To: pissant
Why no Hunter? - he makes more sense than the rest of them!
5 posted on
01/09/2008 11:51:30 AM PST by
ConorMacNessa
(HM/2 USN, 3rd Bn. 5th Marines, RVN 1969. St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle!)
To: ConorMacNessa
Because Brit Hume says so.
7 posted on
01/09/2008 11:52:06 AM PST by
pissant
(Duncan Hunter: Warrior, Statesman, Conservative)
To: ConorMacNessa
Ron Paul has more traction than Hunter?
Well that explains it.
21 posted on
01/09/2008 12:01:40 PM PST by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: ConorMacNessa
Why no Hunter? - he makes more sense than the rest of them!You answered your own question!
212 posted on
01/09/2008 3:42:45 PM PST by
Fresh Wind
(Scrape the bottom, vote for Rodham!)
To: ConorMacNessa
He’s too good and they know it. This has been going on since the beginning of the process. They are getting more and more obvious now that the voting is underway and they don’t want people to actually get informed in that Duncan Hunter is actually in this race, ya know? Yet the GOP/the other candidates are equally to blame here and I’m out.
260 posted on
01/09/2008 9:41:30 PM PST by
bushfamfan
(DUNCAN HUNTER '08: the only candidate whose record matches his talk.)
To: ConorMacNessa
I don’t think it’s right to blame the media for Hunter’s low polling. He has been in quite a few of the debates and has done so so...he tends to go off into details that are not really inspiring. If he had hit the major points of conservatism with more concise charisma, I believe he would be way ahead.
291 posted on
01/10/2008 7:40:09 AM PST by
fabian
To: ConorMacNessa
>>Why no Hunter? - he makes more sense than the rest of them!<<
That’s precisely why they don’t want him to get any exposure. He just might actually win!
298 posted on
01/10/2008 6:07:11 PM PST by
ItsOurTimeNow
("Never get involved in a land war in Asia.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson