Duncan Hunter's Long-Shot Conservative Bid

RealClearPolitics ^ | George Will

[Antoninus]

WASHINGTON -- When Bob Hunter, a Riverside, Calif., businessman, would hear of a conservative's campaign that needed volunteers, he would pile his family into the station wagon and drive off to ring doorbells. Hunter's son Duncan grew up believing in retail politics.

When Hunter returned home after serving as an alternate Goldwater delegate at the 1964 Republican convention in San Francisco, he told Duncan about chatting with another alternate, an amiable fellow, some actor, named Reagan. Who two years later was elected governor. Duncan learned early on about rapid upward mobility in politics.

In 1969, he dropped out of college, joined the army and was sent to Vietnam. From there he mailed his pay to a friend who purchased for him an island in Idaho's Snake River, where Duncan farmed after his discharge. Then another friend said a San Diego law school would admit him without a college degree. In 1980 he was a lawyer with a storefront office in San Diego's Hispanic community when his father walked in and told him he could be a congressman. Never mind, his father said, that this district was only 29 percent Republican. Reagan was at the top of the ticket.

Duncan says his Baptist minister, respecting the separation of church and state, told parishioners they should vote for the Reagan of their choice. They distributed 400,000 Duncan brochures. Today Duncan is in his 14th term representing eastern San Diego County. Three weeks ago he formally launched his presidential candidacy.

Why does he think he can become the first House member elected president since James Garfield in 1880? Why does he think he can do better than the two strongest House candidates in recent elections?...

"For some candidates,'' Hunter says, "the conservative constituency is an inconvenience. For me, it is my hope.''

[blackie]

Go Duncan Hunter!!

[LowCountryJoe]

That what I thought. Listen, I am of the opinion that whenever someone uses that term "fair trade", what they're really suggesting is that the government sticks its nose into what would normally be the mutual and beneficial transactions between two or more parties...in essence, central planning or interference in economic freedoms. If Hunter is really for so-called "fair trade" -- just as many labor groups and far leftist socialists are -- I am afraid he will not have my support in the primary process and I will vehemently rail against him in Internet debating.

"fair trade" is a big middle finger to capitalism and I can not accept that from a Conservative. Though, if he win the nomination, I will hold my nose and pull the lever while I blast away on this single issue...it is that important to me. Without economic freedom, nothing else really matters.

[Antoninus]

However, you and other Hunter supporters won't do the same for any other GOP candidate. It's politically hypocritical and borders on being a bunch of Sore-Duncanman.

Really? OK, here's my deal. I'll support any Republican candidate who has an unblemished record of supporting other Republican candidates over Democrats. Deal?

That still leaves Rudy out in the cold. He publicly supported Mario Cuomo in 1994 against George Pataki. For his supporters to whine about "party loyalty" now is an absolute joke.

Rudy will never, ever, ever, EVER get my vote.

[Antoninus]

Why did you change the title?

I didn't. RCP must have changed it between now and when I originally posted it. And the mods followed suit. The original title on Real Clear Politics was: "Duncan Hunter Aims to be the Conservative in the Race."

If you check Google news, it still comes up that way. No idea why they changed the title.

[Antoninus]

I received a package from Hunter 2008 yesterday. It was labeled THANK YOU, it contained 2 Bumberstickers and 4 buttons. I had to smile, this is so grass roots right now and has all the markings of taking off in the next 6 months.

Oooh! Can't wait to get mine!

[Paul Ross]

"For some candidates,'' Hunter says, "the conservative constituency is an inconvenience. For me, it is my hope.''

Indeed. Which totally confounds Will's gloomy assessment. And weighing the bank account of McCain...is simply an INSANE way to assume he should be considered.

McCain has disqualified himself as a Republican, not to mention a conservative, in so many ways, it is beyond counting. He is utterly worthless. But he's got a big bank account.

If Will was honest, he would be reporting that McCain ISN'T...and that's why he has that big bank account.

