Hunter is a great guy.
Michelle Malkin wrote today that Romney, Hunter and Paul had better record (in actions, as opposed to talk) than Fred. I really can’t understand how the myth about Fred’s enforcement got started. Anyway, Hunter gets somewhere between 1-2% so there isn’t much point to vote for him.
Well, maybe. If the race is close, *in your state*, when it comes time for the primary in your state, you might choose to "vote against" someone who is near the top, by voting for someone else also near the top. But if someone that you can at least accept is leading by a comfortable margin, *in your state*, then by all means vote for Hunter, if you feel he is the best candidate. That's my plan, and I think he is the best, but to deny delegates from my state to Romney, McCain, or especially Guilliani, I'd vote for Thompson, who at this point I evaluate as the second best at being able to actually do the job the way I'd like it done.
I’m voting for him as long as he is running, regardless of his other support.
Oh, there's a point alright. The point is to show the GOP there are still a few conservatives left that will not support moderates and election year converts. This has happened election after election, until there is very little left of the conservative movement within the GOP.