LOL. It's a circular argument. You're basically saying I'm not going to send Hunter money because he doesn't have any money. So you send money to the guy who DOES have money? I don't get it. I honestly don't get how a TV actor with nothing to show for himself is thrust into the lead among conservatives, when there's a real conservative in the race. It's just strange to me.
As for the rest of your post, look in the mirror. Name calling. Typical. I just don't get what makes people think Thompson is "viable." No votes have been cast. What are you basing the viability on? Fundraising? And yet, that's all speculative. He built up some hype over the summer, grabbed some dollars, and voila, he's a frontrunner?
I'm interested in substance. I realize that's immature. I will take your mature advice and accept that really it's just about finding a bandwagon with a lot of cash, and papering over anything unpleasant. Grab the pom poms, make the kool aid. It's how come nothing improves. You'll see.
We're not delusional.
Ah, a member of the “Hunt Club”. I should have known.
A certifiable delusional engaging in psychlogical “projection”.
I wasn't making an argument. I was stating facts.
You're overreacting. Ridicule is the easiest form of criticism. Sometimes it works great. You Duncanista`s have worn it out!
>>>>>As for the rest of your post, look in the mirror. Name calling. Typical.
In serious political debate, its downright juvenile to use terms like "develop a crush on one and reach for the pom poms", "Grab the pom poms" and "make the kool aid".
Doesn't sound like you're "interested in substance", or that you're mature either. Sounds kinda silly.
The suggestion that Fred’s attachment to federalism is a lazy man’s dodge is juvenile nonsense. Have you read any of what he has written on the subject? Consider his exchange with Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO last spring. Delve a bit in the Congressional Record for some of his speeches on the subject as a Senator. You are talking about a seriously smart lawyer who has given the structure of the Constitution considerable thought. Repeatedly claiming otherwise without citing any evidence or even arguing that Fred has been wrong about something is just dishonest and despicable.
Your other beef with Fred seems to be that you consider him an ineffective candidate. Here again you cite no basis for your conclusion; you seem to be adopting the New York Times’ views wholesale. What evidence is there that Fred is ineffective? Nobody has voted yet and the polls at this point are a very poor predictor of what will happen when people do.
We all have to make our best guess about how voters will respond to each candidate without the help of any meaningful hard data. You should be wary of sounding too certain that Fred won’t have broad appeal because events are likely to make you look extremely foolish.
When that happens, a lot of people here will be lining up to make you eat some of the words you are vomiting up today. Of course, if you like exposing yourself to ridicule, carry on.