Only Candidate to Act on Illegals is Trailing

The Daily Advertiser ^ | January 16, 2008 | Nick Bouterie

[Edit35]

I feel that losing sight of our values and goals for the sake of compromise has led the American aim to be off the mark.

Losing sight??

Mitt Romney is so close to my values, he's almost standing on my head, and the heads of the vast majority of the conservative base.

Limbaugh, Coulter, Mark Levin, Judge Bork, Tom Tancredo, Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity, Paul Weyrich, Jay Sekulow, Sen. Jim DeMint.

All have endorsed or expressed a lot of support for Mitt Romney.

The list goes on and on, and grows every day.

Rush Limbaugh said today, Wed. Jan. 16, about Romney's big win in Michigan, "Republicans are now voting in large numbers and they are voting for the Reagan conservative."

Republicans finally had a chance to elect somebody we really want," Limbaugh added.

The Marriage Protection act, extending the Bush tax cuts, expanding energy exploration, shale production, Staying the Course in Iraq/Afghanistan, ProLife all the way .... YOU name it, and Mitt Romney is on board with conservatives.

Did he make a few dumb pandering statements in 1993 while running for Senate against Ted Kennedy?? You bet.

But his governance was fairly good, more conservative than liberal, especially for a wack-a-doodle state like Massachusetts.

[Edit35]

Unless; of course; you are voting the same old tired party line “the most electable”..

I believe the two party system is the most efficient, best way to maintain a representative Republic democracy.

Look at Great Britain, or Israel, or any of the multiple party governments around the world.

They are in chaos, with leaders coming and going as fast as they can strike coalition deals with the OTHER fragmented party leaders.

What is the sense of backing a candidate who will only get 5% of the vote.

It is quixotic in the extreme.

[ErnBatavia]

But there comes a time when you (I) have to face reality, which is that he just didn't catch on.

I'm with you here....Hunter should have thought to establish a campaign in the real world of American politics, and he didn't.

Case closed. He didn't do his homework.

[roamer_1]

[...] it is just that other candidate offer more than hunter.

Yes, it is true. More unsubstantiated promises, more triangulation on the issues, more out right lies, more flip-flops, etc.

None of the other candidates has the depth of experience and strength of character that Hunter has. None has as impressive a record of initiative and leadership, and none of the others have walked the walk.

None come close.

[roamer_1]

While American politics has always been built on the art of compromise; I feel that losing sight of our values and goals for the sake of compromise has led the American aim to be off the mark.

That's because the Great Compromise has already been made. It is called the Reagan Coalition, which defines Conservatism. No other compromise is necessary. If the candidate is a true Conservative, a true Reaganite, he will fulfill the needs of all the Republican candidates.

It is the Bakerite "Big Tent", and the outright RINOs that require further compromise, and that is our downfall.

The real determination does not come with the nomination at the end of the primary season, but rather on November third. That is the day that will provide the conclusion. When the polls close on election day, and America has spoken, I believe that many will find the error of their ways.

[freekitty]

Well, I am happy for you and the group.

And if you don’t understand losing sight; so what?

I do.

[freekitty]

I don’t believe I said anything about a 2 party system.

[freekitty]

Thank you. You nailed it.

[freekitty]

Unfortunately; we may have to pay for it right along with them.

[Drew68]

Duncan Hunter is a great man and his positions on the issues are outstanding. One of his problems is that he’s a member of the House.

My thoughts as well. Unless he is chosen as VP for a winning Republican candidate, Hunter needs to run for senate or governor (and win) before he can seriously entertain the ambitions of the Presidency.

One needs to go back to Eisenhower to find a president who had not served previously as VP, senator or governor.

[dragnet2]

Yep, the powers that be are defining our campaign for us as they have the GOP. They don’t want us voting a conservative in office; and they don’t want us to even think about it. They want to keep us divided to keep us under control so they can choose the next POS. I don’t know about you; but I am really angry.

Me too.

[Edit35]

I don’t believe I said anything about a 2 party system.

I didn't mean to imply.

I was just extrapolating the end result of what would happen if all factions of the GOP, or the Dems for that matter, simply refused for stubborn reasons to unite or coalesce behind an 'acceptable' unifying candidate.

We would be fractionated and confused just like occurs in Parliamentary governments around the world.

[freekitty]

There is a time for everything and I am sorry you don’t understand what I have been saying.

Also, do you know any 10 cent words? Afraid the big 50 cent ones even discounted just go over my head.

[Edit35]

...do you know any 10 cent words? Afraid the big 50 cent ones even discounted just go over my head.

Yeah, I re-read my post and it WAS kinda uppity with big words.

Guess that's just the old writer coming out in me.

I was a newspaper reporter for 15 years, and only recently took a family leave kind of thing to help raise my grandkids.

[freekitty]

That’s really nice.

[Just A Nobody]

As of Jan. 15:
Mitt -- 54
Huck -- 22
John -- 15
FT -- 6
Ron -- 2
Hunter -- 1 (+ 1 alternate)
Rudy -- 1

Election Center 2008

My understanding was that Iowa does not pledge their delegates, but they are included in the summary. Read the small print below the charts. Confusing.....