[Morgan in Denver]

You are being too intense on what I was saying, and meaning.

Just do NOT be among the "knee-jerk" abstractionists who fall into the trap of thinking we have to have a candidate now or all is lost.

Hold your fire. For crying out loud, we have twenty months until the election and some people are pulling out their hair or going berserk in trying to figure out who we are going to support.

Look, support whom you want and do what you want, but realize the bottom line has not been written yet. IF you commit yourself now, you won't be able to be objective later on when it is more important and critical.

[Txsleuth]

Yeah...you are probably right...

But, by talking up Duncan Hunter, who many hadn't even heard of perhaps, until this thread...all of sudden we are being told he can't win...so forget it??

I don't understand ...I will admit that I may be too intense...but how about people that are being too dismissive???

Why not give the guy a chance, rather than bring out "history" as an excuse???

I don't think history should be a consideration..we are living in the NOW.

Also...if none of us do back Hunter, he won't get the publicity that McCain, Guiliani and others have gotten by the MSM...and what IF, he would have been the best..but doesn't get off the ground (so to speak)??

For the 100%ers, he is very strong on Border Control!!!!

[PerConPat]

IF you commit yourself now, you won't be able to be objective later on when it is more important and critical.

I see things in much the same way. My support in the Primary round is contingent upon the candidate's words and actions paralleling my own political beliefs as closely as possible. I would certainly change my support in the lead up to the Primary if a candidate subsequently proved to be nearer my positions than my original favorite.

However, once the nomination issue has been decided and the nominee is engaged in the campaign proper, I will give that nominee my full support.

[samantha]

Good Point, verrry pragmatic....