[william clark]

I make no secret of my support for Duncan Hunter, but I like to approach these things objectively, considering all the variables. I have a question for the Rudy supporters; particularly those who would ideally prefer a more conservative candidate, but who don't believe any of them are viable in the general election.

As far as I can tell, it's pretty universally accepted that the reason Republicans lost the majority last November was due to increasing sentiment against the war. Many Rudy supporters have stressed that his socially liberal positions shouldn't get in the way of our supporting him, because he's "right on the war" and that's the most important thing. So my question is this. If enough voters turned out to vote against the war to shift the balance of Congress, how do you see them not voting the same way in the Presidential election; i.e., voting against the war by voting against someone who, from our perspective, is "right" on it?

This is an honest strategy question.

[Corin Stormhands]

Regardless of who our nominee is, we have to fight like hell to turn around the public perception on the war.

[gogeo]

I think the war had something to do with it. That was compounded by the fact that the dems beat on the war and no one responded. Also, there was a perception that pubs were corrupt.

Pubs need a clear message clearly delivered to win. We did not have that.