Posted on 08/25/2010 8:29:03 PM PDT by pissant
This interview is part of an ongoing 2010 series of conversations with former Congressman and conservative icon Duncan Lee Hunter. Though he is in the final days of editing his new book on the Iraq War, he has been involved in a number of campaigns for conservative congressional candidates and is still keenly interested in getting his views out to the public. With any luck, Hunter will toss his hat back in the ring for the 2012 presidency, but for now he’s trying to reinvigorate the GOP with a return to Reaganism.
AJM: Today is primary day for a couple of States, Florida and Arizona, so we’ll find out if JD Hayworth can tack McCain or not. I don’t think he’s going to, unfortunately. Did you hear that McCain put $21 million into his primary campaign?
DH: No, I didn’t. That is an astronomical number. But let me tell you, there are two races that I’m involved in there, that I’ve really worked hard on. Those two races are Sydney Hay, running in Arizona 1. I really respect Sydney Hay. She’s a tremendous candidate, she’s a tremendous conservative, and she’s got a great chance of beating Ann Kirkpatrick – I think that’s the name of the Democrat incumbent. Then in the Tucson race, Jesse Kelly. A six foot eight Marine Corporal who was part of the historic march up to Baghdad in 2003. He’s running a wonderful campaign and I’ve been over a number of times to help Jesse. I’m very hopeful with respect to that campaign. And you know, I’ve also campaigned for Sam Crump; a good guy and another good conservative. But he has very few resources compared to some of the heavily moneyed guys who are running in that particular district in Arizona. But I like Sam.
AJM: Sam seems like a really good guy.
DH: Yeah. So those are three that I worked on and was involved in. So I’ve got my fingers crossed.
AJM: If we could get two out of those three, that’d be great (Ed. Note: Only one of the three won: Jesse Kelly in Az 8).
It’s funny. In Arizona 1, where you’ve endorsed Sydney, Sarah Palin has made a big to do about endorsing her opponent in the primary. So it’s you against Palin again. (laughs)
DH: Well, that’s too bad. You know, what’s interesting is that Sydney is a very well spoken, conservative leader. And the idea that Sarah Palin wouldn’t feel some empathy for this hard charging, conservative female candidate seems to me, unusual. I think Sarah Palin doesn’t know either one of the candidates, or she might have only been introduced to one of them. But nonetheless, Sydney Hay is every bit the conservative leader that Sarah Palin is.
AJM: Well I’ve got news for you, Sarah Palin is not all that conservative compared to the crowd you run around in. (laughs)
DH: Well, since she didn’t endorse Sydney Hay, I’m beginning to agree with you. (laughing)
AJM: Well she also made a big splash and campaign appearances endorsing McCain and several other less than conservative…
DH: Well who knows? You’ll have to ask Sarah Palin, or Palin’s campaign, why they would endorse against Sydney Hay. She’s a tremendous candidate and is THE proven conservative in that race.
AJM: And Jesse Kelly is THE conservative down in Tucson, what is that the 8th district?
DH: I don’t know, but it is the Tucson district.
AJM: Yeah, Tucson. And I believe he’s gotten into a little spat with Palin too over some of her endorsements. Now the Palin brigades, the folks who run the Palin 2012 websites, are trying to pretend Kelly is no conservative. That’s laughable. I think someone is out to sabotage the Hunter wing of the party, is my take on it.
DH: Well, I’m hoping that the true conservatives win. And that is Sydney Hay and Jesse Kelly.
AJM: All the establishment money is going to that state senator running against Kelly. The RNC and the local party bosses are dumping money into Kelly’s opponent. But I think Kelly is now ahead in the polls, so that’s a good sign.
DH: Yeah, that’s great news.
AJM: He reminds me a little of Gunny Pop, when he just talks off the top of his head, and he gets pretty passionate about things.
DH: Well, he’s also paid his dues. I mean here’s a guy that is from a large construction company family, who decided not to go the business route, but rather to join the US Marines and cram his 6’8” frame into an amtrac on this historic fight to Baghdad from the Kuwait border, as a rifleman in the Marine Corps. To me, that shows a lot of character. What the people should be looking for in these campaigns is character.
Anyone can take a poll and then say ‘I’m going to be for whatever reaches up to the sixty percent level in the polls and that’s going to be my principles.’ But the only way for the people to be ensured that principles, conservative principles, will be followed is by electing candidates of strong character, who will hold those positions come heck or high water.
Now a guy like Jesse Kelly, who fought his way up to Baghdad in a Marine platoon when he could have had a much more convenient, risk adverse life back in the States running a construction company, shows character.
AJM: Two other quick questions. You’re still involved with the ACU, you’re still on the board of directors?
DH: I don’t know if my position has expired or not. I haven’t told them I want off of it, but I don’t know if I’m still on the board. That may have expired with the last year I was in congress.
AJM: Well anyway, they have managed to push the gay agenda. Last year they had a booth set up for GOProud, kind of the successor organization to the Log Cabin Republicans. You know who those guys are.
