Replies

The fact that he doesn't have executive experience to any great extent is troubling. Against these things is the fact that he's very good on the issues. Ultimately, I want someone who will do the right thing in office.

Hi Bill, I understand your hesitation. Think about this. Hunter has been head of committees that have gotten legislation passed. He's able to get co sponsors and get the job done. For 27 years. Not many congressmen actually get legislation passed, or get their viewpoint out there on a given subject. When Dubai happened, Hunter brought attention to it. When they wanted to sell Long Beach to China, Hunter told us and stopped it. Hunter actually GOT a fence built on the border. I could cite many more examples.

Now, it has been posted here that Hunter has NEVER gotten a piece of legislation into law. LIE. Please check his record.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d109:FLD003:@1(Rep+Hunter) :

Those are all good points about his performance in Congress. The argument against them will be that legislative effectiveness is still not quite the same thing as administrative effectiveness. That's not to say that he won't be an effective administrator. He may be great in that role. In addition, if he lacks administrative skill but has the insight to recognize that weakness, he can find staff people who will take care of the details. Everything I've seen makes me believe he'd be a good president, but true administrative experience is the one thing lacking on his resume.

As I said in my first post, my ultimate goal is to have someone who knows the right thing to do and will do it. I think Mr. Hunter passes that test with flying colors.

Bill