised on actual voting results. This scenario also presumes the people made well informed decisions due to the candidates being given equal time and exposure before the people. This however has not been the case. Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were arbitrarily omitted from one or two debates by one or a select few in the media or GOP or Democrat parties. This is anathema to the intent of our founding fathers when they drafted the Constitution. It was crafted to prevent too much power concentrating in the hands of too few people and ensure that power was and is disbursed to the people. Knowledge is power. The people have no power if they are not provided with the information necessary to make a well informed decision. This affront to the Constitution appears to be lost on many in the GOP and here as Free Republic.

Duncan Hunter has consistently championed the Conservative cause for nearly three decades. He has never wavered on Conservative principles. It is for some inexplicable reason Republican and Feepers determined the socialist media driven polls were valid to the point where they indicate the actual outcome long before the primary season had begun. This prompted many to suddenly supplant the Conservative principles they claim to espouse for the perception by a tiny minority comprised from the socialist media Duncan Hunter could not win.

Imagine if George Washington had heeded the words of many prior to crossing the Delaware that the Colonists could not win because they were vastly outnumbered and were militarily inferior not only to the British but also the German Hessians Washington was planning to attack not to mention the treacherous crossing of the Delaware on a brutally cold night. His convictions would not allow him to quit or surrender. Washington's example has been lost on many in the GOP. It's reprehensible enough people abandon a staunch Conservative in Duncan Hunter but compound by denouncing him. The sincerity of people who claim to support Conservative principles will abandon those principles for the sake of a perceived winning or losing candidate.

This has been the problem of the Republican party for decades. This type of thinking has incrementally infiltrated the GOP. Rationalizing it is acceptable to expand the voter base to those who are not Conservative only allows socialism to eventually permeate the party. The strategy of holding one's nose only empowers socialism as was evident with the Socialists taking control of Congress in 2006. In the end candidates are presented with the appearance of being Conservative even though their history proves otherwise and the one candidate who is actually a Conservative , Duncan Hunter is pushed aside.

In modern history candidates who are from Congress both the House and Senate have NOT done very well. Legislative political careers generally don’t lend themselves well to make the case for for a executive position. Since you brought up the Washington & the Revolution, Washington showed up at the 2nd Continental Congress wearing his Virginia militia uniform. He was telling/reminding the Congress that of the Continental leadership he alone had the required military(executive) experience. For example, John Hancock fully expected to be nominated for the Continental Army command by John Adams. Hancock was quite chagrined when Adams nominated Washington.
My modern rule-of-them about electoral viability being validated by ‘Can the candidate win a state wide election?’ has held up up in my lifetime. (It's like all rules-of-thumb its not exact and in some sense based on empirical observation.) In fact off the top of my head it certainly works all the way back to Coolidge, the exception being Kennedy.

I actually looked as far back as TR and one could make a case that it still hold back that far!