Posted on 02/07/2007 9:50:33 AM PST by pissant
Duncan Hunter on Abortion:
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mothers life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.
Duncan Hunter on Crime:
Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)
More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)
Duncan Hunter on Energy & Oil :
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
(Excerpt) Read more at ontheissues.org ...
I am an avid C-span watcher...and I jumped on Duncan Hunter's wagon early.
He is very good...not a mesmerizer like Bubba Clinton...but he is nice looking, earnest sounding, and knows his stuff.
Either 8 years of Reagan prove you wrong, or you believe the country has changed too much to allow it to happen again. If the latter is the case, though I may fear you being correct, I'm not willing to wave the white flag this far ahead of the election. This country is worth fighting for at the ballot box as well as in foreign lands.
because government is NOT the proper tool for installing the cultural conservative agenda
A completely useless rationale in the face of the left's demonstrated eagerness to install a culturally liberal agenda; with signficant success to date. Now who's not dealing with reality?
Oh, small c coasties, like those of us who live on the coast, not capital C Coasties like those of us who are Coast Guard verterans.
We argue the issues from time to time. Most of the time its civil and in the end, we usually have some fun doing it. We aren't at polar opposites of the political extreme. We both have a great admiration for Reagan. I think folks like us who can remember how bad this country was from 1963 under LBJ, to Nixon, to Ford and onto Carter in 1980, have a real appreciation for what Reagan was faced with when he took office. We value his fine leadership and see a lot of Reagan in Duncan Hunter. Reagan had 45 years of name recognition with the public at large when he won the Presidency in 1980. That is not the case with Cong Hunter. Hunter is moving forward against impossible odds at this point. He needs a fortunate set of circumstances to play out. That could happen. We shall see.
"GWB
RWR
Jimmuh (at the time anyway)"
You mean the GWB who was once Pro-choice, but easily and shamelessly switched his position in order to become RR's VP? Really? I didn't know we wanted hypocrites.
You mean the divorced Gipper? I don't know how the family-values types missed that one. The way they jump of Gingrich and Guiliani, you would have thought the concept and stigma of divorce was brand-spaknin' new, and didn't exist in 1980.
You mean the Anti-Israel, Pro-Soviet, sit-on-his-hands-while-Islamofascists-took-Americans-Hostage-for-a-year, Southern Gentleman who couldn't find his own ass with both and and a roadmap.
The first two examples blow your own argument to smithereens (if you consider yourself to be a conservative,it's stange how you let them pass without raising an eyebrow), the last is just plain stupid.
My son is a Dr. he can not think of one reason to do a PBA to save a woman. Hmmm
Exactly. See my post #44. I believe it is a red herring to bring that "...except to save the life of the mother" into the debate. That is not what happens in the real world.
Behind every silver lining there's a dark cloud.
No danger of that just yet.
The latest poll from New Hampshire has Duncan Hunter at 0% per usual, but registering 1% on the least likely to vote for.
"Huh? That is a non-sequitur." No it isn't' read it and engage your brain. No Culturally conservative candidate will ever be elected until the social climate demands one. At present, that climate does not exist, and when it does, this is no longer a democratic republic.
As for preferring that they don't, then yes, you are correct. if I wanted to live in a theocracy, I'd move to Iran. My personal conservatism extends only to a few issues (only one which is a social one), after which, I am a Republlican, not a panty-bunched busybody and self-proclaimed arbiter of all that is right and good.
"I disagree. I think the battle must be fought on BOTH levels with equal intensity.'
Good luck trying.
Learn your presidents. It'll help you make rational decisions regarding who to support.
Thank you, pissant! I've been wanting to learn more about Duncan Hunter and this is a great place to start.
BTTT
BTTT
Also, reading with comprehension is of value. The examples you were given were in reference to the manner in which the candidates portrayed themselves during their campaigns. So bringing up ancient personal history or what they did after they were elected is irrelevant to your argument. But hey, you work with what you've got, right?
"Either 8 years of Reagan prove you wrong, or you believe the country has changed too much to allow it to happen again."
Yep. The Gipper promised you school prayer and a constitutional amendment against abortion. I don't recall either happening, so why does RR still sit enshrined in the "Cultural Conservative Hall of Fame?" Perhaps because hypocrisy is a disease not solely limited to democrats?
As for "having gone too far", the non-cultural aspects of Reagan's reign are still being felt; lower taxes lead to a humming economy, strong defense deters enemies (unless tghey happen to e of the kamikaze bent, apparently).
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.