[Route66]

It seems this campaign has boiled down to counting up perceived dents and dings in Fred Thompson and making the biggest possible mountains of even the most insignificant. The biggest issue seems to be his personal position on the Life amendment, which is a difference of opinion on the method we pursue against abortion, not a difference of intentions concerning abortion itself. He has already said he would not object to the Life amendment plank staying the platform and the NRLC does not see it as a problem because they know it’s the least likely of the possible solutions to the abortion problem.

I wonder who, among the front runners, the editorial board at the Washington Times thinks should have been given the nod? Maybe the editors should add up the dents and dings for all the front runners on the issue of abortion as well as other issues of importance to the majority of conservatives and see who looks least like an acne scarred teenager. I have, and I think Fred looks really good in comparison.

[Kimberly GG]

“Maybe the editors should add up the dents and dings for all the front runners on the issue of abortion as well as other issues of importance to the majority of conservatives and see who looks least like an acne scarred teenager. I have, and I think Fred looks really good in comparison.”

Done the comparing...and exactly why it CLEARLY makes better sense to support Duncan Hunter rather than waste a minute on the lesser of the four.