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.
1. he's been part of the big government spending spree of the last 6 years.
2. YES on No Child Left Behind
3. YES on Sarbanes-Oxley
4. YES on the 2003 Medicare Drug Benefit
5. YES on 2005 Highway Bill
From my point of view..........DISQUALIFIED
It's becoming Go Pat Go! Part II on FR these days - and it's still early.
But, I guess it's no different than the rabid left - the most vocal/hysterical/condescending/abrasive are always the fringe/extreme end of the group.
Thanks for posting. This was some good info. The biggest reason Hunter won't be the nominee is because he is currently in Congress. Congressmen and Sentors don't get elected Preisdent in the current age. Hunter is trying for VP at best, and that seems unlikely since California won't be on the table in 2008.
[i]If for some reason he became the GOP candidate (meteorites take out the other candidates, black death, etc) the press would have a field day with him and his history.[/i]
I'll put up Duncan's "history" over Newt's, Rudy's, et al. any day.
You deliberately lied about his vote. He DID NOT vote for campaign finance reform.
Stop with the slander. You can run your smear campaign all you want but you lack any credibility or facts.
LOL! Yes, exposing his big spending ways and penchant for fat envelopes of money from defense contractors is a smear...a well documented smear in fact.
Obviously the one who solidifies the base, although it's hard to argue that Rudy or McCain would not draw crossover votes as well.
It's a moot point, though. Hunter will have to have $100 million in his campaign warchest in order to conduct the advertising blitz required for the February 5 mega-primary date. How do you amass that when you're an unknown? You don't.
Hunter's odds of winning are about those of winning the lottery, which is the only way he'll get the funds to compete.
So far the only arrows being slung at Duncan Hunter have been to cite a rating given him by the Club For Growth. He only scored a 49 % with the ‘Club’. Never mind that most other conservative organizations such as the NRA, NumbersUSA, American Conservative Union - (92% LIFETIME) rate Hunter near or at the top.
The bottom line is this. Duncan Hunter wants to secure our borders, his 26 year legislative history proves that. He also wants the truth told about trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA and China, Fast track trade authority that bypasses constitutionally mandated congressional control. The Club for Growth, and the people involved in it have done just the opposite. As will their pick for president.
Anyone looking at Duncan Hunters voting and legislative record must conclude that perhaps the ‘Club’ is more RINO than Republican or Conservative. The Club cites this:
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".
For the past few years? Well, yes, WAR appropriations happen to be expensive; he voted along the lines of his party and president. When Hunters record is examined bill, by bill his budget votes were about military spending. No one has yet made a case that any of his votes were ‘pork’ . But the ‘Club’ doesn’t mention that.
They do mention, " Despite being a member of the Republican Study Committee, Hunter frequently votes NO on their fiscally conservative annual budgets (2006, 2005, 2003...)"
When you look at those votes, you will see that the MAJORITY of republicans voted NO on them.
You be the judge, is the ‘Clubs’ analysis of Hunter even remotely indicative of reality? If what they convey here is true, they admit they do not agree with just about 2/3 of republicans voting in congress.
So who does the ‘Club for Growth’ agree with? One of the bills they faulted Duncan for voting for was a transportation bill. Republican congressmen voted 218 to 9 for it. Is Club for Growth representing the republican base or something else?
"The Club for Growth is a section 527 political organization and an affiliated political action committee that raises money for candidates who support an anti-tax and limited-government agenda. It was created by former Cato Institute fellow Stephen Moore. "
Stephen Moore. That’s a name anyone involved in the battle to secure our nations borders needs to know. And where you find Moore, you find Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich and common agendas. Often, those agendas are not 'conservative'.
Moore has written articles in favor of increased immigration to the U.S., and has debated against immigration restrictionists. In one article, Moore favorably cited a speech at Cato by Rep. Dick Armey, R-TX, who said he believes the U.S. "should be thinking about increasing legal immigration." Moore worked on studies for the wing immigration advocacy group, the National Immigration Forum, which favors amnesty for illegal aliens.
In 1996, Moore along with Grover Norquist helped defeat any measures aimed at enforcement in an immigration reform bill.
Marcus Stern describes Moores involvement in an award winning article.
