There was a time when I thought debates were a good idea. The problem this year was that the favored candidates got the majority of questions and a guy like Hunter couldn’t even get his message out. He and Paul were relegated to what sounded like desparate sound-bites, trying to move the debate in the direction of reasoned border policy (on Hunter’s part), but not getting the multiple chances to address it (or another personal preference).
We wind up getting the questions presented by liberals. They shape the debate and it’s very difficult for conservatives to get their message out. This isn’t the first go-round with that dynamic in play.
At this point, I’m even questioning Thompson’s motives from the get go. McCain and Romeny seemed to be the only ones with fire in the belly. Neither was someone I could look at their past and trust a word they said, as it related to Conservatism. And then Thompson soon endorsed the folks he’d been running against. It was downright unseemly IMO.
Hunter actually was someone I could trust, but he didn’t get the financial support, and didn’t have a good enough staff to do what he needed to do. And of course, that may call to question his executive skills.
Romney may have turned out to be a good President, but I couldn’t back the guy based on his history. There isn’t any doubt in my mind that McCain will savage Conservatism from the office of the President.
This isn't the first time a candidate has complained that the media shut him down just because he was polling at .5% In fact since Fox News sponsored several debates it should have been easier for conservatives to get out their message.
The conservative messages of Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, and Gingrich were adopted by the front runners Guiliani, Romney, and Huckabee. Looking at the front runner pasts, I concur that their 2008 conversions were hard to swallow, but it is difficult for me to say the conservative message didn't get out. With Fred Thompson( my first choice ) it seemed he was doing better in the polls before he opened his mouth and spread the conservative gospel. When it was found he was hard line pro-life, anti-illegal, pro-gun, and ashamed of the McCain free-speech ban...his appeal faded.
As a former rat and president of his union, Gov Reagan had a record of tax increases and pro-abortion legislation in CA. He did not run as a conservative but was painted as one by the media. He didn't run as a conservative because conservatism, by itself, will not win elections. A winner must appeal to moderates as well as his base. When Guilliani, Romney, Thompson and Huckabee made claim to the Reagan conservative legacy they lost their original moderate GOP support, and maybe just as important they lost credibility.
Hunter actually was someone I could trust, but he didn’t get the financial support, and didn’t have a good enough staff to do what he needed to do. And of course, that may call to question his executive skills.
I agree. A serious candidate needs to be able to raise money and volunteers on a national scale.
There isn’t any doubt in my mind that McCain will savage Conservatism from the office of the President.
I have doubts based on a lifetime of McCain's votes and actions. His move to the center began with his first run in 2000. I think it is unlikely McCain will move to the right as President, but then again, I had low expectations for Dubya in 2000 and I was pleasantly surprised that he exceeded my low expectations. I have faith in McCain's record of support for our military. McCain has a pretty good record on abortion, guns, and judges. I hope he will continue the Bush tax cuts. I expect McCain to be a better deficit hawk than Dubya. I will be satisfied with 2 steps forward and 1 step back.
That is my ringing endorsement of John McCain - the lesser of 3 evils.
Thank you again for a thoughtful response.