Why not Duncan Hunter?

Why isn't Duncan Hunter, who is admittedly a true conservative, doing better?
And why do I support Fred Thompson?

Looking at the results so far for Duncan Hunter
In Iowa 1%
In Michigan 0% with 2,823 votes
In New Hampshire 0% with 1,220
In Wyoming 8% to Romney's 67% and Thompson's 25%

As I write this Nevada and South Carolina are still voting
Nevada with 79% reporting has Hunter with
2% or 608 votes

I have several reasons. First off, it is obvious the Republican Party is fractured.
The congressional losses of 2006 resulted in, in my opinion a large portion of the Republican Party willingly to pick a candidate that is perceived as being able to win as opposed to a candidate who best represents the party's conservative principals.
For example, who would have thought only a few years ago that someone with a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual stance would never be a candidate for the Republican Party?
The pro-choice political action organization NARAL believes a win by Republican Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 presidential race would be a boon to pro-choice forces

John McCain represents a moderate wing of the party. Mike Huckabee is a curious mixture of a Christian who supports liberal policies. In addition, Ron Paul is the first Republican/Libertairn candidate to receive more than 3% of votes. Mitt Romney is good looking the (Kennedy factor) and fiscally conservative but with a suspect recent conversion to social conservative principals.

So what do these candidates all have in common? Grassroots and moneyed backers who BELIEVE that their candidate CAN WIN

Sad to say this is evidently that Duncan Hunter, respite conservative credentials lacks.

Quite frankly it is a gloomy state of affairs that the party of conservative principals has seemly turned its back on the two true conservatives in the running, Duncan Hunter and until recently Tom Tancredo. To me it speaks volumes about the current state of the Republican Party.
Fred Thompson was right when he said, "The future of the Republican Party is at stake"

If the 2008 Republican nominee is selected on mostly elect ability as opposed to consistent conservative principals than the party will drift even closer to the middle and our conservative values will be minimized in the party.

On the other hand, could it be that a loss to a scorched earth liberal like Hillary or Obama would be the very thing that would usher in a true conservative candidate in 2012?

Let's look back to 1976. Ronald Reagan was running for the Presidential nominee of the Republican Party; however, he lost in the Primaries to Ford

Yet, his loss proved to be a mixed blessing; when Ford lost the 1976 election to Democrat Jimmy Carter. The disastrous Jimmy Carter presidency helped Ronald Reagan secure the party nomination and go on to win the 1980 presidential election.

But getting back to Fred Thompson. In my opinion out of all the candidates still running who have a chance of the nomination, Fred Thompson is the most conservative.

More conservative than McCain, Huckabee, Romney. (Giuliani goes with saying, a liberal with an "R" by his name)

That is why I am supporting Fred, process of elimination. I want the most conservative candidate who still can win, to win the nomination

Is Duncan Hunter and was Tom Tancredo first choices. Yes, absolutely

Since Tom Tancredo has dropped out, does Duncan Hunter have a chance of winning the nomination?
In my opinion No.

I do believe he will do better out West where he has more name recognition but a candidate has to do
better than 0-4% in the rest of the country

In addition, perhaps this just is not a time for conservatives. Perhaps history must repeat itself
and 2008 is 1976 and 2012 will be a 1980

I only hope that conservatism survives the cycle.