On the Issues: Duncan Hunter

Ontheissues.org ^ | 1/2007 | staff

[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 mother’s 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)

[pissant]

A classical liberal is not the same critter as the modern term "liberal", meaning leftist, ushered in by common usage. But you knew that.

[Fierce Allegiance]

What's wrong with Coasties?

[Antoninus]

And here we come to the crux of the matter; define "liberal".

If you can't define what these terms mean in our current political milieu for yourself, I'm not going to waste time helping you.

Let me put it in simple terms for you: Rudy stands strongly for issues that the vast majority of the Republican party finds anathema. The NRA and GOA will not endorse him. Indeed, if the Democrats are smart and run a guy like Richardson, they'll actually endorse the Democrat. The Pro-life groups will not endorse him. The pro-family groups like Focus on the Family and CWA will not endorse him. The border-control groups will not endorse him.

When the voter guides from these groups go out in October 2008, I pray with every ounce of my strength that Rudy Giuliani is not on there as the Republican nominee. Because the result will be a blood-bath for the GOP which will make 2006 seem like a picnic in the park.

[nepppen]

On newsmax Michael Savage is thinking about running in the GOP primary to bring out the issues. He says there is no way he can win, but he wants to bring up important issues.

[Reagan Man]

Thanks for the post, pissant. Duncan Hunter is a good man and a good American. Not to mention a solid conservative and loyal Republican. I hope and pray he will start getting some serious traction over the next few months. With Newt Gingrich keeping himself in no mans land untill Labor Day, Hunter might be the best alternative for conservatives in the primaries.

[pissant]

Uhhhhhhgggggg. No.

[Wombat101]

"So are you saying that social conservatives can't be "Republicans"? Is that it? Good heavens, the disdain you show for Christian conservatives is very telling."

I said nothing of the sort, and stop with the "condescending atttitude towards Christians" canard; I am one. Just because I don't attend church six days a week doesn't make me any less Christian, nor does it mean I deviate from your views so widely as to be your enemy.

What I am telling you, if you stop to think about it, is that a cultural conservative cannot win a general election for president in this country because government is NOT the proper tool for installing the cultural conservative agenda (anyone who believes that it is, is not a conservative in the truest sense of the word). Government can only affect personal behavior at the margins, at best, and any attempt to do more turns it into a dictatorial force of oppression.

Social conservatism has limited recourse in the realm of electoral politics, despite the fact that it has succeeded in creating voting blocs which must at least be paid lip service to if a candidate is to advance (if I recall, both Goldwater and reagan promised toput prayer back int he chools and aconstitutional amendment against abortion, in the case of RR. How'd you do on those accounts?). The place for social concervatism is at the grass-roots; in the communities at large, because ultimately, what you seek to advance cannot come to pass without a huge social shift which cannot be brought about by political methods. It must be made by human-to-human contact, and advanced by changing hearts and minds, not by passing legislation.

[pissant]

We are allies again, after so many battles this past year. ROFL.

[Post-Neolithic]

You're wasting your breath on the "Rudy is da man" folks. They want a Liberal and no other will do. Just read their replies. I really believe what most of them want is the breakup of the Republican party.

If Rudy gets the nod from the higher ups and wins the primary, we are going to suffer one of the worst losses we have ever had. It's almost a certainty that a third party will form with the Pro-Gun/Anti-Abortion/Anti-Gay people(cuts accross party lines).

Anyone that believes the MSM won't hammer everyone with Rudy's liberal beliefs 24/7 after he wins the primary, is dreaming.

When that happens all the people who haven't paid much attention to Rudy's non-9/11 related views, will hear them day in and day out.

The Pro-Life people will leave the party or not vote at all, the Pro-Gun people will do the same. The Democratic runner will get all the Liberal vote which leaves Rudy with maybe 20-30 percent of the vote, if he is lucky.

I happen to think the Democrats will put Richardson in place of Hildy just to try and sew up the Pro-Gun vote if Rudy gets the nod.