The White House seriously and severely underestimated the seamy corruption issue in the '06 races.

Will is underestimating that STILL.

[nopardons]

Hunter is a protectionist and what you said about him and his stance on trade, is true.

This is one reason why he won't be able to get the needed funds and backing that he's going to need. Right now, he has all of $300,000 in pledges; not money in hand and no grassroots donations will bring him to where he needs to be financially.

yes, Dean played that "grassroots" stuff for all it was worth, but when all was said and done, he had backing from Move.On, etc. and that still didn't help him win the nomination.

[Paul Ross]

This is one reason why he won't be able to get the needed funds

Not if EXPORTERs are encouraged to take a look. Naturally, the import lobby is not happy at the prospect.

[hawkboy]

I don't think Duncan means "fair trade" in the way the left wing crowd does. What he is concerned with are those that put their financial interest ahead of the national security interest. Such as the Loral deals with China.

[LowCountryJoe]

Since every single one of us are consumers of imported goods and some services, maybe we'd all be encouraged to take a look. Economic barriers -- except in some extremely rare instances when dangerous weapons and weapon systems are involved -- are just just plain idiotic. Of course, you and I have gone 'round and around on this particular issue to no avail, but still I cannot (and will not) stress this enough.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"I'd be interested to know how the Freepers on your ping list break down geographically. One of the vacuous swipes at Hunter has been "nobody outside of California knows who he is.""

I am in Kansas.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"That what I thought. Listen, I am of the opinion that whenever someone uses that term "fair trade", what they're really suggesting is that the government sticks its nose into what would normally be the mutual and beneficial transactions between two or more parties...in essence, central planning or interference in economic freedoms. If Hunter is really for so-called "fair trade" -- just as many labor groups and far leftist socialists are -- I am afraid he will not have my support in the primary process and I will vehemently rail against him in Internet debating."

Actually, governments have been getting in the way of Capitalism for a very long time. This has become known as "free trade" and it is not free by any stretch of the imagination. Hunter is for taking down the boundaries that have prevented most capitalists in this nation from being able to sell abroad.

Are you for the stops that are in place today that prevent trade? That is what you are advocating.

Would you prefer trade be opened up or closed down? Hunter wants to put an end to the trade barriers and other impediments, not build more.

[LowCountryJoe]

What? You're serious? To the re-education camp with you!

Look, it really does not make one bit of difference if other countries employ protectionism, they're the ones who are losing out on the benefits of specialization and comparative advantage. It would be nice if everyone cooperated all of the time for maximum and mutually beneficial gain but it is foolish to eliminate all gain just because one country's economy doesn't want to reciprocate in all facets. It would be like a salesman -- whom a week ago was diagnosed and properly treated of a potentially fatal disease by his physician -- get's furious with his physician because the physician is making for herself the products the salesman normally sells.

Put yourself in the situation: you were still healed, right? And was it worth the money that you paid to get healed? Can you knock the physician for not buying from you if she can make whatever it is that you're selling, more cheaply herself and that, most importantly, she has the time to make herself.

[catfish1957]

"Just woman's intuition, eh?"

Hey there's no reason to insult me!!!

Anway, it's Koolaid Conservatives like you that are going to pave the way for a president Hitllery. You will be the first I'll call out November 08, 2008, because you will be the cause that she's there.

I hope the first thing she taxes is your Duncan Hunter kneepads.

[Paul Ross]

Economic barriers -- except in some extremely rare instances when dangerous weapons and weapon systems are involved -- are just just plain idiotic

Those dangerous weapons and weapons systems are easily produced with the wholesale lax export of the underlying civilian technology which makes them possible. And those are not rare instances. In every case, the libertarians squint and scofflaw, and would rubber-stamp those sales.

Thank God, Reagan knew better...and didn't allow that, and the result was that he successfully throttled the Soviet Empire. The underlying battle of economies was won...because our economy was deep, robust, and heavy-duty...not merely producing software and liesure products. [ Laura Ingrahm skewered John Fund this morning, and it was pretty decisive against him. ]

The Chinese export policies since Reagan are pretty much totally under the control of the libertarians. And we have a vastly mushrooming military threat, our own military is MEASURABLY imploding (whether by political decree or actual economic decline), and the loss of the heavy industry foundation for restoring the lost military muscle is becoming more serious all the time...with a 10 year Gap in restoring our machine tools for example according to the Defense Industry...all on your guys watch.

And you have done everything possible to undermine real defense conservatives who would have thwarted these hemmhorrages.

Thanks, Libertarians!

[Paul Ross]

Anway, it's Koolaid Conservatives like you that are going to pave the way for a president Hitllery.

Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

Who was in the White House and paved the way for the FIRST CLINTON?

I'll clue you, it was not a Reagan. And he was busy betraying virtually all of the Reagan Agenda...and splintering and shattering the Reagan Coalition... as he left...after only 4 years of seat-warming.

[Paul Ross]

Since every single one of us are consumers of imported goods and some services...

Almost Mathematically certain if you buy stuff at a Big Box retailer nowadays, with the import deficit over $800 billion nowadays...meanwhile the apologists boast about our slightly increased exports.

Keep your eye on the ball. What is happening to the most clear-cut case of comparative advantage the U.S. possesses? I.e., the aerospace industry.

Boeing, as a business necessity, is being forced to abdicate its highly-efficient U.S. production, all to garner markets, and gain less-expensive risk financing. Hence it will outsource almost 65% of the next-generation plane ...the 787. With heavy foreign-state-sponsored risk-aid in order, all in exchange for their share of the gravy...and a long-term transfer of U.S. production capabilities to foreign.

And what was that business necessity? This strategy was needful to combat a predatory Euorpoean Union's...basically French...subsidized attack on the commercial plane industry... An attack where every single Airbus plane they sell is priced 30% below its real costs. And the Libertarians love the "competition" and run interfeerence for Airbus here. They won't allow anything to be done to re-level the playing field. "Nope, can't have barriers." But's its evidently okay for the foreigners...we just will look the other way. What result? Now, the private-sector commercial plane manufacturers McDonnell-Douglas and Lockheed are completely out of the game. And what's left in the U.S., Boeing is being extorted due to the Airbus pressue to have to outsource.

Yup, that's a formula for long-term success. Sell the seed-corn, just to say you have business.

[Paul Ross]

I've said I will support Hunter if he is nominated (yes, I actually said that without snickering)

Consider it done.

However, you and other Hunter supporters won't do the same for any other GOP candidate.

Not true. But the string has been run out. Our patience is at an end. Hence the implosion of Bush II. We supported Bush I, Bob Dole, and Bush II. And were betrayed. We're tired of it.

It's our turn. Now, more than ever.

It's politically hypocritical and borders on being a bunch of Sore-Duncanman.

Actually, the biggest sore-losers and malcontents are...and have always been... the RINOs. They, and the self-proclaimed "mavericks"....who "reach across the aisle" etc.

They have proved their ideological inconstancy...and anti-conservative enmity... over and over and over.

And you should know that.

They want to be the "leaders" even though they show again and again, when given the bully pulpit, they don't actually lead, certainly not from conservative precepts, but that all they do is FOLLOW the demonRATS!

Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. Here is some accurately-reported history from 1990John Sullivan in National Review that I commend to your attention:

Now more than ever -
Ronald Reagan's presidency reevaluated - editorial
National Review, Nov 19, 1990
by John O'Sullivan

* One beneficiary of the present discontents in Washington is former President Reagan. A favorable reputation in history has been secured for him by the errors of his successor. The political wisdom of his tax cuts has been confirmed by the electoral disasters that are following their abandonment. And to cap it all, the old boy has his memoirs in the bookshops. What timing! How did he persuade George Bush to do it?

Yet, only six months ago, the cognoscenti were writing off the Gipper as a failed peddler of illusions that had now vanished to disclose a world in rags. He was responsible for the deficit-prompted recession (which had not occurred)-though not for the collapse of Communism (which had). He had been idle, ignorant, and ideological.

All in all, his performance offered a sad contrast to that of the "professionals" now running the show, "hands-on" pragmatists who understood "the process" of government. Wow. Members of the Bush Administration did not discourage this contrast since it flattered them. Look, Mom, no gaffes.

How are the mediocre fallen. The "process" of governing in Washington today is a joke-a series of botched compromises achieved through late nights and exhaustion. President Bush and his savvy pragmatists have split the Republican Party, handed the Democrats the fairness" issue, gained no important concessions, and in the name of bipartisanship ensured the election of a far-left spendthrift Congress at the very time the main obstacle to federal spending, namely the no new taxes" pledge, has been removed.

And so unpopular is the budget package, for which these sacrifices have been made, that President Bush is campaigning on the theme that the Democrats forced him to do it. He himself is an innocent outsider, shocked by the Beltway's excesses, just like ... Ronald Reagan.

* Which compels us to re-evaluate the past. According to well-informed leaks, Bush, Baker, and Darman were the boys who kept the Reagan Administration on the road. They restrained the old boy's follies and applied the brake of "reality" to Reaganite dreams. With Reagan no longer there to throw grit in their smooth-running machine, the nation would surely return to good government.

It now turns out that Reagan contributed something, after all. He had clear principles so that people trusted him even in bad times. He had a clear sense of priorities, pushing through the key policies-tax cuts, the defense build-up-that changed the world. And he had political shrewdness so that opponents found themselves playing by his rules (e.g., no new taxes), and subordinates thought that they were really running things.

He made governing look easy. Too easy. Even Richard Darman thought he could do it.

* The revival in President Reagan's reputation is even spreading to darkest Europe. At a recent dinner party of international civil servants in Rome, I ventured that he had caused Communism to collapse. This was greeted tolerantly as a sort of parochial stateside eccentricity. Then a French diplomat spoke up in my defense.

"That's exactly what they argue in Eastern Europe," he said. They believe that Reagan, not Gorbachev, won their freedom and ended the cold war." (Cries of Zut, alors," Caramba," "Mamma mia," etc.)

Most of the guests might have preferred not to believe this. But President Reagan's triumphal tour of the East, where he received an outpouring of gratitude from both ordinary people and the new democratic leaders, makes such skepticism untenable.

What? You didn't know that President Reagan had been greeted with such affection and regard on his trip? You watch too much television.

I especially like this bitingly accurate observation of Team Bush's contemptuous attitudes:

"Look, Mom, no gaffes."

We know how that turned out.

Fortunately for us, Reagan simply transcended these "moderates"...and triumphed for us all:

[Paul Ross]

I am of the opinion that whenever someone uses that term "fair trade", what they're really suggesting is that the government sticks its nose into what would normally be the mutual and beneficial transactions between two or more parties...in essence, central planning or interference in economic freedom

Remember Airbus? They destroyed U.S. Private Sector competitors in commercial plane manufacturing from McDonnell-Douglas to Lockheed. Both of whom are out of the game now.

Fair trade calls for a response to a foreign conglomerate which sells planes at 30% below cost with their never-repaid "loans"... to destroy its private-sector competition, and keep their European jobs fat and sassy.

The self-professed libertarian priesthood of "free traders" have obstructed any response to these clear encroachment on free markets and free trades.

Evidently a level playing field is not their idea of free trade.

Hence, you turn a blind eye to the gradual destruction of the U.S. commercial aerospace capabilities.

[Registered]

It's our turn. Now, more than ever.

Well, if it is your turn, you better find a candidate. Duncan Hunter ain't it.