The answer is Duncan Hunter

I've had a lot of e-mails from people asking me who I prefer for the 2008 Presidential race. Usually they'll ask which of the big three I prefer, or throw in Fred Thompson. And then that's it.

Uh, how about none of them? I cringe at the thought of any of the big three becoming President. Romney's the biggest flip-flopper I've seen since Kerry -- maybe even a worse flip-flopper. When he said this at the last debate, I thought, well gee, he just exposed himself as what he really is for everyone to see.

8:34 - Audience member asks Romney about his flip-flopping on immigration, and about how he says the national language should be English, but has campaign ads in Spanish, along with his website. Says he loves immigrants and will reach out to them in any way he can to get them to vote for him -- he shot himself in the foot with that statement, right there. Very telling.

Anything to get them to vote for him? Well gee, maybe that explains all his flip-flopping. He'll do or say anything to get us to vote for him, and of course we're all stupid enough to fall for him, right? He's the Republican Party's version of the Breck Girl.

And Giuliani? Positions on the issues notwithstanding, what experience does he have to qualify him for the Presidency? Oh, he was mayor of New York. Right. Which is clearly enough experience to prepare him for running the most powerful country in the entire world. But then you look at where he does stand on the issues, and he's a major RINO! He's pro-choice. He supports gun control and a guest worker plan for illegal immigrants. He's been married three times and parades around in drag, and of course supports gay marriage. Does that sound like a conservative? I don't think so. The only area where he's strong is national defense, but is that enough to elect him? Nope.

And McCain? Well, he's a train wreck waiting to happen. Actually, now that I think about it, no one ever asks me if I support him. I guess it's just that obvious. He's proven he fits in more with Democrats than Republicans, and completely ignores the Republican base to give us the shamnesty Kennedy-McCain bill.

And Fred Thompson? He seems to want to do as little work as possible to get elected. He's conservative enough, but what does it say when he doesn't want to actually do the work it takes to get elected? What will he be like in office? WizBangBlue brought up this little problem a little over a week ago:

LAW & ORDER incidental actor and former U.S. Senator, Fred Thompson's biggest problem is that he simply won't do the work required to win the presidency. Like so many other non-serious candidates for president who are flawed for some reason, Thompson's shortcomings are that he'll only do the minimum of work required in a presidential run and will likely leave his true believers feeling shortchanged in the end.

But the Thompson bid for the presidency is likely to soon fizzle with weak debate performances and other examples of a lazy attitude towards a presidential run. A recent weak speech performance, and juvenile website fights with filmmaker Michael Moore, only too well illustrate how little is really there with Thompson.

In the grand scheme of things, it would appear that basing success on who wants it more and is willing to put in that effort would favor both Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney. Neither is the favorite of many voters right now. But these two are willing to do what it takes to cultivate and moltivate a core of primary voters that could in the end mean all the difference.

Thompson's only real hope is that his supporters will do all the heavy lifting. But a premise that an actor on LAW & ORDER should be president is as bad as the premise that George Bush 1 was president so maybe his son should be as well. Look where that premise got us.

One thing that might be assumed by many voters is that anyone willing to make an all out effort to win the office will probably at least put in a good effort if elected. And the opposite is probably also true for anyone who does not really put up a first rate effort. That doesn't bode well for Fred Thompson.

So where does that leave us?

Duncan Hunter.

He's a true conservative, the only candidate who can legitimately can be called a Reagan Republican, and he's probably working harder than any other candidate in the race. The NRA gave him an A+ rating, the National Right to Life rated him at 100% (while NARAL rated him at 0%), the Christian Coalition rated him at 100%, and he's got a 92% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. He's also got a 100% record from FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. He's a Vietnam veteran who served with the 173rd Airborne Brigade and the 75th Army Rangers. He voted yes to protect the Pledge of Allegiance and banning flag desecration; yes on banning gay adoptions; and yes on ending affirmative action for college admissions.

I could go on and on and on about where he stands on the issues. On The Issues has all that information well documented. What I really love most about Duncan Hunter is that he is who he is -- he's a conservative through and through, and he doesn't flip-flop on the issues to curry favor with voters. You know with Hunter that what you see is what you get. He's honest and hard-working.

He also makes no bones about where he stands, unlike a lot of candidates who will change their views on issues depending on who they are pandering to (like Romney, perhaps?). "I don't have to hire a consultant to develop a conservative image because I am a conservative," he says.

Back in February, I wrote about what it is that we really need:

We need to get back to the America that our Founding Fathers built -- one with small government. One where the government isn't constantly telling us what is best for us, and one where honor was more important than worldwide popularity. Do you think George Washington or Thomas Jefferson cared, even a little, about what Europeans thought of what they were doing here? Do you think any of our Founding Fathers would be groveling at the feet of the U.N.?

There is only one candidate for the Presidency who can get us back on the road to the America we need to be -- a strong America, who fights for what is right and does what is in the best interests of her people, not what is in the best interests for the political careers of those in Congress. Now, more than ever, we need someone who can get us back on the right path.

And the only person in the race who can do that is Duncan Hunter.

What really burns me is the relative silence in the blogosphere about Hunter. They complain, complain, complain about the "big three" but never really go into any of the 2nd tier candidates, with the exception of Fred Thompson. The mainstream media will never touch anyone besides the big three or Fred Thompson, and the blogosphere knows that we don't need the big three in office. So why aren't they giving more attention to 2nd tier candidates, like Duncan Hunter? To read recaps of the debate, it's as if debates are simply the McCain-Romney-Giuliani show, and the other candidates are just afterthoughts, no matter how well they speak or how good their answers are. And 2nd tier candidates like Hunter need to have the blogosphere behind them.

So there's my candidate. Duncan Hunter for President in 2008, all the way.