[processing please hold]

Bump for Duncan Hunter for President in '08.

[nepppen]

He was chairman of the armed services committee. He wrote the legislation on the Sandiego border fence. He and his staff wrote and sponsored the border fence legislation that GWB signed into law.

[madison10]

Hehe. Sorry. Sometimes they think they are the only people in the country...like the Beltway or Hollywood or the Main Stream Media. Admittedly, there are many good people from the coasts, Reagan was one. (but not at heart)

Flyover country is considered to be where the peasants and morons live.

[Antoninus]

On newsmax Michael Savage is thinking about running in the GOP primary to bring out the issues. He says there is no way he can win, but he wants to bring up important issues.

Weiner is a psycho and a phony. He's in my top-5 contenders to be the 3rd Party spoiler if the GOP should be stupid enough to nominate a liberal. Considering Weiner has already shown himself to be a closet Jerry Brown supporter, I think the Dems and MSM would have no trouble convincing him to run under the Deformed Party banner to siphon votes from Rudy McRomney on the right--thus helping the Democrats win.

The only way to defuse such a scenario is for Republicans to rally around a rock-solid conservative.

Duncan Hunter fits that bill to a "T".

[Antoninus]

On newsmax Michael Savage is thinking about running in the GOP primary to bring out the issues. He says there is no way he can win, but he wants to bring up important issues.

Weiner is a psycho and a phony. He's in my top-5 contenders to be the 3rd Party spoiler if the GOP should be stupid enough to nominate a liberal. Considering Weiner has already shown himself to be a closet Jerry Brown supporter, I think the Dems and MSM would have no trouble convincing him to run under the Deformed Party banner to siphon votes from Rudy McRomney on the right--thus helping the Democrats win.

The only way to defuse such a scenario is for Republicans to rally around a rock-solid conservative.

Duncan Hunter fits that bill to a "T".

[madison10]

...or Duncan Hunter. :) He'll do, Coastie, or not.

[pissant]

Social Conservatives who have won as of late:

GWB
RWR
Jimmuh (at the time anyway)

[EyeGuy]

"Flyover country is considered to be where the peasants and morons live."


Quite true, even among some of the more revered conservative commentators.

And that, among many other reasons, is why Free Republic is where its at for me.

[nepppen]

Then that probably means that there will never be an abortion due to that circumstance.

[Txsleuth]

Alas, Nan...that is the problem...the POTUS election will be a popularity contest...not who would make the best POTUS/CIC.

[Wombat101]

"Let me put it in simple terms for you: Rudy stands strongly for issues that the vast majority of the Republican party finds anathema."

Really? So the republican party doesn't like law and order, smaller government and lower taxes? I must have missed that memo.

"The NRA and GOA will not endorse him."

So what? Did they endorse Bill Clinton (to use your example)?

"The Pro-life groups will not endorse him. "

Again, so what? Who says you need the pro-lifers on your side to win a national election?

"The pro-family groups like Focus on the Family and CWA will not endorse him."

Yes, a sordid personal life. Sooo important in electoral politics. If I remember, RR was divorced. Having been a Hollywood actor, I'm sure he had a ton of gay friends and associates. None of that disqualified him for President. All this means is that there is a legion of self-important busybodies passing judgement on someone else's life. You can stop before you post the "What kind of example" is this routine: setting examples is for parents, when it comnes to what our children grow up beliving. if I had to guess, I'm certain that at leasr half of those folks have their own skeletons.

"The border-control groups will not endorse him."

Remains to be seen, and a faulty argument in any case. The Mayor of NYC is not responsible for the enforcement of immigration law, the federal goverment is, and if Guiliani didn't pay as much attention to it as you say he should have, perhaps it was because when he took over, there were mor epressing problem (like 2,000 murders a year, a crack epidemic and attendant violence, etc). Being a Native New Yorker whogrew up here in the 70's-90's, I can tell you that illegal immigration wasn't even on anyone's radar screen, when walking out of your own front door on a daily basis was an iffy proposition.

Keep trying, though.