The coalition was a juggernaut that fought virtually any verification initiative. Because Republicans control Congress, conservative lobbyists were especially influential. The fact that some limited, voluntary verification projects stayed in the bill at all outraged some conservatives.
"I view it as the camel's nose under the tent for a national ID card," said Stephen Moore, an economist with the Cato Institute who lobbied against the bill. "The theme we played to Republicans was that if you're trying to roll back big government, you shouldn't be instituting this new police-state power."
Social conservatives like Norquist and libertarians like Moore don't see illegal immigration as a major problem.
"Illegal immigration is part of the price we pay for being both a prosperous and a free country, and I'm not willing to sacrifice some of our freedoms to try to keep out immigrants, especially when I don't think it's going to work very well," said Moore.
He added that spending $3 billion-plus a year to fund the Immigration and Naturalization Service "probably is a waste of money. But this is a political issue. And the way you deal with illegal immigration is you increase the INS budget. It doesn't do a lot, but at least politicians on both sides can go home and say, `Well, how can you say I'm not doing anything about immigration? I increased the INS budget.' "
What you don't do, he said, is involve employers in enforcement.
"Sometimes in politics you pass feel-good measures," Moore said. "And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Passing a bill that's mostly window dressing is a way of defusing public alarm about something. And in states like California, illegal immigration is perceived as a big problem."
Working closely with Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute, Cesar Conda (former domestic advisor to Dick Cheney) circulated a statement against Prop. 187 of California in the nineties.
And what have Moore and his associate Grover Norquist been up to lately? More of the same.
Last fall the Club for Growth worked against conservative republican candidate Robert Vasquez, an ardent illegal alien opponent by funding his opposition.
Moore, along with Norquist, Newt Gingrich, Tamar Jacoby and other amnesty advocates penned a letter to the Wall St Journal proclaiming Bush’s guest worker plan as "a humane, orderly, and economically sensible approach to migration."
On September 19, 2005, the Federal Election Commission filed suit against the Club for Growth for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act for failing to register as a political action committee in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 congressional elections.
You can be sure that both Stephen Moore and Grover Norquist are working full time to keep our borders open and promote any and all trade/labor agreements whether they benefit the USA and it’s people or not.
Moore said this about Norquist. "From the moment he gets up to the moment he gets to bed, he thinks, 'How am I going to hurt the other team?"
Whoever the Club for Growth decides to push for president, you can be sure they don't believe it if that candidate pretends to want to secure the border and implement sane trade policy.
Buyer, BEWARE.
It should come as no surprise that the Club for Growth would come out against Duncan Hunter.
Wear it as a badge of honor, Congressman!
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2007/02/club-for-growth-and-2008-presidential.html
Let's see your documentation.
As for the propaganda against Hunter as a big spender, you know that's just propaganda.
Here's a few items about his effort to control spending. STATEMENT OF REP. HUNTER IN VOTING AGAINST THE TRANSPORTATION BILL
The House and Senate approved a $218 billion transportation funding bill which included billions of dollars in questionable, non-transportation funding. A list of some of those projects follows Rep. Duncan Hunter's (R-CA) statement.
"At a time when the Army faces a shortage of $1.7 billion in basic ammunition and our Marines are short $193 million, the highway bill contains $9 billion in funding for such things as a botanical garden, museum exhibits and a film on ‘infrastructure awareness.'
"While I support funding to build and repair our highways and this bill has many good projects, I could not in good conscience vote for legislation which overspends the balanced budget and will possibly take money away from our national defense."http://www.house.gov/hunter/news_prior_2006/hiway.htm
HUNTER “ CHALLENGE” PROGRAM BEGINS AT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Washington, D.C. – The Department of Defense (DOD) will begin implementing an innovative acquisition program Congressman Duncan Hunter (CA-52) created in the fiscal year 2003 defense authorization bill. This program, the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program, will allow companies, individuals or defense agencies to challenge existing DOD programs with their products and/or services.
“This program will enable the Pentagon to find the most qualified and cost efficient companies to provide the military with the private services they require,” said Congressman Hunter, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. “This approach will either eliminate unnecessary spending, or validate the companies with which the DOD is doing business. Both are positive results.”
http://www.house.gov/hunter/news_prior_2006/challengeprogram.html
HUNTER VOTES FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) voted in support of H.R. 4241 (Nussle-IA), the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. This legislation, which passed the House by a vote of 217-215, achieves a net savings of over $50 billion in mandatory spending programs, while also streamlining and reforming several government program http://www.house.gov/hunter/news_prior_2006/buget.vote.release.html
3. Balanced Budget Duncan Hunter I support a balanced federal budget, with additional revenue provided by economic growth, not increased taxes. Further, I support limiting growth in non-defense areas.
Budgetary savings must be identified through efficiency reforms throughout the federal government. Furthermore, we must aggressively attack the creation and funding of duplicative federal programs, many of which simply do not perform but cost taxpayers millions of their hard-earned dollars. According to Office of Management and Budget, 28% of federal programs are either ineffective or have results that are not demonstrated. Reforming, combining or eliminating those programs remains among my highest legislative priorities.
http://sacredcow.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/duncan-hunter-budget-and-economy/
Last year, Hunter sought to eliminate the entire $1 billion the department requested for privatization. Eventually, Congress provided $200 million, including about $115 million for the Hanford wastes.
"He has cut it before and is looking for money," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., after Tuesday's meeting with Hunter. "I am concerned about this."
Both Dicks and Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., whose district includes Hanford, said Hunter is under tremendous pressure to find money to increase defense spending. "He's in a bind," Hastings said. "But I'm confident we will be OK."
Hastings said Hunter has been "very accommodating," so far, and added he and other lawmakers will continue to talk with Hunter and other members of the subcommittee and the full National Security Committee. Hunter said Hastings has been making an effective case against cleanup cuts but emphasized he has made no final decisions.
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/oldnews/1998/0429.html
Yeah, CAFTA has been a disaster. Since it was enacted, we've gone from a trade deficit to a trade surplus with those countries.
Who in their right mind would support that??
Duncan Hunter on tax reform:
Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit. (May 2004)
Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)
Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)
Phaseout the death tax. (Mar 2001)
Rated 58% by NTU, indicating "Satisfactory" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
Repeal marriage tax; cut middle class taxes. (Sep 1994)
Would that be the same Sarbanes-Oxley approved by the House by a vote of 423-3
and by the Senate 99-0 ?
Source it.
Costa Rica won't sign on because they don't want destroyed as NAFTA destroyed the average Mexican citizen.
Does anyone remember when NAFTA was being debated? I remember all of those people saying that NAFTA would cause an economic boom in the Mexican states south of our border. That economic boom was supposed to solve our illegal immigration problem by creating so many jobs that none of the Mexicans would bother to come to our country. That prophecy didn't exactly come true (/heavy sarcasm). Duncan Hunter's vote on NAFTA looks pretty good in hindsight.
The Club for Growth and CATO groups are economically conservative in the sense that they want to promote whatever big business wants. They want to make it easy for big businesses to dump $12 an hour workers in the U.S.A. in favor of $2 an hour workers somewhere else. (Strangely enough, they never seem all that interested in seeing these same companies dump $12 million a year executives in favor of $2 million a year executives.) They ignore the fact the winner of every major war over the past one hundred fifty years has been the side with the stronger domestic manufacturing sector. I agree with these groups that government spending needs to be much lower, but their overall perspective on what's good for the country is narrow to the point of being wrong.
In any case, I'm glad to see someone offer a more substantive criticism of Mr. Hunter than the shallow favorite "Oh, he can't win." I don't believe that the favorite "can win" candidate can really win, but if we looked at candidates based on their records, the things they advocate, and what they hope to do in office, we'd have a chance to talk about where this country needs to go and how to get there. I also think we'd have a different set of front runners for the nomination.
Bill
The problem with the GOP now is that the high ranking officials who could be candidates have been given blank checks by the voters of those states to do whatever they want instead of doing what the voters want.
That current lack of GOP support is why Bush has been having such a bad time in the opinion polls when most everything has been going well.
We have to elect people who can and will do the job, rather than someone who says they would like to do the job.
Promise the sky, deliver some fog. We have plenty of time to sort out who is actually prepared to do the job rather than who the media picks as the most popular liar.
No, it still hasn't been cleared up.
Hunter voted "yes" on HR 513, a bill that regulates the free speech of "527" groups. It closed so-called loopholes that exempted 527 groups from McCain-Feingold.
btt
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.