Why ALL Conservatives need to support Duncan Hunter - Including you, Mr. Limbaugh

News Which Cannot Lose ^ | August 6, 2007 | Alexander J. Madison

[sitetest]

Dear wolfcreek,

“If your sentiments about abortion (in your tagline) are sincere, I doubt Fred is going to rock the boat on that issue. DH, IMO, is more diligent about *right to life* issues whether you think he might win or not.”

I’d be delighted if Mr. Thompson were more pro-life than he is. However, politics is the art of the possible.

“Just a word of advice from someone you don’t know.........the *Dear whoever* is kind of creepy.”

Glad you like it. ;-)

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Kimberly GG,

I understand your position, and I actually did say in my previous posts that there are some folks who will not view Mr. Thompson’s position as acceptable.

However, I think that his views will be acceptable to the overwhelming number of Americans who are concerned about illegal immigration.

sitetest

[sneakers]

I just sent another e-mail to our local conservative talk show hosts. Why don’t they talk about Duncan Hunter? The OBVIOUS best choice for the job!! The ironic thing is - he represents everything they stand for and talk about on their radio show!

- build a fence
- pro-life
- standing up for gun-owners rights
- stand strong on the Iraq war
- free Compean and Ramos
- the Fair Tax
and on and on and on. I don’t think there’s even ONE issue they would be in disagreement with him on!

[Calpernia]

Border Fence

Duncan Hunter's border fence:

Primary Fence, Border patrol road, secondary fence.

What Fred CAN'T do for immigration:

Hard SOURCED from the CFR.org SITE

Total: 69 Pages

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf
Building a North American Community Report of an Independent Task Force

Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations

The Council on Foreign Relations [CFR] is all for border control. BUT, they are for North American Continent Border Control and free flow of people and goods with in the borders of the continent. Fred Thompson is a member of the CFR.

[Calpernia]

I’ve sent out a total of 55 letters to the editor and emails/letters to our local radio show.

They started talking about Ron Paul.

We may have to start our own blog radio or something.

[sitetest]

Dear TheBattman,

I understand your lament.

However, as I just posted to someone else, politics is the art of the possible.

” Just think about how great most here on FR thought about GW...”

I never thought that Mr. Bush, the son, was all that great. However, I did believe, and I still do believe, that he was as good as we were going to get. You won't hear any cries for impeachment from my direction. I’m quite grateful that he has been president these last few years rather than either Mr. Gore or Sen. Kerry. I also am grateful that he was president instead of Sen. McCain, or Mr. Bauer, or many of the other candidates against whom he ran in 2000.

I’m not under any illusions that Mr. Thompson is the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan.

But neither is Mr. Hunter. Although he may be ideologically more conservative, he just doesn’t have the force of personality, the charisma, the easy likability, the ability to charm the socks of one’s adversaries of Mr. Reagan.

Although some folks may view these as superficial qualities (and they may well be), nonetheless, I think that they’re important to getting elected, and then having a successful presidency. I think that the current President Bush lacks a bit of the force of personality, a bit of the charisma, and a whole bunch of the ability to communicate easily and well that Mr. Reagan had, and I think that this has been a real hindrance to President Bush.

My own take is that Mr. Thompson is perhaps somewhat more conservative than President Bush, but a ton more capable at communicating well the message he needs to get across, and has a greater force of personality, charisma than Mr. Bush. I can see Mr. Thompson charming the socks off Democrat congresscritters, just as Mr. Reagan charmed the socks off Tip O’Neil, et. al. I can see Mr. Thompson exuding the personal affability to the public that Mr. Reagan had.

Thus, I expect that he will have an easier time getting elected, be moderately more successful as president, and pursue a modestly-more conservative agenda than Mr. Bush.

In that I found (and still find) Mr. Bush a satisfactory president, I think that it’s likely that I’ll find Mr. Thompson even more so.

On the other hand, I don’t sense from Mr. Hunter the ability to charm his adversaries, I don't sense that the public at large will find him difficult to resist, and I think that if the next president is a Republican, these will be important attributes.

sitetest

[Yaelle]

bump for later read

[dschapin]

Quick Question. Any idea when the Online Forumn with Duncan Hunter here at FR will take place?

[AuntB]

Thanks for the post. I may even drop Hunter a $20 in donations.

That's very generous and classy of you EEE. Remind me of that the next time you say something annoying. :<)

[pissant]

As soon as Hunter makes the time, which will probably be after the Iowa straw poll. He has a day job (congress) and is spending all his spare time shaking hands. He has the questions I sent him and according to his communications director is still planning on joining us.

[dschapin]

Sounds good. Thanks for the update.

[Barnacle]

"Yeah, he may be the most conservative, but he can't win",

The only way Republicans will win is if they (Notice I did not say "we". I am so disgusted with the party that I've suspended my identity with it.) nominate a candidate who is intent on his distinctions from the Clinton-Obama ticket, rather than his similarities to it.

[RasterMaster]

All forms of AMNESTY (”aspirations of citizenship” for law-breakers) and those who support it, MUST BE DEFEATED...even if “it’s not easy”!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkN2fYnMTBs

[pissant]

The difference between 2000 and 2008 is that Bush, even if not a Reagan conservative (despite him saying he was) was clearly better than McCain, who was (and still is) unstable and not loyal to conservatives (despite Fred co-chairing his campaign). The Bauers and Keyes and whatever other creatures running had no business doing so. So from the available candidates, it was pretty easy to pick GWB. Also, coming off eight years of slick willy, even GHWB would have sounded good for a new term. If Rudy, Mitt, and Fred had run in 2000, Bush STILL would have been the best choice, because he would have been the most conservative, today’s road to Des Moines rhetoric notwithstanding.

But from 1988 to 2007 we have seen a slow drift away from the party platform, with a brief interruption from 1994 to 1996 with the Contract With America.

Also, we are in the middle of a worldwide war against jihadis who need to fear us more than they do now. We see a China rising to challenge us, making alliances with rougue states and attempting to further undercut our industrial might. We see Iran emboldened. We see a fascist POS with oil causing trouble in our hemisphere. We see further errosions in our sovereignty being planned. We see North Korea diligently working on its missile systems that can deliver a nuclear payload. We see a political class that does not have the will to stamp out illegal immigration. We see a Putin in Russia who is threatening to aim missiles again at the west.

In other words, we see the absolute need for a man of Hunter’s no-nonsense, no nuance, no equivacating convictions.

[RasterMaster]

“On the other hand, I don’t sense from Mr. Hunter the ability to charm his adversaries..”

See ANY of the interviews in post #153...plenty of them were in HOSTILE territory, yet Duncan Hunter NEVER lost his cool and told any of them to “Shut Up”, like Fred....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmKUMuPAMSE

[Sun]

“Anyone notice an interesting parallel?

When Rudy smacked down Paul for being a cut and runner in a previous debate, the media would not stop chatting about it.

While Hunter smacked down Paul even MORE resoundly (without resorting to fallacy like Rudy did), I’ve heard not a peep.”

Glad you brought that up.

And I liked the way Hunter said in the debate that none of the cut and runners said to our troops - GOOD JOB!

I find that telling, because it shows the lib Dems and Ron Paul are all part of the Blame America First crowd.

[Candor7]

A VERY GOOD read.

I have supported Duncan Hunter from the beginning and will vote for him in any Primary, and will urge our Vermont Republican delegates to vote for him.

There is no better candidate for the presidency IN BOTH PARTIES. He is the only combat veteran candidate who saw first hand, the reality of war, which is the best criterion for keeping the peace, through strength.

GO DUNCAN!

You are the BEST!

[sitetest]

Dear pissant,

“If Rudy, Mitt, and Fred had run in 2000, Bush STILL would have been the best choice, because he would have been the most conservative,...”

I don’t think that Mr. Bush is more conservative than Mr. Thompson. A review of Mr. Thompson’s Senatorial career does show someone who was a pretty consistent federalist, which, for me, is a strong element of conservatism, especially social conservatism.

A review of Mr. Bush’s record doesn’t show the same commitment to federalism. By a stretch.

I don’t think that Mr. Thompson will equivocate on the war against the jihadists.

I don’t think that Mr. Hunter has what it takes to rally the nation against the importunings of the Democrats, just as it appears to me that Mr. Bush doesn’t really quite have what it takes, either.

sitetest

[pissant]

Fred certainly sounds conservative now, I’ll grant you that. With his focus on McCain Feingold Thompson for years on end, I can’t quite spot how he would have been deemed more conservative that a tax cutting, tough on crime governor Bush. Fred was considered a moderate in the Senate, despite his repeated calls calling for “federalism”. Can you think of any accomplishment other than CFR?

[RasterMaster]

I asked what Fred had done other than McCain-Feingold on another thread....here’s the answer I got:

Are you aware that Thompson and his open borders buddy Spencer Abraham have the exact same grade in every area on their ABI report cards? Did you know that Thompson voted the exact same way in 13 areas on immigration as Abraham while in the senate? If Abraham is labelled as an “open borders icon” and Thompson has the same grade as Abraham, what does that say about Thompson on immigration? This is as great an accomplishment as McCain-Feingold.

The report cards for Fred and Spencer Abraham are exact duplicates of one another. Here is a comparison of their ABI report cards during thier senate careers:

Fred D. Thompson (R-TN) Senate Term: 1994-2003
Spencer Abraham (R-MI) Senate Term: 1995-2001

Americans for Better Immigration - Reduction Report Card Comparison
Subject Fred Thompson Spencer Abraham
Overall Career Grade C C
Reduce Chain Migration C C
Reduce Visa Lottery C- C-
Reduce Unnecessary Visas F F
Reduce Fraud: Refugee & Asylum C- C-
Reduce Enticement - Illegal Immigration: Amnesties D D
Reduce Illegal Immigration - Anchor Baby Citizenship No Votes No Votes
Reduce Illegal Immigration – Other Awards A+ A+
Reduce Illegal Immigration – Border Enforcement A+ A+
Reduce Illegal Immigration – Interior Enforcement C+ C+

Source: Americans for Better Immigration Report Card: Senator Fred D. Thompson

Source: Americans for Better Immigration Report Card: Senator Spencer Abraham

The following is a record and analysis of Senator Fred Thompson and Spencer Abraham’s immigration related congressional votes, co-sponsorships, and other immigration actions that occurred during their career in Congress. Senator Thompson and Senator Abraham’s votes, co-sponsorships and other actions are exact copies of one another. Thompson and Abraham clearly contributed to the problem of immigration that we face today. Note how their voting record indicates that Americans were put out of work to provide cheap labor to Corporations. I’ve heard every excuse that a Thompson supporter can think up to try to excuse Thompson’s voting record - the most common excuse is that his record is “pre-911”. The fallacy for this defense is that the votes were cast between 1996 and 2000. The votes were AFTER the first terrorist attack that was related to terrorists who were in the country illegally - the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Source: Fred D. Thompson: Immigration Profile

Source: Spencer Abraham: Immigration Profile