Exclusive: Freeper Interview with Duncan Hunter

Hunter: I’m here in my hotel room with a couple of hours to kill before I go on the Sean Hannity show. I thought I’d call and we could finish up.

Hunter: His producer called us. They got this panel they put together on the show, kind of a panel, his sounding board, if you will.

PA: Yeah, and it may have been you who pushed him over the top, because it really was a whisker. And to be frank, I never paid much attention to Reichert until Craig Keller called me and told me you were coming up here to campaign for him. And that got my interest, and of course I threw him a few shekels. He’s not in my district, but I figured what the heck. Reichert’s turning out to be a good guy. When he first ran, I don’t know if you remember, but he ran as one of those mushy moderates. A lot of that may have had to do with his particular district. But he’s turned out to be a pretty solid guy.

PA: Yeah, you worked with him, so you got to know him. And we’ll take him over the alternative, because the alternative, in that case, the gal he beat, was about….well, she’d hug the life out of any tree she could get her hands on. So we are very fortunate that we got that one.

PA: Anyway, we were able to talk a bit about national security last time, and you gave some great answers, and I didn’t want to interrupt you, you had great, long answers and very in depth…

PA: Yes. I don’t know if you realize this, congressman, but I think your most ardent fans dwell on the Free Republic website…

PA: Well, you know (laughs). But I was able to connect with some very good people across the country through the site. Ends up there was a cross pollination of Freepers and Hunter volunteers. So it was kinda fun.

Hunter: No listen, I really appreciate that too. That’s great of you to do these interviews. And you’re right, we’ve got to finish this thing. So whatever you got, I’m ready to roll.

PA: OK. Free Republic is a conservative website. It is not a republican website, but 90% of the people are GOPers, because the alternatives are slim. But we are all conservative. And our biggest fear over the last few years - probably from the 2nd half of the Bush administration right on through the present day, including the nomination of John McCain, is that the Republicans have lost their will to continue the Reagan Revolution. And by Reagan Revolution I mean smaller government - not more efficient, not "we can do that cheaper than the democrats"- but real smaller government, and a devolution of power to the states. And Reagan was very Pro-life, as you are. But we see the party has moved away from Reagan. And I just want your take on the current status of the Republican Party, in your view.

Hunter: Well, I think a party is largely defined by it's president, and those that run...I mean Barry Goldwater largely defined the Republican Party by winning the nomination against the Rockefeller wing in '64 in the nominating contest. And Ronald Reagan defined it later by almost taking the presidential nod, the nomination, from a sitting Republican President, Gerry Ford. And later, by winning the contest in 1980.

Hunter: I think because the nature of government is to grow, the process of being a conservative, or being a conservative means that you have to constantly be mowing the grass. That is: Actively pushing back against government. Because the tendency is always to grow, because there is always something "to do". And anytime you have an entity such as government with a taxing power, you'll have the tendency to find things to spend that money on and to increase taxes to support it. So conservatives, by definition, have to be activists. Obviously, you've got legitimate governmental functions under the Reagan model which were necessarily very strong, like national security. And Reagan rebuilt national security. But his initial efforts to abolish, for example, he talked about abolishing the Department of Education, and he didn't do it. He did indeed abolish some departments. For example Dan McKinnon who was chairmen of the Civil Aeronautics Board phased out his own agency. And you had other smaller agencies that were sunsetted. But the apparatus, the process of "taking down" government that exists is very difficult. It always tends to draw alot of fire and alot of resistance, from those who have a stake in the maintenance of large government.

Hunter: So generally speaking, to gather the momentum that is necessary to downsize government, you need a presidential candidate that supports that model, that conservative, constitutional model. And he needs two things. He needs to have the right philosopy, and secondly, he needs to win.

PA: Yes indeed. And that is why we supported you. I did my research. And people who are activists like me, like minded people, did their research, and vigorously researched not only on the current rhetoric, but also the records of the candidates. And of course we found everyone's got some good points and bad points - no doubt about that. Even old John McCain's has some good points. But in the overall scheme of things, he did not - even though he said he did - he did NOT represent the Reagan wing of the party. And he spent the last 6, 8, or 10 years proving that, beyond the shadow of a doubt. So this is why we supported you. And I think that you actually got the short end of the stick from the party - any kind of support from the party. Whether it was the party proper - the RNC. Or, the large GOP donors. What do you think the reason was that monied GOP donors went with John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani?

Hunter: Well first, listen. The worst thing in show business is whining. I don't believe in it. There are no excuses for a campaign. While there may be reasons for losing, there are no excuses. I don't believe... We've got alot of whiners out there, but I'm a guy that got into politics on a shoestring campaign, and beat a guy who was heavily entrenched and had been in for a long time. I still believe this is the land of opportunity and it extends, it extends even to the "big" races.

Hunter: Actually, there is no monolith republican party. There is not a grand wizard that sits behind a curtain who decides who gets money and who does not get money. Who gets help and who doesn’t get help. The national committee is, as you know, basically a figurehead. Generally speaking, the head of the national Republican Party can get his wife to vote with him on most occasions and that’s about it. And I think that is illustrated by the present circumstances, the present situation.

Hunter: So there is no monolith that makes decisions. And you’ve got to get out and you’ve got to make that sale. And nobody has a right to have support from the millions of people that comprise the Republican party. You’ve got to earn it. For example, Huckabee started with a very small base and very small name recognition, but had enormous organizational capability. And he parlayed those organizational capabilities, along with a good speaking style, and I think good debate capabilities, into making a real race of it with McCain. So I think this is still a big, wide open process. And I came up way short in this process. I ran out of ammunition early, threw the ammo boxes at ‘em, but it’s all fun, and it’s all worthwhile. And I think that we drove some issues.

Hunter: So you could say the same thing about Huckabee. That he started with a small base. He didn’t have the Giuliani/McCain/Romney money supporters. Yet he ended up being the last guy standing between McCain and the nomination. And almost winning it. An argument can be made that if Fred Thompson had not been in the South Carolina primary, if he had gotten out earlier, Huckabee would have won that primary.

Hunter: Well I don’t know. I know if he had gotten out – and I’m sure that was not lost on the McCain folks, he split that conservative vote…

Hunter: Yeah, I don’t know what….but everybody has a right to run for president. Nobody has a right to tell Fred Thompson that he can’t run.

Hunter: But my point is that Huckabee came close. Coming from a dead start. So I like the process, it’s a wide open process. And he did a much better job than the rest of us who did not have a lot of resources going in. He parlayed a shoestring into a very formidable national campaign.

PA: And I’ll tell you exactly why he did that, because I followed this thing like you you couldn’t believe. My opinion, and it is shared by quite a few of us, is when you did that “Values Voters” debate. Right off the bat, there was a large group of Christians, evangelicals mainly, the conservative Christian right, that did not have a lot of love for Rudy, Mitt, or McCain. And they were looking for somebody. And after that Values Voters debate, Janet Folger, amongst others, came out and said “this is our guy”. Even though many of us more conservative Christians, said, “No! no, this is not our guy”. But some of the National spokesmen, really got behind him. And he ended up getting a groundswell of support, for Mr. Huckabee – and good for him – but being a Hunter guy that was not exactly thrilling to me. (laughs).

Hunter: Listen, that’s kind of you. Huckabee got a big push too by being very well organized in Iowa and coming in 2nd behind a heavily financed Romney. It gave him enormous press.

PA: It did. But I tell you what. When you went down to Texas, a conservative state, relatively speaking, and basically smoked the competition in the straw poll, which was the largest straw poll outside Iowa. The media did not give you the time of day.

Hunter: Right, they didn’t give us the time of day. I think the reason they did that though some of the other guys finessed that fairly effectively. Because it wasn’t well attended. Huckabee was going to go to the Texas straw poll, then he cancelled fairly late. I think Mccain and Thompson cancelled early, although Thompson had a fairly big presence there with his people.

Hunter: yeah, it was all fun, but listen. The point is, it’s still and open process. And with a lot of effort…uh this was a system in which McCain was considered largely to be the anointed Republican nominee.

Hunter: But Huckabee, coming almost out of nowhere, almost won. So I think the process is still an open process, an admirable process. It’s still one that a guy can come in fairly – if he can hit that spark – with fairly meager resources and have a good chance to do well. And obviously, on the democrat side, I think Obama is an example of that too. I think Hillary Clinton, even more than McCain, was the anointed candidate.

PA: yes, but on the Obama side, or the democrat side, there’s not a stone’s throws difference between the two.

Hunter: That’s true, except she was “the” candidate. In terms of building a campaign from basically nothing, Obama did an excellent job of that.

PA: Yes, but still, there was a lot of conservatives that sat on their hands when it got down to Huckabee and McCain. That were not thrilled with either. It really takes a what I believe to be a Reaganite, to reunite the party. That’s where we are hoping that you haven’t completely retired from politics. Are you considering, or is it possible, you may get back into politics?

Hunter: Politics, or running for office, it is a process of identifying an opportunity and responding to it. And as you know, politics is largely timing. And if the right opportunity presented itself, I’m not foreclosed at all to running again.

PA: This is one of the reasons that I’ve coaxed myself into trying to interview you. If indeed, you don’t want to slam the door shut and say “ah, I’m done with it, I’ll retire and just throw my 2 cents in from the sidelines occasionally”, if you indeed you think it is possible to run in the future, whether for the Senate, or the presidency again, or even governor, whatever the case may be. The thing that Ronald Reagan did after his loss in 1976, though he did this even before challenging Ford, but especially in those years after that primary, is that he gave speeches, he wrote papers, he kept himself in the public eye, and so by the time…

Hunter: That did more than the papers or speeches. You know, they asked him if he wanted to do a TV show, and he said “no, I’d rather do radio”. He said “people will get tired of me if they see me on TV, I wanna do radio”. (laughs)

PA: So anyway, that’s why I was very interested when you said you were writing a book, or that you were busy writing some policy papers on China and foreign policy. Because I think we are in for a real bad stretch here, coming down the pike. The Obama administration has started off very poorly, and I don’t see it – well I’m hoping that it gets better- but I don’t see it so. I mean Hugo Chavez is making noise, the Iranians are making lots more noise. I’m sure you see the same things I do. Obama’s team does not instill a lot of confidence in me…

Hunter: I don’t think Obama’s team instills a lot of confidence in Obama’s team. (laughs)

Hunter: But listen, I’ve got to get ready for this thing (Hannity show), so you hang in there. And no, I have not foreclosed anything. And I’m going to continue to keep a little bit in the public eye.

PA: Well, and that is where we could help you. We can keep you….everything you write and even this interview is going to go out and be distributed. We want to help you. There is a large group of us that are net savvy, that have well read blogs, better than some of the guys that were helping you before, with divided loyalties. We are behind you 100%. And we’ll help keep you in that public eye as much as possible.

Hunter: Well listen, I think that talking about these issues and discussing them is a little bit of a public value, so I’m going to do that anyway.

Hunter: Whether I run or not, I think it’s of value to the old national discussion.

PA: Well you keep us in mind. I tell you what, congressman Hunter, I sure appreciate your time. I know you have things to do. But is at possible at some point in the near future, that several of us diehards, so to speak, can come down, fly down to San Diego and take you out to dinner sometime?

PA: no we’ll take you out. You are poor now, you can’t afford this kind of thing (laughs).

PA: Now I don’t want to be constantly bugging you by calling you. Can I get a hold of you by email?

Hunter: Get a hold of me through Roy. I don’t have an email, but Roy’s got one and he loves this stuff.

Hunter: yeah, still in New York. Got to do the show tonight. Should be the Hannity thing tonight.

PA: OK, well I’m going to hopefully get that on Youtube, post it and spread the Hutner virus. Anyway. Have a safe trip home and we’ll be in touch with you.

