C'mon. Rush is a lot of things, but he is not suicidal like many of the Hunter-or-nobody crowd.
There is so much more to winning in politics than just selecting the most rock-hard take-no-prisoners conservative.
Heck, by that measure, Rush should have supported Pat Buchanan in 1992 or 1996 -- but he didn't.
It wasn't the media's fault that Duncan didn't catch on. It wasn't Rush's fault that Fred couldn't connect.
They are two fine conservative men who simply did not have that undefinable winning ingredient that most people want to see before supporting them for US President.
Pat is like a nasty Huck, that’s why
True to that, but unfortunately, they were the only 2 conservative candidates. Now we are left with none.
This particular primary season is a strange time to express such a meritocratic view of the election process.
It’s not that undefinable, it’s called being able to persuade people.
A candidate is more than just his checklist of issues. It’s the entire package. Executive skills, ability to inspire people, drive, etc. So many here on FR are obsessed with positions on issues as though that is the only measure of a candidate.
The primaries are the proving grounds. You prove you have what it takes to take on the Democratic nominee by winning the Republican primary. If you can’t do that, then you would have probably fallen on your face in November anyway.
Thompson was my first choice, and I’m disappointed that he did not prove to be the campaigner I had hoped for. But better we find out now he doesn’t have what it takes than we find out in November.
He lost because he didn’t have what it takes. It’s not the voters’ fault, it’s not the media’s fault, and it certainly wasn’t Rush’s fault.
So many