I agree. My only issue with Newt is that the media's past portayal of him (ultra-right-wing...yada yada), would be an issue, and even though he's absolutely brilliant and would be a great president, enough swing voters wouldn't be receptive because of the label. Just a thought. I don't know a lot about Hunter yet, and Thompson surely has a solid record, and would keep Christian conservatives happy. GWB was a solid candidate in both of his elections, but I was truly surprised at how many voters chose Gore/Kerry. What has become a huge issue in modern elections is the liberal press, and how their negative portrayal of ANY republican impacts voters - and loses us votes. Just as valid is how the liberal press chooses to completely ignore any negative issues about democrats. They'd have a tougher time bashing Rudy. He's never been a target of the liberal media - he's more controversial within his own party. He'd be a leader in the truest sense about the most important issue we face: the war on terror.
>>>>He'd be a leader in the truest sense about the most important issue we face: the war on terror.
For WHICH side?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1806421/posts?page=44#44
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1806421/posts?page=50#50
Simply not true. The NYT has gone after him like a dog fighting for a bone. They despise Rudy. That's a positive for him.
He can overcome it, it's not just the left wing media, Newt get's criticized here plenty for his Rudyesque marital indescretions. Of course he might not enter, Thompson might not, and if that's the case it's going to be Rudy.