To: Slapshot68
Why he endorsed the one candidate who is most likely to lose and can’t really do any favors. I am not sure if I agree with Rep. Hunters endorsement but it was clearly based on principle and not on politics.
18 posted on
01/23/2008 12:31:27 PM PST by
dschapin
To: SE Mom; LUV W; silent_jonny; rintense; jellybean
30 posted on
01/23/2008 12:32:10 PM PST by
STARWISE
(They (Dims) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
To: dschapin
Hunters endorsement but it was clearly based on principle and not on politics.A conservative backs a socialist because of "principle"? Right.
To: dschapin
I am not sure if I agree with Rep. Hunters endorsement but it was clearly based on principle and not on politics.
What on earth makes you so certain of this?? Hunter may be a conservative, but he's been in Washington long enough to have plenty of the politician in him. It's a very strange choice of endorsement, especially since Huck hasn't been doing so well and is out of money.
68 posted on
01/23/2008 12:35:56 PM PST by
ChocChipCookie
(Homeschool like your kids' lives depend on it.)
To: dschapin
“Why he endorsed the one candidate who is most likely to lose and can’t really do any favors. I am not sure if I agree with Rep. Hunters endorsement but it was clearly based on principle and not on politics.
“
Good point.
1,433 posted on
01/23/2008 7:47:40 PM PST by
Sun
(Duncan Hunter: pro-God/life/borders, understands Red China threat, NRA A+rating! www.gohunter08.com)
To: dschapin
Well if it is based on “principle” it is the principle where you are weak on illegal immigration, weak on reducing taxes (the fair tax is just a convenient place to hide and not take a stance). This really surprises me about Hunter.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson