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.
You're correct. But putting a shine on a turd doesn't change the fact that it's still fecal matter.
This site, despite of its charter, has supported diverse views for a long time.
***I agree. But I never thought I would find myself defending a socon pres candidate on this socon forum by folks pushing a solib pig that needs more than lipstick. JimRob's heart must be breaking.
the italians will be sorry to hear that
Then would you care to answer the false dilemma? Since team rudy is so fond of its own false dilemma, after all.
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?
So your scenario to give Hunter a chance requires the President to pressure Dick Cheney to step down so that he can replace him with Hunter. And then defense contractors chip in millions to get him elected as President.
That is fascinating.
There has been much MISinformation and some down right lies about Duncan Hunter on this thread. I suggest you look at his record! The reality is posted on #365, 371, 372, 375, 384, 387. Please, be informed.
I prefer the reality that congressmen and senators don't get elected President.
You people are deluding yourselves, but that's your choice to do, if you wish.
PING!
The RINOs told us in '76 and '80 that Reagan was a "right-wing extremist" who couldn't win. And they are saying the same thing about Hunter.
Don't forget that that RINOs told us in '96 we had to nominate Dole because he was "the only one who could win". And of course we had to nominate "Arnold" because he "was the only one who could win." Now its nominate Rudy or Romney or face defeat. Just the same ol' Rockefeller song with new names.
Worth repeating!
As long as I continue to get positive feedback on my posts like the one below from freepers who want to know the truth, and crickets from team rudy over substance, I will continue to do the right thing. Heck, I'll continue to do the right thing even under less favorable conditions because it is the right thing to do. Rudy is bad for the republican party. Hunter is the best socon in the race.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1797367/posts?page=106#106
To: Kevmo
Thanks for those quotations. They are quite revealing.
105 posted on 03/09/2007 9:01:52 PM PST by The_Eaglet
That whole analysis skips over the fact that the party isn't telling you to do anything. It's your job to get your candidate the nomination.
Just like Reagan won the nomination in 1980, any conservative WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE VOTERS can win. Hunter's current problem is that his support vacillates between non-existent and almost none.
A moose bit my sister once.
That's one scenario, being played out today. There are others. Remember who was the front runner last time around: Dean. Candidacies implode. Stuff happens. It's eary in the race and we have 9 months to make the case for our socon candidate. The solib candidate fails completely on this socon forum and that indicates he splits the base. Every political observer from here to China knows how bad that is except for team rudy. This ain't gonna be a creampuff process.
I know. But it does seem to be getting more brazen lately.
Yes, Hunter's campaign does appear to be struggling. My impression is that he's tackling big game first, then focusing on smaller ones later. Just ask President Dean how significant early high poll numbers mean.
hmm...Arnold did WIN...imagine that
If Rudy splits the GOP base, then he doesn't win the GOP nomination. That's what primaries are for.
If Hunter unites the GOP base, then he should be polling at least in the mid-30% range in the polls, and arguably over 50%.
Yes, it's early in the race which gives plenty of time for the diehard Hunter supporters to make their case to the readers of this forum. Even assuming they are persuasive, the readers of this forum probably total several hundred thousand people at best.
Hunter's task isn't to win over the hearts of this forum. It is to get the rest of America to even know he exists.
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.