[Reily]

To all

My personal preference is Fred.
BUT anyone of the GOP is preferable to Hillary!
(Yes even Huckster and Paul!)
(Hillary plus a compliant democrat Congress (with a even larger democrat majority!)is to horrible to contemplate! The GOP will to too shell shocked to anything other then suck their thumbs and make gurgling noises!)

Look if we want to collectively blame anyone for the fix we seem to be in I suggest we all look in the mirror!
We are the electorate that created this mess!
Looking at the candidates, as far as conservative principles, electability etc & in no particular order of preference.

Hunter probably the best fit for my conservative principles but supporting him would violate my initial “rule-of-thumb” on electability. My electability “rule-of-thumb” is where I look at a candidate and ask, ‘Can he win a state-wide election in his home state?’. The answer with Hunter is ‘no way!’, and thats a recurring problem with presidential candidates coming from the House. Usually they are popular in only one particular part of the state (Their district!)

Paul, in some sense satisfies my libertarian impulses but then there is his “moveon.org” notions about national security. (If the stories about his newsletter are correct he may some other disturbing notions!) Also he fails the “rule-of-thumb” test! Hillary, Obama or Paul, at least he would let me be armed to shoot the 'terrorists' who would no longer be trying to kill us if we just sang kum-ba-ya!

Guiliani, satisfies my “rule-of-thumb” test. (Which I would wish he would actually do rather then run for president!) Has the right stance on WOT in fact might actually prosecute the war with more vigor! I also believe that the war is the seminal issue for our nation right now. His weaknesses are obvious, way to the left of me on social issues. Also his illegal immigration stance is all over the place, I think the illegal situation is so bad that we have reached a point where only a “strong approach” can get the situation under any sort of control. His economic views are pretty much “free market” and similar to mine. (At least I have heard or read nothing to the contrary!) I could unhappily vote for Guiliani.
Huckabee, one governor from Arkansas is enough in my lifetime. Another economically illiterate politician, socialism GOP-style will work no better the normal democrap socialism. At least democraps are the socialist party so I expect it from them. His foreign policy views are comical until you realize he is serious. He is better then Hillary or Obama. Not a ringing endorsement! McCain. Well he supposedly has a 85% rating by ACU on conservative issues. If he hadn't sponsored McCain-Feingold (Don't any of these clowns read the Consitution!) & been a major supporter of the last illegal immigration bill, I would gag less when I consider pulling the lever for him. He is right on the WOT, of course he does it in manner that is smarmy & self-centered. Team player are not words in vocabulary, unless team player means I am the team captain & you do as I say! Again he is better then Hillary or Obama. Again not a ringing endorsement! Romney, is probably the most talented of all the candiates GOP Deomcrap, Vegetarian party etc, anywhere! He has actually made a payroll without using the force of law to reach deeper into another individual's pocket! As far as being a conservative well he could be more so, but was probably as conservative as is possible in the 'Land-o-Kennedy'! He is right on the WOT, in the ball-park on illegal immigration. What I have heard on the debates & read makes him 'acceptable'.(Ok could he be lying well yes, so could Ron Paul. Paul might secretively want to imitate Napoleon for all I know.) Fred Thompson, well he is just better ! He fits my personal views much closer then the others. So for me, and this is an exponetial decay in my preference! Fred Romney McCain & Guiliani (Tie) My number 3 depends who of the two has annoyed me recently Huckabee (Gag!) Paul (double double gag!)

[Man50D]

Hunter probably the best fit for my conservative principles but supporting him would violate my initial “rule-of-thumb” on electability.

Electability is subjective at best. It is based on the presumption one candidate can or cannot win. It might be a reasonable decision if we were well into the electoral process. There might be some validity to such a decision as it would be premised on actual voting results. This scenario also presumes the people made well informed decisions due to the candidates being given equal time and exposure before the people. This however has not been the case. Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were arbitrarily omitted from one or two debates by one or a select few in the media or GOP or Democrat parties. This is anathema to the intent of our founding fathers when they drafted the Constitution. It was crafted to prevent too much power concentrating in the hands of too few people and ensure that power was and is disbursed to the people. Knowledge is power. The people have no power if they are not provided with the information necessary to make a well informed decision. This affront to the Constitution appears to be lost on many in the GOP and here as Free Republic.

Duncan Hunter has consistently championed the Conservative cause for nearly three decades. He has never wavered on Conservative principles. It is for some inexplicable reason Republican and Feepers determined the socialist media driven polls were valid to the point where they indicate the actual outcome long before the primary season had begun. This prompted many to suddenly supplant the Conservative principles they claim to espouse for the perception by a tiny minority comprised from the socialist media Duncan Hunter could not win.

Imagine if George Washington had heeded the words of many prior to crossing the Delaware that the Colonists could not win because they were vastly outnumbered and were militarily inferior not only to the British but also the German Hessians Washington was planning to attack not to mention the treacherous crossing of the Delaware on a brutally cold night. His convictions would not allow him to quit or surrender. Washington's example has been lost on many in the GOP. It's reprehensible enough people abandon a staunch Conservative in Duncan Hunter but compound by denouncing him. The sincerity of people who claim to support Conservative principles will abandon those principles for the sake of a perceived winning or losing candidate.

This has been the problem of the Republican party for decades. This type of thinking has incrementally infiltrated the GOP. Rationalizing it is acceptable to expand the voter base to those who are not Conservative only allows socialism to eventually permeate the party. The strategy of holding one's nose only empowers socialism as was evident with the Socialists taking control of Congress in 2006. In the end candidates are presented with the appearance of being Conservative even though their history proves otherwise and the one candidate who is actually a Conservative , Duncan Hunter is pushed aside.