Political analyst says [Duncan] Hunter can move into GOP top tier

Hunter for President website ^ | 1/31/07 | OneNewsNow.com

[Cold Heat]

"Where did I attempt to do any such thing?"

but the bottom line for voters is going to be whether or not their elected officials keep their word, deliver on their promises made during the campaign, and whether or not they live up to the principles and standards they claim to stand for. And I believe that voters are going to put all those factors together next year, judge each candidate,

The above statement is related to local repetitive elections. A presidential election candidate is not judged by his political promises because he has not had a chance to fulfill them.

This comment was what drew my comment.

Secondly, House members and senate members have indeed made promises, and a lot of public statements that they cannot take back. This is one primary reason they rarely are elected to the presidency in modern times. Too much past, not enough present. You sell the sizzle, and not the steak.

This is the first totally open election that we have had in a very long time. The fact we hold the presidency now, is actually not a positive, and the electorate will be looking for some proved qualities or at least perceived ones.

This election is going to be about the sizzle and not the steak.

National security, unless we get hit again, will not be the most important issue. It will only be one of many.

[Cold Heat]

I made the general remark because you seem enamored with opinions of a man who's only claim to political relevance is his public service on a committee.

WhoopieDoo!

This is not to take away from his excellent work, but that is all he has done, and running the executive branch of the U.S. is a bit more involved.....

[bluetone006]

Duncan Hunter has my vote and my money.

[mkjessup]

I made the general remark because you seem enamored with opinions of a man who's only claim to political relevance is his public service on a committee

Of course you did.

Funny how those 'remarks' come back to bite YOUR candidate on the ass.

Sooooo in your view Mitt's one term as Governor of Massachusetts makes him better qualified than a Congressman with 26 years of experience in military and national security affairs?

What else has your boy done?

[mkjessup]

Where did I attempt to do any such thing?"
but the bottom line for voters is going to be whether or not their elected officials keep their word, deliver on their promises made during the campaign, and whether or not they live up to the principles and standards they claim to stand for. And I believe that voters are going to put all those factors together next year, judge each candidate

The above statement is related to local repetitive elections. A presidential election candidate is not judged by his political promises because he has not had a chance to fulfill them.

You don't say. Get a clue here pal, by the end of any elected president's first term, the voters are going to be judging whether or not his performance (i.e. 'keeping promises') warrants being RE-elected, ok?

This comment was what drew my comment.

You should have more carefully considered your comment.

Secondly, House members and senate members have indeed made promises, and a lot of public statements that they cannot take back. This is one primary reason they rarely are elected to the presidency in modern times. Too much past, not enough present. You sell the sizzle, and not the steak.

Perhaps you've forgotten how there was almost enough 'Rat-steak sizzling in 2004, and were it not for the Great State of Ohio, we would now be debating whether or not President John F. Kerry (gag-choke-spew) would be rewarded with a second term next year?

This is the first totally open election that we have had in a very long time. The fact we hold the presidency now, is actually not a positive, and the electorate will be looking for some proved qualities or at least perceived ones.

If this is a totally open election as you say, then you ought to be willing to concede that Congressmen and Senators have just as good a shot at the presidency as any other candidate.

And they do.

This election is going to be about the sizzle and not the steak.

Sez you. If it's all about sizzle, then some empty suit will end up being elected, with little or no actual experience, perhaps some one-termer like Barack Obama, a one-and-a-half termer like Mrs. Bill Clinton, or maybe even a one-term former Governor from Massachusetts, eh?

National security, unless we get hit again, will not be the most important issue. It will only be one of many.

That is classic September 10th thinking.

Try again.

[Cold Heat]

Well............. Personally, I thought he did a damn good job with the Winter Olympics. In fact, he has been successful in life. He has always stood out as a leader. This is what probably impressed me the most.

add to this, his apparent lack of negatives such as messy divorces, public temper tantrums and the like, he sails high above the other frontrunner's like Mccain and Guliani. He was elected Governor of a heavily populated liberal state which is another big plus, because he will appeal nationally to crossover voters which is absolutely required to win a presidential election. Hunter can't do that.

I guess it depends on how you view the world of politics. I like to win. I know a party without power can do nothing but bitch.

Do you want to win, or do you want to be a bitch and have the roll of the loyal opposition.

It depends on how bad you want it, and what you want.

I want to win.....There is no other substitute.

[Cold Heat]

That is classic September 10th thinking.

Or maybe another would say, it's all about immigration, and another would claim a candidates view of abortion is the most important.

The fact is, that the public voter cares not about these things, and voted gut feelings, appearance, debate performances and personality. They don't think like you do. They have little knowledge of geopolitics and security. They will vote for anyone who makes them feel safe. That is the key to national security and all a candidate needs to know. It's called leadership.

Like I said, it the sizzle, not the Steak, and the primaries are the place to determine who you put up.

Hunter is a great asset to the house, but that where he belongs. Is he a leader??????? Or is he a policy wonk?

He won't make it through the primary, but I will thank him for improving the quality of the debate on National security.

[mkjessup]

Your comments are based on a mentality which is admirable, but in my view, not realistic.

Under ordinary conditions, Mitt Romney would be a fine candidate for President.

I'm thinking 1996, he might have cleaned Bill Clinton's clock, instead of Bob Dole being awarded the nomination because everyone thought it was 'Bob's turn', and we got 4 more years of Billigula.

Now if it comes down to choosing between Mrs. Bill Clinton and Mitt Romney, you better believe I'm pulling the lever for Mitt, no question.

I maintain however, that in these times, which are NOT ordinary, which are not 'business as usual', the national security experience of presidential candidates this election cycle, will make or break their respective campaigns.

We can hope that there won't be another terrorist attack on the United States, but even the current Administration has told us that it is more likely a question not of "if" but "when" the next attack occurs. We have to be right every time, the terrorists only have to be right 'once', to unleash another 9/11 style attack (or worse).

And with that hanging over our heads, we can't afford a President lacking solid national security credentials, preferably with military experience, and definitely someone with forged steel balls.

I've seen no candidate except for Duncan Hunter that meets those criteria.

[Antoninus]

If every Conservative in this country all voted for the same man, the loss would still be the biggest Republican loss in history.

If even 10% of the Conservative base stayed home or strayed off the reservation because the national party put up a liberal of the Rudy McRomney stripe, The GOP would lose fairly badly.

And in reality, it's more like 15-20% would sit out such a race.

[Antoninus]

I want to win.....There is no other substitute.

That's the problem. The GOP winning with a liberal as the standard bearer is actually worse than a loss.

I've got up-close-and-personal experiences with such Phyrric victories. We had them in PA and NJ in the 1990s. And as a result, the GOP may never win another state-wide race in my lifetime, so shot-through with liberals is the Republican state apparatus in both states.

If you want to duplicate that on a national level, be my guest. But I won't help you do it. It's like helping someone you know commit suicide.

[Dave S]

Dave, my boy, you sound utterly idiotic when you make comments criticizing Duncan Hunter's qualificiations.

What are his qualifications other than he's nolonger chairman (who fault) and he needs something challenging to do? He's never run a major campaign. He's never run anything except a platoon in Vietnam and a House Committee staff. In both cases, he's used to his orders being immediately implemented. In the real world of Washington beauracracies, that dont happen. He's got no name recognition and no money. In fact he doesnt think money is important because he's a true conservative and everyone knows that if you build a better mousetrap they will come. Bullshit.

And while you may have 25% of FR saying they would support Duncan if he was the nominee, he's not the nominee and he is the longest of long shots on being the nominee. If he gets 10% of the votes in New Hampshire or Iowa, I would be shocked.

[Dave S]

because national security is THE issue, the candidate with the best experience in that area, is going to have the best shot at being elected President.

What makes you think the American public is going to support any Presidential candidate who supports the war in Iraq? If Hunter is running on staying the course in Iraq in 2008, that is a sure loser for Republicans. The further we get from 911 without a terrorist attack on American soil, the less concerned Americans are about such an attack occuring. Republicans are suffering as a result of their own success.

[bushfamfan]

Do you honestly want to take up that bet? I'll do a search and come up with more than 5(a handful) threads dealing with Duncan Hunter because the man was all over the media treason on the WOT as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Hunter's been known for his outspokenness while other Republicans sit back and let the madness go on. And you can send that $10 to FR. BTW, if you're so confident why is it only $10?!

[Xenophon450]

I concur, although I do not see eye to eye with those supporters of Rudy, I will not slander them. Civil discourse is needed for these matters.

[Dave S]

Neither did Ronald Reagan, and HIS opinions and policies were instrumental in winning the Cold War.

In case you were in diapers back in 1980, Ronald Reagan had gigantic name recognition before he announced for the nomination. He was a well known actor, he had served two terms as governor of the soon to be largest state in the nation. Additionally, you overlook the fact that Reagan made a famous hour long television speech in support of Barry Goldwater the weekend before the election that was so electric, it made Reagan an instant party celebrity. Reagan ran in '76 and almost won the nomination from a sitting President. 1980 wasnt his first attempt at winning the Presidency. The biggest concern most people had about Reagan was that he was a rightwing nut. However, after four years of Carter and Reagan's great debating skills, Reagan was victorious. It took Reagan 16 years of rubber chicken dinners to get to the point that he was able to succesfully run for President and that is after starting out with high name recognition because of his acting background. What makes you think that Duncan Who can pull it off in a year and a half?

