Comments on: No wonder he never polled above 1%

By: jacob

jacob — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:18:35 +0000

I was at Church last night so I missed it. Did McLame step on his tongue?

By: Linda B

Linda B — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:36:48 +0000

Anyone watch the debate? Not much to write home about. I thought Romney did well. Huckabee’s good-ole-down-home-funny-dude schtick is getting a bit old.

By: jacob

jacob — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:49:02 +0000

cathymac,
I am liking Romney better and better. I saw him on a few talk shows. He is very light on his feet, and, he has a lot of ideas. His breadth of knowledge on a host of issues is actually impressive.

Is he my ideal candidate. No. But he beats McLame and Huckybaby. The choice is narrowing down to Romney, Paul or Rudy. I think Rudy may not last till the 5th. We shall see.

“Are they that smart or in that much collusion?” In collusion and when it comes to winning election they are that smart. Never think your enemy is dumb. Even when he thinks you are.

By: jacob

jacob — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:44:14 +0000

Lovisa,
deary, take the time to read the whole comment, your opinion does not mean anything to me.

By: Lovisa

Lovisa — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:48:25 +0000

jacob - I’m flattered beyond belief that my opinion means so much to you.

By: G. Stone

G. Stone — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:15:28 +0000

The fact that both Hunter and Tancredo were in this race at the same time, both from the lower house actually worked against our cause. The fact that both got zippy traction, flamed out early with little fanfare will be used by our opponents ( those who want to bury illegals as an issue )and the media. We are already hearing this from some of the knuclehead pundints- see immigration is not a big issue with voters, Tancrado and Hunter are gone with little or no support. My take is there was never enough room for them both anyway. Second they are both congressmen with only regional recognition. The house of represenatives is not the platform to launch a presidential run.

They are both smart , conservative and thoughtful men. Neither of these guys have many fans in the media. Let’s face it, they are outspoken conservatives and therefore the enemy of the MSM. They were marginalized from day one. Tancredo as Johnnie one note and Hunter as another boring conservative.

By: ACTivist

ACTivist — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:58:49 +0000

Option 1
He is supporting the religious angle.

Option 2
He is banking on Huckleberry as being the “most favored” candidate.
(with Hunter’s poor showing, how many votes will he really sway)

Option 3
He is trying to sink Huckleberry’s ship before the conservative south vote.
(to seal that deal he should have backed Paul).

This, to me, is just further evidence why you can NEVER trust a politician.

By: Cathymac

Cathymac — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:48:31 +0000

Forgot to add, when I heard Hunter endorsed Huckabee I said “That dirty dog.” I like Levin’s (and by extension G. Stone’s)hypothesis. His endorsement could have meant much more if he had waited.

By: Cathymac

Cathymac — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:44:56 +0000

Jacob, What do you think about Romney? You may have thrown out your opinion but I did not catch it.

What if the Dems and media are playing a game and really are not scared of McCain? Are they that smart or in that much collusion?

By: jacob

jacob — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:58:37 +0000

Lovisa,
When playing chess or checkers, you don’t make the move that causes your opponent to look happy. McLame and Huckabee make Democrats happy. Guess what, that means they are poison. Got it? If you really want us to like those two characters, attack them.

OK, I am lying. I have already made up my mind with those two and your liking them only confirms my estimate of them.

LC,
giulliani is less dangerous than McLame or Huck. He does not claim to be something he is not and more importantly he has kept his word in the political arena far better than either of those two.

His personal life is a mess. I won’t argue that.

McLame has a bad habity of making enemies of those who disagree with him AND those run against him in camapaigns. He has vilated far more of the ten republican commandments than Rudy.

By: Lovisa

Lovisa — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:43:49 +0000

How anybody could think that Tancredo would have a shred of a chance must not have had a good think. He had absolutely no depth; a one-issue candidate if there ever was one. McCain isn’t perfect, but among the remaining candidates, he’s the best IMO.

By: Loudoun Conservative

Loudoun Conservative — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:45:58 +0000

Listen, I agree McCain is dangerous (McCain Feingold / bush’s illegal amnesty plan / and voting to kill good bills in committee year after year) but Guiliani is even more dangerous. Don’t forget that character counts.

By: Joe Budzinski

Joe Budzinski — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:20:31 +0000

All three of you make excellent points. What I would give to corner Hunter and just ask him!

I got the sense there was some frustration within the campaign that he was not getting more support. The way I see it, he wasn’t getting the traction. I don’t know why. Just like Tancredo’s campaign, they were pretty disorganized. On top of that, Hunter really did not get to stand out in the debates. Neither he nor Tancredo, unfortunately, have the speaking gift that the Huckster has so there was no bump from any of the debates.

After he and Tancredo wowed us at CPAC almost a year ago, I thought for sure one of them was going to be in it until the end.

There was an interesting segment on Lou Dobbs last night and one of the guests noted that Americans “get the President they deserve.” They used the example of how Bush’s basically good idea of tackling Social Security went nowhere.

Both Hunter and Tancredo were largely focused on the very real problems we are facing, and maybe the typical American does not want to face them.

By: jacob

jacob — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:06:38 +0000

I am surprised that Hunter would back a an economic populist. Guess Hunter ain’t nowhere hear as smart as I thought. Or, he is ticked at the rejection, and this is a way to stick his finger in the eye of the party. Because I feel that Huckabee is more dangerous than McLame to the country the party and the economy.

By: anon

anon — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:03:00 +0000

It DOES make sense if you look at it from the religious point of view. Many evangelicals won’t support Romney because they believe he is a member of a non-Christian cult. Hunter & Huckabee - birds of a feather in this case.