“It’s deja vu all over again, baby. Been there done that, not voting for the lesser of the evils this time.”
Agree, which is why I won’t be voting for Duncan Hunter. Although perfection is hard to come by. The guys who are fighting the earmarks are heroes, but DH isn’t helping them. Ronald Reagan was for limited government, cutting government spending. I’m looking for someone like that. DH hasn’t shown me the inclination by his voting record. There are other things as well.
You need to take another look and don’t believe the innuendos that are dropped with no facts to back them up.
DUNCAN HUNTER: Let me give a few examples of Hunter “earmarks”:
1) The double fence between Tijuana and San Diego that reduced smuggling of people and narcotics by more than 90%.
2) 10,000 jammers for troops in Iraq to protect against roadside bombs.
3) Filtration ponds on the most polluted river in North America (New River at the Mexican border) which have been credited with providing a 90% cleanup of the tainted water which is diverted through them.
My point is: Representatives of congressional districts are supposed to put together the budget of the United States. There is no Constitutional basis for the new thinking that the President’s budget is sacrosanct and that any changes by the very Representatives of the areas affected are somehow “illegitimate”. Spending or participating in the budget process is not, in and of itself, illegitimate, but is rather the very obligation of Congress. That said, wasteful projects should be eliminated, and their authors held politically accountable. You may notice that I post all my Congressional initiatives on the internet so that Americans can judge my record.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1880600/posts?q=1&;page=101
It is because you haven’t looked very hard.