[Dave S]

were it not for the Great State of Ohio, we would now be debating whether or not President John F. Kerry (gag-choke-spew) would be rewarded with a second term next year?

If we had had a president who could debate, Kerry would have lost in landslide. Instead we had Bush bless his soul who couldnt debate his way out of a paper bag. You watch him on TV, it was murder. He sounded better on radio, unfortunately more people watched on TV.

[Dave S]

I'll do a search and come up with more than 5(a handful) threads dealing with Duncan Hunter because the man was all over the media treason on the WOT as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

I never heard of it. Did it make the news outside of FR? If people hear are saying Duncan Who, what do you think the average guy on the street is going to say?

[Plutarch]

The GOP winning with a liberal as the standard bearer is actually worse than a loss.

So it is better to lose with Hunter than win with a "liberal" such as Romney?

And lose with Hunter we would. Because you can offer no evidence that Hunter has generated any appeal with anyone outside a small conservative cohort.

[bushfamfan]

"What medals has he won for what action? McCain did more than show up."

FYI, he's the recipient of a Bronze star. He led platoons. And that's an interesting comment about "just show up".


"Agree with first part about the one trick poneys. I dont think being in the House leadership is a plus these days. Being chairman of Armed Services means he's king of pork in the defense industry."

According to you, Hunter is undistinguished in Congress. When it is pointed out he led the powerful Armed Services Committee and has specialized in defense, you find a way to slam that. YOU really are a 'one trick pony' when it comes to your flaky criticism of Duncan Hunter.

"If he is so hot on taxes, then why are some of the organizations pushing tax cuts giving him only a C for his past few years? If he's for limiting the scope of governement why is he voting for No Child Left Behind, the Highway Program, Medicare Drug Program, etc?"

It will be interesting to compare Hunter to YOUR choice of McCain, and Giuliani and Romney for that matter. All candidates will have areas where they could be better and closer to perfection.

"If he is so hot on taxes, then why are some of the organizations pushing tax cuts giving him only a C for his past few years? If he's for limiting the scope of governement why is he voting for No Child Left Behind, the Highway Program, Medicare Drug Program, etc?"

Same as above, YOU are the one pushing the McCain, Giuliani and Romneys on the party. Hunter remains a tax cutter, strong national defense, strong second amendment, strong pro-lifer, strong message and response to media/Demonrat propaganda.

"Do you really think the fence approved last year is ever going to built? They never funded construction. Do you think the Dems are going to spend money to build a fence when they are going to let everyone come in free later in the year."

So I guess he should just give in and support it? This is a vital issue to our security and identity and an issue that needs people to continue to fight for it and Hunter has never backed down because he is not a naysayer like you.

"Well I dont know if I would toss my name in with those. Bush could never get elected again if he were eligible to run again. Santorum got beat bad. Does that say much for Hunter?"

So should we seek a candidate that will cave in with the people calling for our defeat in Iraq because it's so popular? It's going to take a steadfast candidate to break through in bringing the people out of their denial about what our country is facing.


"What difference does that make. You dont really think whoever is elected President is going to get a strong conservative on the court unless one of the current conservatives leaves. Dems wont allow it and Republicans are going to lose additional Senate seats in 2008. We have 21 seats to defend and they are not all sure things. If we are still bumbling our way in Iraq you can bet many of them will be toast as well."

Judges are important. We don't need a RINO who will cave in to Demonrats and "compromise" in putting a judge that will further their liberal cause. It's important that the next Republican President be able to stand strong and resist Demonrat pressure and none of the top tier candidates show any promise in that and that would remain a worry because then what would conservatives win through keeping someone with a R next to their name. No thank you.

"You mean he talks the walk. Just like all congress critters. All they do is talk. If they ever did anything and solved any problems, then there would be nothing to use for their fund raising letters. Both sides are waiting until they can get enough votes to do everything they want without concern for other side. In the meantime, nothing gets done because they all have to worry about the wingnuts of the left and right. Governors and Mayors for that matter are executives and they need to work with others to get things done and they have to make decisions and get them implemented. All congress critters have to do is posture. I sponsored this bill, I sponsored that, I wrote a bill to do this. Did any of them get passed and put into law. Nah but then I had the right intentions."

Mock it all you want, but Hunter has had more say on national matters than the Governors or mayor you are pushing. Not only state or city wide, but national level and a key position as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee to have experience in defense matters which they considerably lack.

[bushfamfan]

I'm from NY and I'VE heard of Hunter and become one of his strongest supporters due to the fact of becoming aware of him on the political shows. I first saw him calling out the media on their outrageousness during Abu Ghraib. And he's been on numerous shows. Too bad people like you continue to be oblivious to all of this. But all you really need do is make a search of Hunter just here on FR and you will find threads going back because he was the ONLY Republican being vocal against the attacks.