Not as long as the majority Republican voters have that kind of mindset.
But imagine if every conservative voter decided to vote for "THE BEST CHOICE" in the primaries, instead of the "guy most likely to win in the general election".
Just imagine!
But hey, even if the primaries are the one place we can put substance over style and get what we want, this is how we've been trained to think and respond.
So when we settle for an "OK GUY WITH HIGH POLL NUMBERS" we get just that.
I like Fred, but, IMHO, he is not the best we can do. He's (allegedly) the best we can win with.
If a Republican candidate for President cannot raise big money to compete, he is not worth the effort to support because it will take a Republican candidate raising somewhere north of $250 Million dollars to effectively get his message out. The mainstream media that does so much for liberal candidates do nothing or worse for pubs or conservatives. I might love Duncan Hunter. I can send him $50 or $500 bucks if I really love him. If he can convince hundred of thousands of people a quarter to send about $100 each, then he is onto something. He is showing the ability to compete.
Years ago, before big campaign contributions were outlawed, the guy with merely a great record and message could be taken seriously because all he had to do was convince a few wealthy benefactors to support him. Nowadays, like it or not, it is a combination of record, message, and fundraising prowess that all must be considered when determining if a candidate is viable.
Hunter has his problems too. He's a big spender, he voted for CFR type legislation and I still haven't addressed the charge that he's a protectionist.
If Fred runs a non no-nonsense across-the-board conservative campaign then he will be my choice. So far the early indication is that he is running such a campaign.