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.
And here's the source, sweetie. It's from our very own National Association of Manufacturers. You do like manufacturing, right?
And, sorry we missed CAFTA's big birthday by a few days, so we'll just have to wish a happy belated birthday to CAFTA today. You'll recall all the opposition to this pact, even though it would open markets to US manufacturers large and small. No matter, the facts were swept up by the protectionist rhetoric swirling around the debate. But one year later, it's clear that the anti-trade sentiment was (once again) misplaced.
Secretary Gutierrez hit on some of these facts when he spoke to the NAM Board, but they bear repeating:
Here's a link to a pretty good Bloomberg story that lays out the many benefits that have emanated from CAFTA. It's important to keep all this in mind when the protectionists come 'round again, as they most surely will.
We'll say it again: Trade agreements open markets to US-manufactured goods. It's why we support 'em.
http://blog.nam.org/archives/2007/03/happy_birthday_7.php
Now, doodlelady, you're not supposed to bring up the fact that Duncan voted for the same bills that those who are worshiped by the Repubs also voted for! Hunter wants free and fair trade. They want managed trade that destroys the middle and poor classes of each country. That is what they object to. They prefer having the advantage and don't like people like Hunter who actually cares about our security and real free trade.
It doesn't matter how often Hunter has voted to control spending, they've got to have an excuse to whine and disinform. What they do realize is most people won't bother to find the truth. That is the basis which they wish to elect a Rudy.
See post #379. Hunter voted to affirm McCain-Feingold type regulations of free speech on 527 groups.
The phoney charge against Hunter being another Cunningham is just bogus. I've seen nothing to indicate he was tied into Cunninghams bribery. Just the opposite. Hunter has been investigated and there is no there, THERE!
Cunningham got in trouble because he and his staff were taking gifts and bribes.
All anyone has to do is look at the disclosures of Hunter and his staff and the gifts they got!
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/travel.asp?CID=N00006983
Travel Financed by Special Interests: 2006 Cycle
Total Number of Trips 1
Number of Trips by MEMBER 0
Number of Trips by STAFF 1
Total Cost $600.00
DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA)
Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005
Agreements for Future Employment: 0
Compensation: 0
Gifts Received: 0 (Amount: $0)
Payments to Charitable Organizations
in lieu of Honoraria: 0 (Amount: $0)
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pfds.asp?CID=N00006983
Brent Wilkes is the guy tied to Cunningham:
"After Wilkes broke from Audre and started his own firm, Duncan Hunter continued to support Audre’s software against Wilkes’s. Thereafter, Wilkes started donating to Cunningham."
http://recoveringliberal.com/?page_id=609
In related "sucking sound" noises, US unemployment just dropped to 4.5%.
The lies are easily refuted ~ it's worth the effort.
So what? So did 211 other REPUBLICAN congressmen, as opposed to 11 who did not!
Republican 211 18 2
Democratic 7 190
Siding with the democrats now??? How telling.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll088.xml
H.R.513 Title: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify when organizations described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 must register as political committees, and for other purposes. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll088.xml
Your research is fabulous. Thanks so much.
I agree with you that bedrock principles are important.
***Then all that remains for us to agree on is which are the bedrock principles and which are not. Why do you think there is so much invective aimed at rudy from the right? Because there are some bedrock principles that he is leaving out. Bad move. I see rudybot postings all the time saying that they would vote for Hunter, and I see socon postings that say they would not vote for rudy. That's a BIG indicator of a few bedrock principles that are being left outside the tent in order to let in some rice.
Where I disagree with you are on the priorities. For me, national security and the economy are issues that are rightly addressed by the federal government...where as issues such as abortion and gay unions (the next front on the homosexual agenda) are best left to the states.
***Well, I'm a socon posting on a socon site for a socon candidate and those are socon bedrock principles that JimRob puts up on the front page. If a person disagrees with the priorities, why would they go onto a socon site and push a solib candidate and expect anything less than heartfelt reproof? This "best left to the states" thing is just the latest intellectual copout and falls on the weight of its own nonsense because it wasn't the states rights thing that got us here in the first place on things like abortion -- it was the SCOTUS.
We can not affect social change through the vote.