DH: Yeah.
AJM: Anyway, this year, the ACU brought in GOProud, the gay rights organization, as an associate sponsor. And I’m thinking this is a bad trend. Seemingly, more and more Republicans are basically throwing their hands up and saying OK, the gay agenda is not controversial.
DH: I think the idea of having a political party, or in this case a political movement, defined by sexual activity is bad news. And it’s unacceptable to conservatism from my perspective.
AJM: So if you were still on the board and had to….
DH: I’d be dead set against it.
AJM: (laughs) Somehow I knew that.
DH: And since you brought that up, I AM going to contact them and tell them I’m strongly against it!
AJM: Please do. Send them an open letter so we can publish it. Hit old Keene across the head. I don’t know what hell he’s thinking anymore. He used to be such a rock ribbed conservative.
DH: I don’t know if Keene is still involved. Keene’s now become one of the heads of the National Rifle Association. I don’t know if he still has the ACU.
AJM: Keene’s part of the NRA?
DH: Yeah, I think so. So before we do this interview hammering him for this, let’s find out what he’s doing first. (laughs)
AJM: (laughing) Alright. But I’m pretty sure Keene is still at the ACU. But I’ll send you an email confirming that. I don’t want you to chew his head off if he wasn’t part of the GOProud decision. But you can still kick him in the butt for supporting Romney last time too.
My last question is on Tom Tancredo. Have you been following his soap opera there in Colorado?
DH: No, I haven’t been following any of that. I’ve got a book to finish!
AJM: Well after the primary, I believe it was after the primary, he decided he jump in as the conservative gubernatorial candidate on the Constitution Party ticket. That’s causing big waves in Colorado, and the problem with Colorado, lately anyway, is the state of the GOP there has been a lot like the state of the GOP in California: dysfunctional and back biting against conservatives. So it’s been a mess.
DH: That sounds like politics as usual. (laughing)
AJM: It does!
DH: OK. Well listen. I don’t know anything about the state of the Colorado GOP or Tom’s motivations. But here is what I would say – I’ll repeat to you what I told you early on. And that is that the democrat operatives hope that the Tea Party movement, which Tancredo has been a part of, will become a party movement, manifested in conservative 3rd Party candidates on ballots at the state and national level across the country.
That allows the Democrats to divide and conquer. So there’s two ways the Tea Party movement can go. One way, is to work to add a conservative dimension, more conservative strength to the Republican Party in the upcoming elections. The other way is to pull away resources and voters from the Republican Party and leave a weakened party that can easily be beaten by Democrats at the polls. The Democrat leadership prefers the latter.
AJM: Of Course!
DH: Remember when I told you this about 6 months ago?
AJM: Oh yeah, I remember. I tend to agree with that. Now the difference between me and you – aside from me being an independent – regarding our opinions on this, is that at some point, whether it’s the state party or the national party, at some point if the GOP goes to far left, at what point does the GOP take responsibility for burning their own damn bridge?
DH: Well, when you say the GOP, there is no giant entity behind a stage curtain somewhere. There is no grand Wizard of Oz that can be blamed. The GOP is millions of good Americans who have a set of principles they would like to see followed in government. And so the idea that there is any benefit in fracturing the GOP rather than strengthening it in a conservative way is disserving all the good people that make up the Republican Party. So the idea of abandoning ship, at that point – if I describe the emergence of the Tea Party movement as a third party, complete with candidates on ballots throughout the country, if that is a dream of the Democrat leadership, Nirvana for them is a Republican Party that has been so diminished and so deserted that is offers no resistance in these political battles!
If you are like an army that is outnumbered and you’re trying to figure out how good you’re going to do after you shoot everybody in your third platoon. That means you’re going to be worse off, not better.
AJM: I understand. But when I said “at what point does the GOP take responsibility” for it, I meant the GOP leadership. I didn’t mean the rank and file. Because the rank and file, easily 70% of the Tea Party movement are GOPers; disgruntled perhaps. The other 30% are independents and libertarians. So the Tea Party, to a large degree, is the conservative wing of the GOP electorate.
DH: Yes, we’ve been over this. My point is when you are in a heated battle, I don’t think it serves our purpose in the battle to spend our time trying to figure out when to give up and retreat. I think at this point we have to move forward to victory. And you don’t inspire your troops by assuring them every five minutes that you are about to abandon them. That’s not the way to inspire them, so let’s think positive.
AJM: Especially now. I think 2010 could be a big positive, DUE to the Tea Party movement to a large degree, moving in conjunction with the GOP moving slightly to its right again. But I see buffoons like Michael Steel and Mitch McConnell and some of the things they say. You know darn well they, along with McCain will be pushing amnesty coming right up, as soon as the elections are over. It gets frustrating, to say the least.
DH: I know. But I’ve seen Steele and McConnell both do very admirably in a number of areas, and holding a tough course on things like border control and national security. We’ve all got plusses and minuses. Some more than others.
