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.
I also tend to be a "big tent" ideology subscriber. There's a lot of stuff I don't like in Rudy's record but my core issues are met. So to each his own. I'll pull the "R" lever either way on election day.
***I'm a socon. Rudy isn't. I'm supporting a socon on this socon forum. If you show me where I signed up here that this is a GOP forum, then I'll gladly commit to tripping the "r" lever on that day; but this ain't a GOP forum, it's a socon forum and the rudophiles are pushing a solib onto socons and they're getting predictable blowback, especially by folks who have a socon candidate. With Duncan, my core issues are met. With Rudy, they aren't. It will only be me in that voting booth on that day. But if it's Rudy in the 'r' column, the GOP is risking much more than just losing a couple of diehard rightwing crazies. There are millions who would be disenfranchised. It will not be healthy for the republican party.
My contention: If rudy gets the nomination, he loses the base and the election.
Your contention: If Hunter gets it, he wins the base and loses the election.
Hypothetical to answer your hypothetical. Both sides losing to Hillary.
Side A: The solib republican splits the base. The MSM turns on him the moment he is nominated. Hillary wins. Republican party is split.
Side B: The socon republican wins the nomination, loses to hildebeast in a tough fight. Republicans are united against the hillary presidency.
Which candidate is best for the republican party, Side A or Side B?
Win-Win false dilemma:
Side A: Solib wins presidency by ignoring the socon base and permanently splitting the republican party.
Side B: SoCon wins presidency by (obviously) relying on the socon base.
Which candidate is best for the republican party, Side A or Side B?
Vote for who you like. I am not trying to change your mind. This site, despite of its charter, has supported diverse views for a long time.
LBT
-=-=-
BTTT
Not the actions of a potential rival.
***More like the actions of a vice presidential guy. And he freezes the socon right by staying out of the race for pres. Giuliani/Gingrich, the G/G ticket, with hillary running against both of their ugly marriages on a stand-by-your-man kitsch. This is one weird race this year.
Globalists talk about "free trade" as if it occurs.
Republicans talk about free trade as though the constitution is eqivalent to a customer agreement for Costco.
Thanks, man.
And juxtaposition rudy's statements:
Video of Rudy Giuliani in his own words
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
Will the real Rudy show up at CPAC?
Culture of life transcript:
ABC clip.
George Will: "Do you think Roe v Wade was good constitutional law?"
Rudy Giuliani: "Yes I believe, I believe it is."
Cnn Clip December 2, 1999:
Announcer: "Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports."
Rudy Giuliani : "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing."
This might have something to do with it
Quinnipiac University Poll. Feb. 13-19, 2007. N=578 Republican voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.1.
http://race42008.com/category/duncan-hunter/
“If the 2008 Republican primary for president were being held today, and the candidates were [see below], for whom would you vote?”
.
%
Rudy Giuliani 40
John McCain 18
Newt Gingrich 10
Mitt Romney 7
Duncan Hunter 2
Mike Huckabee 2
Sam Brownback 1
George Pataki 1
Ron Paul 1
Tom Tancredo 1
Tommy Thompson 1
Jim Gilmore -
Chuck Hagel -
Other (vol.) 1
Unsure 15
Sorry, all, I ignore nopardons and she claims to ignore me.
Don't be so sure:
Jesus was ratted out by his financial advisor who later died a mysterious death - suicide.
He was betrayed by his closest followers.
And he was rejected by the masses and executed for being who he claimed to be.
If he suddenly descended, politics would suddenly become less important.
I hope he can buck up under such news.
I dunno. Those guys who hung out with didn't wash their hands before they ate.
Just sayin'.
/s
And you are supposedly the one to give us an expert opinion on that? You said that he's too cozy with the unions, which means that Duncan attracts crossover votes. Your blind hatred of unionism blinds you to the fact that their members often vote for solid socon candidates, especially ones that seem to be labelled "protectionist". He also attracts a large undertow of anti-illegal immigrant voters that doesn't show up in the polls, such as what happened with prop 187 in liberal California (supposed to lose big, won big). Or Bill Sali, same thing.
Delphinium has a great example of how these kinds of polls and MSM trashing of socon candidates mean absolutely nothing when the time comes to push the lever. If anything, the negative media attention serves our purposes better when we have a good socon candidate. The media would turn on Rudy so fast it would make a galaxy spin.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1787224/posts?page=464#305
Bill Sali won and he was very unashamedly pro-life, less government, less spending, no on taxes, free interprise , no homosexual marriage etc.. and support for the Iraq war securing our borders...all of Jims suggestions.
The media trashed him, the Rinos trashed him even in the general, The polls that the media reported had him so low it looked impossible.
He won big! They were reporting total lying polls to affect the election.
The word 'RINO' is a derogatory term used to demean republicans who do not toe the conservative line. It is vague and imprecise in its exact meaning.
bump for ... uh... developing item.
As succint an assessment as I've seen.
Thank you.
Really? Wow, he's better than I thought! ;-)
There is an new rule for Free Republic.. Thou shall not question Duncan Hunter...
***Sounds like a good rule to me. Let's put it to a vote, shall we? I wonder what JimRob would think it? ;-)
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.