Posted on 03/09/2007 6:44:43 PM PST by LdSentinal
Periodically, I get e-mails from supporters of the presidential candidacy of Alpine Rep. Duncan Hunter who express disbelief, befuddlement or fury, or a mix of all three, at my flat contention that he is a populist demagogue and anything but a principled conservative. These folks cannot fathom any talk that he's not free-trade, small-government Ronald Reagan reincarnated.
Here's a typical example of Hunterista reaction to my comment that he's been against trade deals that have been important boons to our economy:
You're supposed to be a columnist, an informed person. This is not an informed statement.
OK. If you don't believe me about Duncan Hunter's RRRINOitis, here's what the influential, admired-and-respected-in-conservative-circles Club for Growth has to say about him:
Like most Republicans, he's strong on tax cuts, but he's been part of the big government spending spree of the last 6 years. He also has a protectionist streak in him. Here are some of the more troubling votes:
NO on NAFTA YES on No Child Left Behind YES on Sarbanes-Oxley YES on the 2003 Medicare Drug Benefit NO on CAFTA YES on 2005 Highway Bill YES on the 527 bill (like most Republicans, he flip-flopped, having first voted NO on McCain-Feingold) Hunter also went 0 for 19 on the Flake anti-pork amendments.
Despite being a member of the Republican Study Committee, Hunter frequently votes NO on their fiscally conservative annual budgets (2006, 2005, 2003...)
We gave him a 49% on the 2005 Club for Growth scorecard. That places him 187th within the House GOP conference, out of roughly 230 members.
National Taxpayers Union shows a more telling trend. He was strong in the early 1990s, getting "B's" and one "A", but as time went by, like most politicians, his score dropped. For the past few years, he's been getting "C's".
Those Cs are incredibly generous. As CATO noted last year, with Duncan Hunter cheering him on ...
... President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn't cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush's first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton's last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush's first term.
The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.
The GOP was once effective at controlling nondefense spending. The final nondefense budgets under Clinton were a combined $57 billion smaller than what he proposed from 1996 to 2001. Under Bush, Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs.
And as bad as things are on the budget front, they're about to get a whole lot worse because of a pending nightmare that Duncan Hunter -- supposed tough guy, supposed truth-teller, supposed fiscal conservative -- has chosen to ignore. To borrow from what I wrote last year ...
... the single worst problem facing this country in coming years, with the possible exception of nuclear terrorism, is dealing with the massive fiscal impact of baby boomers retiring. As we slowly transition from a nation where there are 4 working adults for every adult getting Social Security and Medicare to a nation where that ratio is 2 to 1, we will face an incredible fiscal squeeze.
As a veteran member of Congress, Duncan Hunter knows this. He's heard the warnings, seen the bipartisan studies. So what did this self-declared fiscal conservative do in 2003? He voted to make the problem much, much, much worse by extending prescription drug benefits to seniors, three-quarters of whom already have coverage. The money that was saved by all the triumphant stands he claims to have taken is infinitesimal compared to the staggering long-term national debt he helped add with this one vote, which was tantamount to civic arson.
Yeah, right, our Duncan's a fiscal conservative. ... He loves spending your grandkids' money, and by the truckload.
Duncan Hunter is no Ronald Reagan. To those who say Ronald Reagan really wasn't Ronald Reagan -- that government didn't get smaller when he was president -- well, he tried harder than any president in modern times to get Congress to control spending and wipe out whole government agencies. By contrast, Hunter and the GOP Congress of 2001-2006 kept the national credit cards hanging on a string around their necks for easy and constant use.
BIG TIME!
You really need to stop getting all your news from the NY Times.
Duncan Hunter is a social conservative. This is a social conservative site.
Perhaps you never read this statement from the front page link on the website. If you read it and still fail to see why Duncan fits that bill, then I give up on you. It's some weird game that I don't care to play. Go and redefine social conservatism somewhere else.
Statement of Jim Robinson, Founder of Free Republic:
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc.
"There is an new rule for Free Republic.. Thou shall not question Duncan Hunter..."
The newest rule is that you take off your liberal blinders.
I have no answer for that question. *shrugs*
Speaking of numbers, did you see these numbers from a poll taken on TomDeLay.com:
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/cgi/view/results.cgi?username=aaron49erz&id=10101&Vote=58177
Which Potential Republican Presidential Candidate would you be most apt to Categorize as a True Conservative?
Rudy Giuliani 10%
John McCain 3%
Mitt Romney 10%
Sam Brownback 8%
Tom Tancredo 17%
Mike Huckabee 7%
Jim Gilmore 5%
Duncan Hunter 38%
Tommy Thompson 2%
I guess it better to win by losing???
Your post is kinda cryptic. Please elaborate.
I'm a liberal????? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"...Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America..."
Sounds like DUNCAN HUNTER. No wonder most folks here like him.
"I'm a liberal?????"
Tell us who do you support for POTUS, sir, and THEN we'll decide.
Tell us your position on the social issues, sir, and THEN we'll decide.
How does Fred Thompson stack up by these same measures?
Not as far as I'm concerned!
I like the sound of that combo too!!!
Don't pay any attention to nopardons. There ain't no crystal ball she's looking at. She's a pasquinade whose outrageous remarks on behalf of tootiefruityrudy bring in more Hunter supporters than anything we can post. In 9 years of freeping, she's the only one that I have directly ignored. You should pray for her, though.
It appears to me that some here have looked at the candidate, analyzed their position, looked at their organizations, their funding raising , how they are doing in the polls, who has come out and supported them, and after all that picked the candidate least likely to win. This of course affords them an opportunity after they lose to..
1 wallow in self pity
2 scream and yell that they told us so when ever the candidate who does win does something wrong.
3 tell themselves that winning isn't everything & and they (at least) were consistent (as if consistency is the be all and end all of politics) and true to their principles.
You know, I'm seeing an awful lot of people jumping on Hunter on this thread that have said he doesn't have a chance of winning. What's up with that?
Me thinks they doth protest too much.
"Theresawithanh - I'm liking the sound of a Hunter/Thompson combination.
pollywog - I like the sound of that combo too!!!"
Me three!!! :)
No votes on NAFTA and CAFTA could be construed as anti free trade. But protectionism of American jobs and industry should be a priority over global pressures to be assimilated into a socialist trade philosophy of open borders, free trade etc. Protecting Americans first should be the number one priority of a true representitive regardless of how many people he pisses off.
The author places Hunter into the general can't trust Republican light because he has voted with the majority, which is what politicians generally do when they are part of a majority party. So what? Rats do exactly the same predictable behavior.
Since the election is still over 21 months away it is hard for me to choose anyone as a favorite. And it should be the same for everyone else. there is no need to be pressured by the MSM presidential candidate draft to participate in worthless polls, that will be forgotten a month from now when the weather changes, to a new topic of how to group potential candidates according to the MSM- who is controlling the entire political process with carefully controlled manipulation of public opinion.
Ask me who I would vote for now and I say nobody.
Ask me who I favor and I say nobody.
America cannot afford to be distracted by a two year presidential campaign staged by the MSM when there are crucial issues that congress should be pressured into addressing.
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.