AJM: I don’t know if Steele’s got any plusses, frankly.
DH: I’ve seen Steele makes some good speeches.
AJM: He does talk well, I’ll give him that. It’s what he says.
DH: Well, he’s not a legislator, so he doesn’t get to vote. But my point is, let’s press ahead in an optimistic, positive and conservative way. I’ve never seen a good military leader who spends all of his time complaining about the personalities in his force that don’t work well. The ones that are most effective are the ones who leverage the strong leaders in their units. And that is what we have to do.
I think it’s interesting. Here we’ve got guys like Jesse Kelly, right?
AJM: Yep.
DH: And Nick Popaditch, enlisted guys in the Marine Corps, with a good chance to win congressional races. That means we have a new ‘greatest generation’ coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan that is going to populate the pool of political leaders who will take our country in the right direction. But my point is, instead of sitting around and trashing the guys who haven’t done as well as you think they should do, what we ought to be doing is charging and leading with these other folks.
AJM: Agreed. But how about this though? As soon as the 2010 elections are over, replacing Steele? Let’s get another Atwater in there. Let’s get another Haley Barbour in there: Somebody who doesn’t stick their foot in their mouth every other day.
DH: Listen. My son called for Steele’s resignation. He was the first guy to call for his resignation when Steele said we should leave Afghanistan. Duncan took him to task and, I thought, did the appropriate thing. I read about that in the papers and I thought he did the appropriate thing. After he called Steele out, a number of other people followed. But the Hunter’s don’t pile on.
AJM: I understand.
DH: There is better things to do, more positive things I can do, so I’m not interested in piling on and being one more guy after three thousand kicks, to be the 3001st kick. (laughs)
AJM: (laughing). Speaking of kicks, at least call up Tancredo and kick him.
DH: I haven’t paid any attention to that saga, but I gave you my position on these 3rd party runs. They are the heartfelt dream of Pelosi and Obama.
AJM: But you know Tom pretty well.
DH: Yes, I know him.
AJM: Call him and give him a talking to.
DH: OK. I don’t know if I can do that. One thing I do know: All politicians are independent contractors. They’ve all got the right to run anywhere they want to.
AJM: There you go. It’s one of the beauties of America, I reckon.
DH: (laughing) If you can be stopped from running for president, I might not be able to run (laughs). We’ve all got a right to follow our dreams and pursue happiness. It’s a God given right.
AJM: Absolutely. We’ll keep pushing right through 2010, and then we can talk about long term strategies afterwards.
DH: For today, let’s keep our fingers crossed for Jesse Kelly, Sydney Hay and all the real conservative candidates running out there.
AJM: Absolutely. Talk to you next time.
” Our troll has already sent me unsolicited FReepmail, and I advised him in appropriate terms what he could do with himself, maybe you’ll get that same opportunity. “
The last one I got was from a gal troll, and she said her boyfriend was back, and there’s gonna be trouble......
Hayla Hayla her boyfriend’s back !!
” I believe that your Freemail responce to me violates posting guidelines on FR.”
NOT private FReepmail, troll.
And apparently, YOU went after HIM, not he after you.
You idiot, you just violated a prime FR protocol, the posting of a private FReepmail to a public forum.
Sniff the air fool, that’s ozone.
“You idiot, you just violated a prime FR protocol, the posting of a private FReepmail to a public forum.”
You Freemail to me, or to anyone on this forum, was inexcusable.
I’d suggest that you take a long look in the mirror....
Wise up troll, you sent an unsolicited FReepmail to me, and you received a proportional PRIVATE response.
Now get this through your thick skull: you don’t post private FReepmails to a public thread. No excuses, end of story. ‘Inexcusable’? You’re a big tough ex-Marine, can’t hack it?
I suspect it won’t be long before you ride the lightning.
That’s former Marine to you.
Wrong. If you can't say it in the open forum, don't say in in Freepmail - Freepmails are generally subject to the same guidelines about profanity and personal attacks that apply to posts made in the open forum.
So let’s get this straight now:
It’s perfectly ok to post private FReepmails in a public forum now?
I treat unsolicited FReepmails the same way I treat unsolicited SPAM, are you stating for the record that PRIVATE messages must be communicated with the same decorum expected in a public forum?
If so, when did the policy change?
Nothing personal, but I’d like JimRob’s input on this.
I have had probably a dozen nasty FReepmails sent to me over the years. I didn’t even go to the mods about it, let alone REPOST it. You should get the ZOT
Agreed. It was always my understanding that the posting of private messages in a public forum constituted grounds for an immediate ZOT, and I’ve been here since 2003 and I’ve seen it happen too.
KNOCK IT OFF!!!
It's not OK - but since the poster probably didn't know about that unwritten rule, he knows now. But you should know better than to send abusive Freepmails.
And now you both know, so knock it off!
Ok Boss, 10-4. No problem. Thank You.
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.