To: Rick.Donaldson
Excuse me, but that is what my candidate said about your candidate, so the comment is fair game.
Interesting that you point out that your candidate “is as well qualified as Hunter having been a Senator longer” doesn’t make any sense, because Hunter isn’t a senator, so it shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Note that as names pop up for National Security and SecDef, Hunter is on the short list but Thompson usually isn’t. Hunter is the better candidate when it comes to national security.
10 posted on
12/28/2007 12:26:43 PM PST by
Kevmo
(We should withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
To: Kevmo
Interesting that you point out that your candidate is as well qualified as Hunter having been a Senator longer doesnt make any sense, because Hunter isnt a senator, so it shows you dont know what youre talking about.
Makes PERFECT SENSE. He was a CONGRESSMAN. And a Senator is obviously more qualified than a Congressman anytime. Ask Hillary :) (And I do know what I'm talking about, you just can't read and see the jokes. Sorry you're blind too.)
Just so you know, I'd be very happy with Hunter as President, IF he gets the nomination, but since he won't, I really think he is VERY HIGHLY qualified to be Thompson's Vice President. I've already put in a good word for him with Fred.
Go Fred.
12 posted on
12/28/2007 12:32:07 PM PST by
Rick.Donaldson
(http://www.transasianaxis.com - Visit for lastest on DPRK/Russia/China/Etc --Fred Thompson for Prez.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson