Why ALL Conservatives need to support Duncan Hunter

If Congressman and Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter had a dollar for every conservative who said "Gee, Hunter is really great, but he doesn't have traction", or, "Yeah, he may be the most conservative, but he can't win",
the Hunter Campaign would be leading the 2008 money race. Alas, his campaign receives no money from folks who "really like" him, but think he can't win. Just
a "that's too bad" or a "I wish he'd catch fire" or some equally tepid gesture.

Well, let me tell you, fellow conservatives, why this cannot and will not continue, and why the tide is starting to turn in Hunter's favor. The "that's too bad"s are changing to "what can I do to help?"s, as more and more
folks are looking very hard at the world we face today and are beginning to evaluate who needs to lead the charge.

This 2008 election is an argument for America's soul. And the Republican primary is a referendum on the GOP's future as a conservative party, not just a beauty pageant for politicians and their clever (consultant driven) ploys to sound like conservatives.

So my argument below addresses 3 key topics that definitively illustrate why all conservatives must climb aboard the Hunter bandwagon. The first two are
about Mr. Hunter himself – his history and philosophy. The third topic is the much needed and long overdue comparison – how he stacks up against the other
republican hopefuls. In addition, I will demonstrate that Hunter really does "have a chance" and how his ascension is the best thing to happen to the GOP
since Ronald Wilson Reagan left the democrats and joined the party of Lincoln.

And lastly, I will address the role of Mr. Limbaugh and his fellow talkers in this election cycle.

Duncan Hunter is a warrior. Period. He dropped out of college in 1969 to join the fight in Vietnam. By 1969, the hippies and anti-war sentiment in this country were ascendant and the war was falling out of favor even in many republican circles, due in large part to grossly inaccurate reporting (sound familiar?) by the press. But Hunter did not join to avoid the draft or to find a
unit that would see limited action. And despite having a father of some political stature, he did not try to use connections for some Gore-like reporter's assignment.

Perhaps because both his father and grandfather were
proud warriors before him, Hunter joined the Army Rangers, a group that was certain to see heavy combat. As an Airborne Ranger, he was involved in numerous
combat operations, and was decorated for such. Yet he rarely talks about it, other than to say he didn't do "anything special". But special he was, both for
his willingness to join the fight, and for the view that he holds to this very day: That the Vietnam War was a noble and just cause; and the cowards that pulled out the rug are execrable.

After two tours in Vietnam, Hunter returned to civilian life and went back to school, eventually earning a law degree and a job in San Diego, catering mostly to the Hispanic community there. He married, settled down and had two boys, the first in 1977. But it was his concern about the direction this country was heading in the post-Vietnam, Jimmy Carter era that gnawed at him, as it did for many patriotic Americans witnessing a very low point in our nation's history.

Hunter and his father were both early Reagan supporters, even in 1976. And it was his father that urged the younger Hunter to run for congress in 1980, with the expectation that Reagan would win and sweep republicans in with him. So Duncan jumped in with both feet, and beat a popular, experienced democrat in a democrat leaning district, by combining a message of hope and American virtue with an attack on the Carter Administration's limp-wristed foreign and domestic policies.

He entered Washington on Reagan's coattails and has been proudly clearing the path for Reaganism ever since. He immediately sought assignment onto the Armed Services Committee. During the malaise of the mid to late 1970s, the military was in dire need of some very tough love, and Hunter was willing to give it. In addition to helping Reagan ramrod through massive increases in defense spending, Hunter also took extra care to ensure that Veterans' medical and education benefits were upgraded and that proper order and discipline was restored. After
a number of bloody, brass-knuckle fights in the House and Senate, funding for SDI (missile defense) was approved in the mid 1980s. The media dubbed it Star Wars, and mocked the president relentlessly. Numerous high dollar professors from prestigious institutions and scientific organizations proclaimed, just like Schleprock, that "it will never work". Hunter knew better. Of course, the democrats aligned with the leftist academics, just as they do so today.

Nevertheless, funding began. But our allies in Europe were highly skeptical. So Reagan chose the young warrior, Duncan Hunter, to lead a delegation to European capitols and convince our vital allies of the wisdom behind these programs.

Hunter, with the able assistance from his friend and mentor Henry Hyde, largely succeeded.

In addition to being one of Reagan's most trusted point men for rebuilding the military, Hunter also had a strong, independent streak. And nowhere was that independent streak more manifest than in the battle over our southern border and the continued flood of illegal aliens into the US. Hunter urged President Reagan to increase the size of the Border Patrol (BP), which the President did.

However, Reagan's "solution" to the problem included a 1986 Amnesty bill for millions of illegal immigrants. Hunter vociferously dissented and predicted that such an amnesty, without a secure border, would lead to a stampede of illegals dwarfing what had come before.

Despite Hunter's efforts, the GOP (and the democrats) went along with the Amnesty plan. With 20/20 hindsight, we now all see that this amnesty plan did open the floodgates, and many more millions have entered since. But it was Hunter and his few allies in Congress that had the FORESIGHT to see exactly what would happen. Later, even Ronald Reagan regretted the amnesty.

During the Bush 41 era, through the Clinton years and to the present day, Hunter has been the loudest and strongest voice standing up against the federal government's apathy regarding the southern border. It took a Herculean effort
for Hunter to secure funding for a new double border fence in his own district, the worst smuggling corridor in the country. The Clinton administration dragged its feet, the EPA tried to scuttle it, and the local left wing activists,
Hispanic "rights" groups and environmentalists fought it every step of the way.

But eventually Hunter prevailed, and the San Diego Border fence was built, dropping human and drug smuggling from Mexico in that sector by over 90%.
Additionally, Hunter constantly fought (and sometimes won) battles for more detention facilities, BP agents, military assistance at the border, and for stripping away benefits to illegal aliens. Currently, Hunter has pending
legislation to kill NAFTA's provision allowing Mexican truckers free access to American roads, a bill urging President Bush to grant pardons for two BP agents
accused of shooting a fleeing drug runner in the rump, and a bill to grant congressional oversight of the executive branch's efforts to establish a Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) with Mexico and Canada. And of course, Hunter, with no cosponsors, forced the border fence bill through congress in October 2006 and obtained President Bush's signature on the most important piece
of border security legislation in the last 50 years.

Hunter has also been the staunchest leader in the fight against abortion. At least nine times Hunter has proposed the Right to Life Act, which would give the unborn 14th amendment protections under the US Constitution and finally treat them as what they are, human beings. Most recently proposed in January 2007, Hunter's statement accompanying the bill included the following:

"On this anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, it is important that we reflect on the 38 million abortions that have been performed in this country since the practice was legalized in 1973. This is a national tragedy that must not go unnoticed. This legislation ensures that the unborn are protected from abortion and further provided the same Constitutional protections provided to all Americans. I am proud to once again introduce this important piece of
legislation and I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this effort as they have in the previous Congress."

Hunter was also instrumental in spearheading the legislation banning Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) and in preventing federal dollars from flowing to any organization that was complicit in abortion services.

Duncan Hunter has been a warrior for conservatism and against liberalism his entire career. He has staked out an originalist position on Second Amendment rights and almost defeated, single-handedly, Clinton's phony Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) in 1994. He was first in line to defend the military's prohibition on homosexuals, and he recently wrote a piece in the USA Today, defending General Peter Pace's remarks about the incompatibility of gays and military life. He has disdain for liberalism, and is one of the few politicians who still uses "liberal" as a stinging, pejorative term.

Hunter, along with Jim Sensenbrenner, kept the military spooks from being folded under the NSA umbrella, despite all the congressional hysteria and Bush
Administration pressure to follow the 9-11 Committee's recommendations. Hunter simply knew better. Hunter blocked Don Rumsfeld, his good friend, from downsizing the Army, and was responsible for George Bush's about face to increase the size of both the Army and Marine Corps. For 26 years, Hunter has worked diligently to slash the size and scope of the federal government while pushing for increases in the numbers of ships, sailors, soldiers, bombers (including the B2), nuclear submarines, transport aircraft, missiles, missile defenses, as well as basic armaments. Hunter was urging the Congress to
re-establish proper Human Intel to combat terrorism, long before 9-11.

Hunter was the leader who fought the Cosco (Chinese) takeover at the Long Beach, California port, and he was largely responsible for torpedoing the Dubai Ports lease deal in 2006. Critically, Duncan Hunter has been sounding the alarm bell against China's malfeasance for decades, fighting hard to derail "normal" trade relations with the communist country. Hunter was the man who pushed through a ban on satellite and satellite technology exports after discovering that the Clinton/Loral team was providing the chicoms with expertise they could never develop on their own. An excerpt from a 1996 article penned by Congressman
Hunter explains:

"Advocates of continued Most-Favored-Nation trade status for China claim that this is a ``normal'' part of U.S. international relations and that China hasn't done anything odd enough to be an exception.

Are thinly veiled threats to attack Los Angeles, like those made by China during the recent Taiwan crisis, ``normal'' diplomatic discourse?

Was Beijing's attempt to influence elections on Taiwan by military demonstrations and missile firings ``normal?''

Was the movement of two U.S. carrier battlegroups to positions of potential confrontation with China a ``normal'' gesture of friendly relations?

Or, do these actions indicate a strategic relationship with China more on a par with Cuba or North Korea, countries with which we do not extend MFN?

We didn't grant MFN to the Soviet Union either, when it was aiming missiles at U.S. cities.

And despite many significant differences with President Bush and his administration (notably Gonzales, Chertoff, and Condi Rice), no one has watched the President's back in the current war against the terrorists like Duncan
Hunter. No one. As Hunter stated during the recent "cut and run" debate on the house floor:

"Mr. Speaker, there is no Democrat leader here or anywhere who can stop the war. The only thing we can do is leave this battlefield. We can't stop this
war any more than the people of Great Britain stopped the war when they just had this incident last week in Scotland. We can't stop this war any more than the
victims in the Kobar Towers stopped the war. We can't stop this war any more than the marines in the Beirut barrack had the power to stop the war. We can't
stop this war any more than the sailors of the USS Cole had any ability to stop the war. THIS WAR HAS BEEN FORCED UPON US. THE ONLY WAY WE SHOULD END IT, THE ONLY WAY WE CAN END IT, IS TO WIN. "

In his twenty six years in the House, all on the Armed Services Committee (4 years as chairmen) Hunter has become an expert. In fact, he is THE recognized
expert; often knowing more about tactics, capabilities, weapon systems, troop levels and ammunition supplies than even the Generals and Admirals and the Pentagon. Duncan Hunter is a warrior.

Duncan Hunter is a Reaganite; a Reaganite with streaks of Teddy Roosevelt and General George S. Patton. He is not from the Bob Dole School of Grand Compromisers, the John McCain Institute of Annoying Mavericks, the Newt Gingrich branch of Chronic Complainers, or the George W. Bush "Compassionate Conservative" army. He usually speaks at a moderate, steady volume, but handles
the stick like the Bambino handled his 47 ounce baseball bat. However, when national security or sovereignty is at stake, his volume increases, and he is not shy about 'grabbing' his opponents by the throat and shaking them
relentlessly.

Hunter's motto is Peace through Strength, and he means it. He is as pro-American as they come and refuses to apologize for America to a world eager to hear about our supposed "sins".

His compass is trust in the wisdom of the American people, and his mission is to humbly pay homage to our heritage while continuing to foster American exceptionalism. Not an American exceptionalism that is our birthright, but one that has been earned by each passing generation; earned by the toil and sacrifice and blood and wisdom of our fathers and their fathers.

Hunter's anchor is our military. His love for the fighting men and women of our republic is as deep as it is eternal, extending from the men who fought in virgin woodlands under a young Col. George Washington in 1755 up
through the patriot volunteers from San Diego to Bar Harbor, hunting down Taliban in the mountains of a desolate Afghanistan tonight.

Duncan Hunter is a constitutionalist. Like all politicians, Hunter has had to compromise at times in the Congress to get his priorities passed, and he has had a handful of regrettable votes. But his core belief that the constitution means what it says -and nothing more- has not changed. He wants to return many functions of government back to the states and to the people, ranging from education to housing to arts funding to welfare. Other bureaucracies, he believes, can be reduced, merged, and de-funded with the goal of significantly reducing the overall footprint of the federal leviathan. The Constitution Party's (CP) evaluation of Hunter was very positive, with a glaring
exception for his unflinching support of the Iraq war; an exception on which Mr. Hunter is surely gratified to diverge from the CP.

When the presidential candidates were asked recently by an Iowa newspaper what they would like their legacy to be, Hunter gave the shortest response:

"I'd like to see a country where the day I walk out of the White House, after a couple of terms, the American people are more independent of government than
the day that I walked in."

Duncan Hunter has also been a champion of property rights, consistently battling the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) overreach and cosponsoring legislation after the Kelo decision to address such unconstitutional takings on the federal level. He added, "I am deeply concerned with the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision greatly broadening local government's use of eminent domain in Kelo vs. New London and believe it is important that Congress protect the property rights of private landowners and curb the government from excessive regulatory takings. It is for this reason that I voted in favor of expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority
opinion in the Kelo case."

When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, Hunter said the following in a 2007 interview: "The right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right of Americans to protect their families and their communities and their nation with firearms. In this age of post-911, Americans, I believe are comforted by the fact that our ability to resist terrorism is not limited to law enforcement or
defense agencies but is also within the ability of all gun-owning Americans."

He receives 'A' ratings from both the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Gun Owners of America (GOA).

Congressman Hunter is also a devout Christian. His firm belief in Jesus Christ informs much of his political philosophy. The sanctity of human life, the cause of freedom for our fellow man, the fight against the poison of political correctness and homosexual 'marriage', and the celebration of our Judeo-Christian American heritage are all rock solid commitments to Duncan Hunter. When the ACLU set its sights on the Mt. Soledad Cross, a war memorial for our the fallen soldiers on the Korean battlefield, Hunter stepped in and put his boot onto the necks of these liberal activists, and helped save the monument from a court ordered removal.

Certainly, the 2008 republican field is a talented bunch. And most conservatives will agree that any one of these gentlemen - Rudy, Mitt, Fred, Tancredo, Brownback, Paul, Huck, McCain, T. Thompson, or Hunter - is vastly
superior to the inexperienced and defeatist democrat candidates. However, many conservatives are driven by fear of Hillary Clinton. Therefore, this GOP primary
campaign to date can be described as one panic attack after another. It is apparently easy for many to ignore our responsibilities as conservatives, and move directly to hyping perceived electability or a consensus moderate as the main selection criteria. Right out of the gate it was....John McCain. Finishing a close 2nd to George Bush in 2000 made McCain the presumptive frontrunner 8
months ago. He is also the republican that independents and many democrats supposedly swoon over, due to his zest for sticking a finger in the eye of conservatives. By early 2007, McCain had slipped, however, and Rudy Giuliani became the polling leader. Rudy's 9-11 leadership was memorable, and his years as mayor of NYC are impressive in many respects. Mitt Romney, a successful businessman and popular ex-governor of Massachusetts, has been hovering behind McCain and Rudy most of the year, but he also has been building a solid organization and winning the GOP money contest.

The rest of the announced candidates have struggled so far to get coverage either in the mainstream media (MSM) or the conservative mainstream media (CMSM). But the onion is just starting to be peeled back, and it does not look pretty.

Comparing Rudy and Mitt to Duncan Hunter would be a joke under normal circumstances. However, since Hillary-scare has made both initially "viable", Hunter will have to defeat these men just the same as the others. Rudy and Mitt have a combined goose egg for military experience. Worse, they have never been involved in any capacity that challenged them to seriously consider our foreign policy. Their executive experience consisted of dealing with the mundane; such as school boards and transit, tobacco taxes and fire and police departments, etc. They may have done so competently, but that does not
translate to Presidential duties. When issues of national and constitutional urgency were thrust into their laps, neither man stood tall.

Rudy rushed to Capitol Hill in 1994 to lobby for Clinton's crime bill that included the ill considered AWB (along with a boatful of social engineering nonsense). Hunter was busy crafting a conservative alternative with no social engineering and no AWB. The Clinton version squeaked through, barely edging out the solid Hunter-Brewster alternative. Rudy was so blatantly anti-constitutional regarding the 2^nd Amendment, in 2000 he sued 26 gun manufactures to essentially put them out of business, saying that manufacturers "overproduced guns, way beyond what is necessary for hunting and law enforcement". Hunting and law enforcement? Egads!! It took a Hunter co-sponsored bill in Congress, signed by President Bush, to protect these firearms producers from liberal predators such as Mr. Giuliani.

When the conservative congress in 1996 finally pushed Clinton to sign the welfare reform bill, Rudy sued to stop it because it contained provisions that lopped off benefits for illegal aliens. Duncan Hunter, meanwhile, was writing
legislation that would cut all federal benefits for illegal aliens and punish those cities that offered "sanctuary". Of course, Rudy defied the law and staunchly defended NY's sanctuary program. Throughout his mayoral reign, Rudy
continually conflated legal and illegal immigrants.

Hunter's entire congressional career has shown a serious dedication to ending the scourge of illegal immigrants while their cheerleaders such as Mayor Giuliani conspired to undermine federal law.

A single viewing of Mitt Romney's performance against Edward Kennedy in the 1994 Senate debate is all you really need to know about the Romney versus Hunter
comparison. Any republican that competed very well against Teddy in the pro-gay, pro gun control and pro socialized medicine arena is not fit to be Hunter's intern, much less go head to head with the rock ribbed, California
conservative.. Romney did not change his liberal tune much when he ran for and won the Massachusetts race for governor. Indeed, he proudly claimed that he would not chip away at the odious gun control laws of that state. In contrast, Hunter has stated that he would never chip away at the 2^ndAmendment, period, which he considers an "absolute" individual right.

When the Massachusetts high court found that there was nothing in their constitution prohibiting gays from legally marrying, it was a chance for Romney to lead on this crucial social issue. Alas, he floundered and instead of
fighting the battle over who had jurisdiction over law making in the state, Romney went ahead and instituted legal gay marriage after the legislature did not come up with a solution as the court requested. While Romney hides behind the court's skirt on this issue, it should be noted that several conservative constitutional experts say many things could have been done to prevent this
illogical and harmful plunge to moral relativism. Hunter, on the other hand, was the fiercest opponent of the Clinton machine during the debates over Don't Ask Don't Tell reform in the military, a policy for which Mitt has voiced
support. Hunter is an co-sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment legislation, that one day, hopefully, will make Romney's Massachusetts experiment moot.

Of course, if you listen to Romney on the campaign trail these days, you might wonder what happened between the end of his governorship and 2007. The number of flip flops Romney has embraced would capsize John Kerry's sailboard.

From gun control (though he still supports an AWB) to abortion to illegal immigration to gay rights, Romney is trying to convince primary voters he is now a conservative. The problem is that he does so with the same gusto he used not so long ago to convince Massachusetts that he was a liberal. Hunter, however, isn't buying it and lumped Mitt in with Rudy and McCain as the new "Kennedy Wing" of the Republican party.

As for John McCain, it is not required to go back and revisit his many past transgressions against conservative causes, such as his McCain Feingold Thompson debacle. The recent debates in the Congress on "comprehensive immigration reform" show that McCain and Hunter are diametrically opposed. While McCain has pushed amnesty and called the vast majority of Americans that side with Hunter on this issue "nativists", Hunter has been busy securing GOP (and democratic) support for a real fence and for strict enforcement of existing laws. And it
was Congressman Hunter who was the one man standing in the way of McCain's ill-conceived attempt to defang our military and CIA interrogators in this war on terrorism. And finally, it is Duncan Hunter who thus far has prevented McCain and his posse of internationalists from closing Club Gitmo because it 'makes us look bad'. Hunter has never cared to follow the wishes of the UN or
leftist "human rights" organizations or socialist leaders in Europe or, most importantly, the islamists themselves. Far too often, John McCain has cared.
Brief sketches of the remaining 2^nd tier candidates show why none has the ability, temperament or record to compete with Hunter.

Tom Tancredo has been one of Hunter's protégés when it comes to illegal immigration, and his overall conservatism is refreshing and welcome. However,
Tom has also decided that the war in Iraq is a dismal failure and we need to withdraw, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. He has next to no knowledge of our military, its needs or capabilities, and therefore, is in a
poor place to judge the Iraq theatre. Tancredo's other downfall is an occasional case of foot in mouth disease, an affliction from which Hunter has never suffered.

Ron Paul is an interesting character to be sure. And it would take many paragraphs to fully explore the man and his stated small government/libertarian policies. Suffice to say that the GOP will not nominate an anti-war candidate
in the middle of a hot shooting war against the islamists. Paul wants to withdraw. Hunter vows to lead us to complete victory.

Mike Huckabee is fun to listen to, no doubt. He is witty and folksy. But he showed during his tenure as Arkansas governor that he is weak on taxes, weak on spending, weak on illegal aliens and strong on nanny-statism; the exact opposite of Duncan Hunter.

Sam "I want to expand the compassionate conservative agenda" Brownback is too much of a bleeding heart for his own good. Squishy on Iraq, illegal immigration and promoter of anti-poverty policies for the world, he is not the steel-spined man to lead our nation. His performance in the debates can best be summed up in one word: Milquetoast.

Tommy Thompson, former (and successful) governor of Wisconsin, is a good conservative, who, like Sam Brownback, has virtually no stage presence. His
time has passed.

And this brings us to the man who has not yet declared his entry into the 2008 sweepstakes; Fred Dalton Thompson. The best description of the Fred-Hunter match up is to compare a painting by Pierre-Auguste Renoir to a painting by Norman Rockwell. Both paintings are a joy to look at and it is obvious that each artist was very talented. However, on close inspection, it is difficult to make out the details of the former, while the latter painting is crystal clear down to the label on a background jar of peaches.

Hence, with Fred, it has been left up to conservative voters to interpret what he says today, what he has said in the past and what his votes meant during his 8 years as US Senator from Tennessee. The closer you look, the fuzzier the picture gets.

For example, on illegal aliens, Fred has received middling to poor scores from two organizations that promote an end to illegal immigration, Americans for Better Immigration and Americans for Immigration Control (AIC). Yet Fred's supporters deride these organizations as focusing on "legal" immigration. That is simply false. They focus on both. His supporters point to statements
against the McCain-Kennedy amnesty last year as proof of his "tough on illegals" position. While certainly welcome news, it was, as usual, fuzzy. Here is what he said in a 2006 interview with Sean Hannity:

"And I think that you have to realize that you're either going to drive 12 million people underground permanently, which is not a good solution. You're
going to get them all together and get them out of the country, which is not going to happen. Or you're going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it's unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law."

Whatever the heck that means, I am unsure. But it certainly does not echo Hunter's call to deport the illegal aliens and prevent them from ever being able to sneak across the border again. It sounds a lot closer to the McCain-Kennedy model.

On abortion, the National Review, Human Events and other conservative publications (along with the MSM) certainly believed that Fred Thompson was a pro-choice senator. After all, his statements to that effect, such as,
"Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the women. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own", have been widely read and understood. Of course, the 'Road to Des Moines' can have an interesting side effect, as we have seen with Mitt Romney. Fred claims to be pro-life now,
and is "surprised" that people thought he was ever pro-choice. Indeed, he points to his record on abortion related votes as a testament. However, none of these votes goes to the central issue involved: Is the human fetus a person
deserving of constitutional protection? For Hunter the answer has always been a definitive YES! For Thompson, it is clear as mud. He is against "criminalizing" abortion, which means what? Pass a law to 'suggest' that women carry to term? Fred argued in 1996 to do away with the GOP platform and considered abortion to be a "distracting issue". If he has revised his thinking, fine. But let's get some straight answers about that conversion.
When did he change his mind on the validity of Roe versus Wade, which he previously supported, according to an interview with a Tennessee newspaper?
When did he decide that the GOP platform is actually NOT "the most useless device" he's ever heard of? Would he veto Hunter's 'Right to Life' bill
which would certainly criminalize abortion? To Hunter and most conservatives, the pro-life plank is not a distracting issue, it is fundamental to our beliefs.
To Fred, it's another subject requiring fuzzy brushstrokes.

Trade with China is an area where at first glance, it would seem that Hunter and Thompson might agree. After all, it was Thompson's investigation into the Clinton fundraising machine that brought many of China's malignant practices to public light. Thompson's own rhetoric had shown a serious mistrust of the Chinese. During debates on trade with China, Fred even sponsored an amendment to tie the trade to improved conduct on the part of the communists. Despite the failure of his amendment, Fred voted in favor of Permanent Most Favored Nation status for China in 2000. Hunter, ever the anti-communist, nearly succeeded in stopping this foolishness, warning that the Chinese would cheat in every which way they could. Once again, as we see from the headlines in 2007, Hunter had the correct foresight.

There is not enough time here to cover the McCain Feingold Thompson bill and Fred's role in its entirety. It is a long tale that lasts from 1995 through his last year as senator to his defense of the bill in the Supreme Court in 2003.

He considered it a seminal achievement in his senatorial career. In fact, looking closely at the things Thompson championed in his 8 years, it may be the only seminal achievement. His work on defense and intelligence issues was reasonable, but he certainly was not a standout in these areas. And his attempts to introduce a modicum of federalism were admirable, if largely unsuccessful. When you stack up that record with Duncan Hunter's bare knuckle fights and leadership for border enforcement, protection of life, expansion of military funding, the protection of critical military programs from Clinton's Pentagon, unflinching defense of the 2^nd Amendment, stands against Chinese communists, and supply side economics, there is little doubt who the 2008 Republican nominee should be.

In a word, yes. Watching the four GOP debates it becomes very clear how serious a candidate Hunter really is. Each question that he addressed was answered with conviction, common sense and authority. Even Mitt Romney (no weak debater himself), after one of the debates, gave props to Hunter. {For the record, it was not after the debate where Hunter stuffed him into the Kennedy wing of the party}. The level of gravitas and the sheer breadth of experience Hunter has over all the leading democrats combined is staggering. His expertise on the subject matter is never in question. And the authority he exhibits on military affairs leaves little doubt who would be the Commander in Chief most feared by our enemies, from the Iranian mullahs to the communists in Beijing.

A debate between Duncan Hunter and Hillary/Obama would be so one sided, it is difficult to find a modern parallel. And by the time Hunter wins the GOP nomination, the name/face recognition problems he suffers from currently will be a thing of the past.

So how does Hunter win the GOP nomination, starting at such a disadvantage compared to the "celebrity" candidates? After all, Rudy T. McRomney is not only a household name, but they collectively have most of the early, large GOP power brokers and donors behind them. Several points need to be made. First, looking at the money totals to date, the democrats are beating the republicans by a healthy clip. This indicates that most conservatives have not jumped into bed with Rudy, Mitt or McCain. Across the blogosphere and republican forums, it is obvious that a portion of those people holding their wallets tightly are waiting for Fred to officially enter the fray. But an equal number of conservatives are for 'none of the above' at this time (as shown by several polls), perhaps waiting for the political season to kick off after Labor Day to begin paying attention. So there is a natural constituency of support for Hunter if he can get his message out. Second, and fortunately for Hunter, his supporters are mostly highly enthusiastic about the man. And that message is getting out.

First it was a small number of passionate bloggers that early on examined Hunter or knew of his record. Now, there are dozens and the list keeps growing. The fact that Hunter is NOT going to drop out and is not just testing the waters – he is resigning from Congress in 2008, unlike the others – gives Hunter supporters the luxury of campaigning for the long haul. 'Meetup' sites have sprung up and they are starting to coordinate their efforts nationwide. Third, as Fred's record in the Senate is examined, and his continued fuzziness on the issues remains, more 'Fredheads' are going to be looking for a candidate they can trust to forward the conservative agenda. Already, many people who were placing hope in Fred have seen him hire Spencer Abraham (an open borders stiff), flub the abortion lobbying issue, and are realizing his record is that of moderate, semi-globalist Howard Baker protégé, not a Reaganite. Fourth, the things that make Hunter most attractive are all coming to the fore. From China's continued malfeasance on trade and security, to communists thugs setting up shop in South America, to the debate over illegal aliens and some odious NAFTA provisions, to cultural issues such as gay marriage and the ACLU's attacks on our heritage, to the need for an even stronger Commander in Chief to take the reigns from President Bush in our war against the islamists, to core issues of national sovereignty, Hunter IS the right man at the right time.

And finally, a note to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talkers that cover America's airwaves and are on the front lines in the fight against liberalism. After the debacle of the 2006 midterm election, you, Mr. Limbaugh, came out in no uncertain terms that you were through "carrying water" for the republicans. That too often, you gave the GOP's march to the mushy middle too little attention. You and other radio hosts, rightly I believe, diagnosed the ills of the republicans in power back then as a lack of focus on core issues of conservatism. The prescription, in your view, was a return to Reaganism. The run up to the 2006 vote saw President Bush, VP Cheney and a small handful of congressional allies defending the Iraq war while multitudes of GOP congressman 'cut and run' from the debate, leaving the playing field largely to the MSM and their democratic comrades. We saw talk of perhaps finding common ground on global warming and fear about pushing ahead ANWR exploration. We saw a party fretting about defending our trampled borders for fear of the Hispanic vote. We saw precious little effort expended to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. We saw Bill Frist and friends cut the president off at the knees when he waded out into the Social Security debate swamp. We saw efforts to reign in Iran fail as we foolishly relied on our European allies and the United Nations.

Given all of the above and the frustration of seeing too many cowardly republicans refusing to stand on principle, or even worse, co-opting nuggets of the liberal agenda, it has become imperative that we all support the best real conservative in the 2008 primary. No more support for flip flopping, wishy-washy, or liberal candidates. That means no support for Rudy the NY liberal, who would sign just about any gun control bill the liberals could cough up. After all, his record on the 2^nd Amendment is indistinguishable from that of Michael Bloomberg. That means no support for Mitt Romney, who a few short years ago could have been running as a democrat and no one would have batted an eye, and whose Road to Des Moines conversions would be flogged 24/7 by the media and democrats. That means no support for John McCain, who is the poster child for Amnesty and Accommodation with his "good friend" Hillary. That means no support for Fred Thompson, who either has the world's worst memory, or is busy trying to obfuscate his past and convince us that he was really a Reaganite, not the Howard Baker/John McCain poodle we all understood him to be a few short years ago.

It is simply intolerable to hear the likes of Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett and others singing the praises of liberal and moderate celebrities as if they are offering our nation and the Grand Old Party a new conservative direction. If the frontrunners were named Linc, Arnold, Lindsey and Lamar instead of Rudy, Mitt, John, and Fred, there would be no qualitative difference.

That leaves Duncan Hunter as the man that ALL conservatives can support. And support enthusiastically.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Links of interest:

Some military historian who is also a DH supporter needs to research the units that Duncan was in during the time period he was in. No doubt he must’ve seen some heavy combat and most likely thats why he’s reluctant to talk about it. But it could help his campaing a lot if it came to light that this particular unit that he happened to be in was involved in heavy combat, etc, etc, with some of the details. Kind of a “reverse swift boat” if you know what I mean. I mean, if you compare Duncan and John Kerry. Kerry droaned on and on about his Vietnam experience. Hunter refuses to talk about his. Kerry, turns out, insisted on a Purple Heart after a medic pull a grain of rice out from his bottom. So he could get out of there after 4 months or so. Hunter volunteered for a 2nd term.
More info about what actions his units were involved in, possible medals or awards he might have won, etc, could propel his candidacy. But its up to others to do it. Duncan will not. He’s too much of a real man for that.
You military historians out there - get busy. DD

It is already public knowledge that Duncan Hunter was honored with the Semper Fidelis award by the United States Marine Corps and the Keeper of the Flame Award by the Center for Security Policy in 2006.

The wall is around him because he poses a threat to people with financial interests in free trade, wall street and the borders.

Heck, I’m convinced God even spoke during the NH debates.

Gathering more information at this point would be doing the same old/same old and running in the same circles.

This is going to take a major out of the box effort.

Dear pissant,

“There’s that ‘you give Hunter a bad name’ crap again. It’s ridiculous.”

I don’t think it’s so ridiculous. I know posters who have decided that Mr. Hunter’s not for them, because the supporters that he seems to draw don’t represent him well. It’s just human nature.

As for what happened with the rudybots, although a few posters got personal, most of the rudybots were complaining about “bashing” when folks reminded them that Mr. Giuliani is pro-abort, pro-homosexual agenda, anti-gun, etc. I’m not complaining about folks pointing out that Mr. Thompson backed McCain-Feingold, or other faults, perceived or real.

However, there ARE threads that have repeated lies or distortions about Mr. Thompson, and that does get tiresome.

“Go back and look at where the ‘trouble’ of personal attacks started on those Fred threads.”

I don’t really need to go back to old threads to see the source of the trouble is. I see it right here.

sitetest

Dear Czar,

“...I’m afraid candidates would use ‘states’ rights’ as a cop-out to avoid stating their honest position.”

I guess, I don’t care as much about their honest position, if they work to send the issue back to the states.

That’s because if Roe were overturned, laws would go into effect in about 30 states significantly restricting abortion.

And that would be a great start.

And when folks saw that the sky didn’t fall in when most abortions were made illegal in most states, folks would start to think about making even more illegal in more states.

The fact is that at the time of the ruling of Roe in 1973, no state had passed more permissive abortion laws since 1970, and several states were moving back to more restrictive laws.

In fact, two years after passing the most liberal abortion law in the United States, the legislature of New York in 1972 repealed the permissive abortion law, and the bill they passed would have made abortion mostly illegal again. Only the veto of Gov. Rockefeller prevented that.

I may be wrong, but I have a firm belief that if folks are given back their right to legislate on this issue, that folks will vote for ever-increasingly pro-life policies.

Thus, a president who privately wishes this would all just go away as a federal issue, and doesn’t really care whether abortion is legal, illegal, mandatory, or what, and is willing to appoint justices who will overturn Roe to make it go away as a federal issue, is fine with me, if not ideal.

sitetest

Dear WFTR,

In my own estimation, I think that Mr. Thompson took seriously things like separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, etc. Not to say that he always and everywhere acted perfectly consistently with these principles, but I think that he at least gave them thought and consideration when making political decisions.

I don’t think that any of the other candidates currently running, Democrat or Republican, ever gave a first thought to these issues, with the exception of Dr. Paul. I’m not sure that all of the candidates actually even UNDERSTAND these issues at any depth.

In any event, it would be nice to have a president who actually thought about these questions before setting policy. I’m sure that anyone politically successful enough to become president would also be savvy enough to compromise on these questions when he thought necessary, but it would be refreshing to see them brought back into political thought at the highest levels of our federal government.

sitetest

Dear pissant,

“I see the insults at 50/50, and that’s being generous.”

Since we discussed this previously, I’ve been paying more attention, because although my impression of Hunter supporters before was highly negative, I thought that I should give it a more critical look. I don’t have time to go back through multi-hundred-post-threads, but I CAN pay attention to new threads, especially those in which I participate. So far, it looks about 90% - 10% (generously) from what I’ve seen since I’ve paid more attention.

“But unlike some who get their feelings hurt because I exposed Fred’s moderate past, I did not and won’t bellyache to the Fred campaign, to the FR mods or to anyone.”

I’m not sure it’s a matter of folks getting their feelings hurt. I think the folks I’ve seen turned off from Mr. Hunter because of the actions of his supporters have been OBSERVERS of food fights, not participants. In fact, in the thread that I misattributed to you, I was an observer initially. I was disgusted at the treatment of others, not of myself.

“Regardless, for the most part you and I have been civil, so I anticipate it will stay that way.”

You’ve mostly been civil, and mostly avoided insult and invective toward me.

And I appreciate that.

It can be fun to disagree with folks, but it’s more fun when we’re not disagreeable (credit to Mr. Chesterton, of course).

sitetest

"I may be wrong, but I have a firm belief that if folks are given back their right to legislate on this issue, that folks will vote for ever-increasingly pro-life policies."

I wish I could share your belief but I don't. Here in California, for example, I have little doubt it would be made legal if left to the tender mercies of Sacramento.

"Thus, a president who privately wishes this would all just go away as a federal issue, and doesn’t really care whether abortion is legal, illegal, mandatory, or what, and is willing to appoint justices who will overturn Roe to make it go away as a federal issue, is fine with me..."

We disagree here as well. This is the kind of attitude that encourages, say, someone like Bush to toss CFR over the transom to SCOTUS because he didn't want to make the hard decision to veto the damned thing and left it to the gang of nine who, of course, screwed it up and declared only a small part of it invalid. That was a travesty having real freedom of speech consequences.

Dear Czar,

“I wish I could share your belief but I don’t. Here in California, for example, I have little doubt it would be made legal if left to the tender mercies of Sacramento.”

Probably not. At least not until the culture changed in California.

But the only way to build support for a nationwide solution is first for folks in the several states to see that they can live without abortion on demand.

In my fantasies, I think it would be great if the Court were to decide that the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments did, in fact, apply to unborn human beings, and thus, by decree of the Court, said that abortion was the taking of an innocent human life. And then instructed the states to make laws protecting the lives of the unborn.

Or alternatively, we might elect a president who would understand that the Supreme Court had no more power to unilaterally overturn abortion laws throughout the United States than Chief Justice Taney had the right to declare that black folks weren’t persons. And then, this president would unilaterally act to dismantle the current abortion regime, ordering federal criminal prosecutions of abortionists, siezing their assets, prosecuting and closing down corrupt organizations like Planned Parenthood, etc.

But the first fantasy would likely create the mirror image of what we see today - a frustrated political system forbidden from dealing with the question. And the second fantasy would quickly become a constitutional crisis.

I’m not sure that either idea would permanently bring to an end the horror of legal abortion on demand.

More darkly, a dystopic path could be that our nation might suffer from some sort of discontinuity that would bring to an end the scourge of abortion on demand. The Civil War was the discontinuity that brought about the end of slavery. I’m not much in favor of discontinuities, even when I favor some of their results.

So, it seems to me that we’re just going to have to be in it for the long haul. And we’ll have to rely on those “laboratories of democracy” - the states - to show that there is life after abortion on demand.

It was happening already in the early 1970s, before Roe. By the grace of God, it could happen again.

But for that to ever start to happen, Roe must go. Hence my tagline.

“We disagree here as well. This is the kind of attitude that encourages, say, someone like Bush to toss CFR over the transom to SCOTUS...”

I understand what you’re saying, but I think that the two issues are fundamentally different, in fact, are the mirror images of each other. In the latter example that you give, the president was looking for the Court to correct the mistake of THE CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE, while in the case of abortion, a president with the attitude that I described is merely looking for the Court to correct ITS OWN mistake.

sitetest

Dear pissant,

“Now you see more Hunterite knocks on Fredheads (you) because you are on Hunter threads, and choose to challenge Hunter fans.”

LOL!!

You guys may need to grow a little tougher skin if anyone views my participation here as a “challenge” to Hunter fans. Unlike many of the threads where Hunter supporters have genuinely denigrated Mr. Thompson, often with outright lies and distortions, all I’ve said here is, I like Mr. Hunter, but I prefer Mr. Thompson because I think he’s more electable.

About the most “challenging” thing I’ve said regarding Mr. Hunter is that I find him a competent, articulate speaker, but not with the charisma and force of personality that a modern president can really use.

As to your link, I’m really trying to avoid going through dozens of threads to try to figure out who hit who first. And if I start with the one that you offer up, seeing your bias, I’d be duty-bound to look for others myself, or solicit from Thompson supporters instances where they believe that you and others behaved egregiously. But the bottom line is that I’m not some sort of thread judge, and I just don’t have time, interest, or inclination for that sort of thing.

Like I said, my general impression previously had been that the Hunter supporters were mostly to blame for these internecine wars, but you persuaded me to give it a more careful look. I will for threads that I see now and into the future. This is really the first thread I’ve followed since our previous discussion. And frankly, some of the Hunter folks have acquitted themselves poorly.

I understand why I saw posters observing other threads get turned off from Mr. Hunter.

sitetest

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.