***Baloney. Defeatist nonsense right when we are almost ready to change the tide in the supreme court after 3 decades of liberal activist ascendancy.
Social change happens from the bottom up. Social change is a populist phenomenon -- and the church, not the voting booth, is where you go for redress.
***Baloney. That dog won't hunt, that shiite don't fly.
I'm old enough to remember a very different America than when have today; an American society that was polite, and without public vulgarity, such as we have today.
***Then why are you arguing on the same side as the vulgarists today?
I think Hollywood has greater affect on social mores than does the federal government.
***I agree. But keep in mind this one sentence. "I have not knowingly ever been associated with a communist." That came from Washington and hit Hollywood hard. One thing people forget about Hollywood is that it's a business that needs to sell its wares. Heck, even hollywood forgets that. If they put out pro-family, clean movies & TV, they tend to make money. When they cross the line, they lose money. It's a business. There's one other thing bigger than Hollyweird and the Federal Guvmint: God. But that subject is much bigger than we can tackle in a few posts.
Plus, Duncan Hunter looks like an unmade bed. Reagan was an elegant man, even in jeans and a cowboy hat. One cannot underestimate how important it is to look and act "Presidential."
I'll put up Duncan's "history" over Newt's, Rudy's, et al. any day.
***So would I. Every iceberg has stuff you can't see. Judging from what you can see, Duncan's ice is cleaner than all of 'em. And since we can't see "future" dirt, it is an invalid argument from silence. About what I expect from team rudy.
Why not? Rudy did.
I'll take a statesman like Hunter any day over what you consider 'presidential'. How presidential is it to charge victims of a Tsunami thousands to speak like your Rudy did? The attacks on Hunters looks ring quite hollow and petty. Besides being untrue. But that's the kind of campaign your side wishes to run. Petty and shallow all the way.
Compromise is: getting rid of your principles a little bit at a time. - Patrick Lear
With Rudy, you get about 20% of a conservative agenda. I'll take the 80% Duncan Hunter, who looks, sounds and acts more like a man than Rudy ever did.
I want my President to look
as earnest as an open book,
as rugged as a solid rock,
as seasoned as a butcher block.
A real war horse is what we need
Duncan Hunter ~ what a steed!
My post was directed at your continual use of spam on every thread. I have already "gone to bat" for Rudy; perhaps if you read my past posts, you would know exactly why I support him. And as for future media attacks, Rudy's been there and done that.
Well done!
~ thank you ~
Unlike the folks who hate Rudy, who are the pinnacle of maturity and diplomacy, and never post anything but well-reasoned points of why their candidate is better, and never stoop to name calling, insults, or smear tactics? (rolls eyes)
Please...it's Go Pat!Go! all over again.
Compromise is recognizing that not everyone in the room thinks like you, and being adult enough to work together toward a common goal.
Obviously the one who solidifies the base,
***Congratulations! You're the first one who actually answered that question. Of course it's filled with exaggerated hypothetical constructs, but so is the one where socons are asked on a socon forum if they would vote for a solib republican versus a solib democrat.
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.
***George Bush could change the equation in favor of a socon candidate in one hour, by asking Cheney to resign due to ill health and putting forth a socon like Hunter. The nominee wouldn't even have to win -- look how much exposure Harriet Miers got, and she didn't win the SCOTUS slot.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795617/posts
None of the candidates have enough money right now. See post #229 for how Duncan would do it. Keeping in mind that some detractors are fond of saying from one side of their mouth, "Like a fat envelope of money from a defense contractor" and a phantom $100M figure on the other side that no candidate has, I think it's just a lot of sound & fury that doesn't change anything nor stop me from supporting my socon candidate on this socon forum.
Hunter's odds of winning are about those of winning the lottery, which is the only way he'll get the funds to compete.
***And yet, even today the rudy team knows that Duncan has a better inside track for that VP nomination than anyone else. It's early in the game and there are likely to be dozens of scenarios played out in this historic race. The front runner last time around was Dean, whose campaign imploded. Anything can happen and probably will. In the meantime I'm not all that impressed with team rudy's supposed conservatism and Hunter's socon credentials are obvious. I'm supporting the socon, and if the leading RINO candidate followers find it necessary to insult socons for their support of a socon candidate, it makes me wonder what they're doing here on this socon forum.
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.