Hunter: I’ll do it, my friend. And listen, thanks so much for supporting me. Thanks for calling, and thanks for helping old Dave Reichert too. That was a valuable hit.

Hunter: That dude was down to what was it, a couple hundred votes in the end?

Hunter: Remember the old days, when we came into power in ’94, we swept in like six new seats in Washington State.

PA: Yeah, yeah, you know why? Because the party was running on a conservative agenda.

PA: Right now it’s every man for himself, we need that uniter to come back and pull the conservative reigns back in.

PA: There was a reason Ron Paul was very popular, and it wasn’t because of his foreign policy. It was because of his small government….

Hunter: You know, in fact my dad and I were listening to..it was the first libertarian we listened to. This when I was first running back in 1980. And this guy got up and he talked about smaller government - so kinda nodding, he talked about low taxes - and we continued to nod, he talked about deregulation – we nodded, and then he said “and as for defense, we don’t need any defense.” He said, “what we’re going to do is the libertarian way”. He said “we’re going to buy ‘War Insurance’, and if we get conquered, we’ll collect the money”…

Hunter: It was a libertarian candidate. Libertarian candidates have a way of sounding normal for about a half an hour. Then the last 10 minutes when they tell us they want to legalize drugs, we fall out of our chairs. It was a great first exposure to a libertarian candidate. (laughs). 30 minute speech, normal for 28 minutes.

PA: Yeah, he sounds sensible for 75, 80% of the time. Then he goes with Dennis Kucinich and tries to get the Congress to back out of Afghanistan and Pakistan and to quit killing the Taliban. Anyway, I won’t confuse you with a libertarian, I never would. I consider you a Reaganite, and one of the few. You know who else is pretty good, is Mike Pence…

Hunter: Well listen, thanks for calling, thanks for all your time and efforts.

PA: I’ll be getting a hold of you for coming down to San Diego one of these days.

McCain wasn't my choice. I just recognized he wasn't as dangerous to the USA as Obama.... you went out of your way to elect Obama President because your guy didn't win the nomination.

BTW... love him or hate him in all his years as a senator McCain has taken -0- $$$$ in pork...

and, the $6500 was misleading, Hunters son actually received campaign contributions via some help from things Duncan did while still in congress.... even the Washington Times, a conservative publication, reported on it -- and FOR THE RECORD I support defense spending, but if we are going to excoriate Murtha for this, Hunter should not get a free pass, I think we need to look at everyone with the same scrutiny, not doing so is one reason the GOP lost their hold on power... this is why cheer leading is so bad and so dangerous... none of us should be cheerleaders, rather we should be as tough or tougher critics of our own guys as we are the other side so there is no fingers pointed back at us.... but once one of our side is running directly against their side we should fight like hell to win, not pull the rug out.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/13/hunters-earmarks-benefit-his-son/

Monday, October 13, 2008

Duncan Hunter's earmarks benefit his son

Matthew Cella (Contact)

EXCLUSIVE:

Defense contractors who received millions of dollars in government earmarks arranged by Rep. Duncan Hunter are now helping to fill the campaign coffers of his son, who is seeking the San Diego-area congressional seat being vacated by his father after 28 years, records show.

Officials at several companies that benefited from the pet project spending requests that the veteran Republican lawmaker inserted into often-unrelated legislation have contributed more than $30,000 to the front-running campaign of his son, Duncan D. Hunter, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records.

As chairman of the Armed Services Committee until Democrats took control of the House in 2006, Mr. Hunter - who announced his retirement in May - has unabashedly attached earmarks to spending bills during his 14 terms in Congress. He listed the earmarks on his House Web page as "funding initiatives."

In contrast to promises by Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona to hold members of Congress accountable for earmarks and to "veto every pork-barrel earmark spending bill that comes across my desk," Mr. Hunter and his son embrace the practice - particularly for making military budgets.

The Hunters argue that the Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to "raise and support armies" and, as a result, members of the House and Senate are not bound solely by requests of the president or the Pentagon.

