Posted on 01/25/2007 1:30:04 PM PST by GulfBreeze
All politics is local friend. The former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is not some back woods hick staring around goggle-eyed at the fancy digs in the big city.
Thanks and keep up the good work...
Yea. We need to make sure he gets the ground support necessary to make a go of this thing. Volunteered yet?
Allen before he threw it all away with one stupid comment. Now I kind of lean toward Romney but if it was a choice between McCain, Guiliani and Hillary, I wouldnt have any trouble pulling the lever for McCain or Giuliiani. Show me any one with the credentials to run and the ability to win and I will consider them. Dont show me deluded wannabees who cant even win their own state. True Romney would have a hard time with Massachusetts, but Hunter has no chance with California. What they believe is a lot less important than can they win and govern. I have no trouble believing that McGovern and Mondale strongly believed in what they were doing, its just that based on what they believed they were unelectable.
Its because you've never had to run a statewide race. Those in protected congressional districts can take the most extreme positions, left or right, and survive. Those who run for governor or senator must actually think and support their positions. The last senator to win the Presidency was kennedy and that was more because of his charisma and the fact that his competition was all senators than anything else. Most winning candidates have EXECUTIVE experience, i.e., they have been governors or got considered because they served as Vice President.
While Hunter does not have the national name recognition of Hillary or McCain he is not an unknown for those familiar with the defense industry, military concerns, Southern California or the Republican House leadership.
That elimiates most Americans and even more than half of those on Free Republic. If you are a virtual unknown to the rabid base, what makes you think that people whose top issue is not morals and abortion are going to take to him. The last thing the country wants is a "scolder in chief". We need independents to win and they are the least likely to be won over my pro-life or anti-abortion appeals. His knowledge of the defense bureacracy may make him an admirable candidate for assistant secretary of defense or as an executive in a defense contractor but it doesnt make him suitable to be President. Congressmen and Senators, if they are able propose legislation that actually gets voted on and made into law. Otherwise they are just taking stands. They have no executive responsibility for making anything work or accomplishing anything. In fact, their own "process oriented" thinking process is a hindrance to their becoming effective executives.
Dave: you responded to several of my points saying that you or your relatives had similar qualities as those I listed and wanted to know why Hunter was necessarily a better candidate than you. Well, first, because he HAS been elected, several times, previously. Because he knows the national game, even if the national media and the populace as a whole don't know him.
Again, getting elected in a small congressional distict is no big achievement. You have to proove you can win at least statewide to have past election be relevant. And if knowing the national game is so important, then why not run Karl Rove, he certain exudes as much charisma.
Because having a stable marriage with kids tends to quash any conservative scruples about morals.
Who gives a damn. While it may be nice to have a stable marriage, what the country wants is someone that can be trusted with big decisions.
Because having a son who served two tours in Iraq will be an effective rebuttal to the Cindy Sheehan rant of "it's not your kid dying over there".
If Iraq is still a big issue in November of 2008, it wont matter whether your kid served there or not, Republicans are not likely to win. We have to demonstrate a vast improvement in the situation on the ground and we have to be removing troops from the country or it's President Hillary.
I was attempting to use sacrasm. Sorry if I wasnt clear. Must have been my hunger pains interfering with my judgement.
Keep telling yourself that.
>>
THAT is a principled stand.
Keep telling yourself that.
>>
I intend to. Every single day until November 2008.
Yes.
That I have - and will submit my $2,100 maximum by law donation today...I hope others join me!
You are the man...
Go...
...however, I am but one man. I view the elections of 2008 as pivotal. Our Republic is on the brink of a disaster as great as it faced under the non-leadership of Jimmy Carter some 30 years ago. Fortunately for our nation, Ronald Reagan emerged to lead us back from the brink. I believe Duncan Hunter can do the same and would urge everyone who loved the Gipper to support Hunter not just with our voices, but with our wallets.
$2,100 is not a small amount of cash, but pledging it to help save our nation is a noble use for it. So is $500, $100, $50, $20 - whatever you can send.
Howard Dean managed an internet fund raising coup in 2004, there is no reason that Duncan Hunter cannot accomplish the same thing in 2007 if we the people work for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.