The younger Mr. Hunter, 31, a Marine Corps Reserve captain with two tours of duty in Iraq, said he does not think Mr. McCain, if elected, would veto a bill because it provided additional support for the military. He also noted that the donations he received from defense contractors represented only a small part of his $841,000 campaign war chest.

"We've had over 4,000 contributors," he said. "We get money from all over, mostly from individuals throughout the country who believe in what I stand for."

His Democratic challenger, Mike Lumpkin, a retired Navy SEAL commander who also served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said the earmarking process has been institutionalized. Although earmarking is needed in some cases, he said, it should be the "exception, not the rule."

Mr. Lumpkin acknowledged that the amount of money that Mr. Hunter's campaign collected from defense contractors with earmarks was small, but he criticized Mr. Hunter for accepting the contributions.

"Is it illegal? That's beyond my area of expertise," he said. "But does it smell? Absolutely. Does it matter what percentage, or is it the principle? We should have legislators who are above reproach in their actions."

Through June, Mr. Lumpkin raised $291,658 in a district where registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats 44 percent to 31 percent, according to a report released last month by California's secretary of state office. He received one $500 donation from a person identifying himself as an employee with one of the companies for whom the elder Mr. Hunter secured an earmark.

Through June, the records show, Mr. Hunter received $17,750 from people identifying themselves as employees or executives of defense contractors who were beneficiaries of earmarks over the past two years. Among them:

c A $19 million award to L-3 Communications Corp. in San Diego, a major supplier of homeland defense products and services. The earmarked money was for the development and testing of a missile system. L-3 Communications is the sixth-largest defense company in the United States.

c A $1.5 million award to San Diego-based Trex Enterprises Corp., a high-tech defense contractor specializing in microwave sensing, high-resolution imaging, digital signal processing, applied optics and materials. The earmarked money was to develop a device to help helicopter pilots navigate with limited visibility.

c Millions of dollars in earmarks for Dupont Aerospace in the San Diego area for the development of the DP-2 vertical takeoff and landing aircraft to transport special operations forces. More than $60 million has been appropriated for the aircraft, which has been rejected by the Navy, Army and Air Force.

FEC records show that executives at L-3 Communications contributed $2,750 to the younger Mr. Hunter's campaign, while corporate officials at Trex Enterprises donated $7,100. Officials at Dupont Aerospace contributed $5,100 to the Hunter campaign, according to the records.

Mr. Hunter's campaign also received $5,000 from political action committees controlled by executives of companies that benefited from the earmarks that his father secured and more than $9,500 from lobbying firms that represented contractors given earmarks, according to FEC records.

Among them, lobbyists for L-3 Communications and Trex Enterprises, identified as Northpoint Strategies and American Defense International, contributed $3,500 to the Republican candidate, the records show.

Other contributions from employees or executives of defense contractors benefiting from the Hunter earmarks include $350 from an official at Information Systems Laboratories, which received a $500,000 earmark; $250 from an official at defense and space technology consortium Defcomm, which received $8 million in earmarks; $500 from an official at NovaSol, which received a $1 million earmark; and $1,700 from officials at BAE Systems, which partially owns missile manufacturer MBDA that was among several companies that shared a $15 million earmark.

The elder Mr. Hunter said each of the earmarked projects stands up to scrutiny and rejected the notion that accepting campaign funds from defense contractors made him beholden to them.

"If you look at the actions I've taken, I basically try to do what's right for the country and let the chips fall where they may," he said, citing examples he said were unpopular with defense contractors - including a 1997 decision to cut the Navy's $2.2 billion request for 20 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to four aircraft and, instead, buy 20 earlier-model F/A-18C/D aircraft for about $1.5 billion.

The younger Mr. Hunter said that lawmakers' practice of inserting earmarks into funding bills may need to be re-examined but that military applications can benefit. He said "transparency" and "accountability" are necessary but that Congress is "responsible for appropriating money to the military." "I think we've proven we're above reproach on this stuff," he said.

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.