Duncan Hunter, RRRINO: Reincarnated Reagan Republican In Name Only

SignsonSanDiego.com ^ | 3/9/07 | Chris Reed

[airborne]

Paula T is a lonely old girl.

Have pity on her.

The apostrophe is all she's got to add to the debate.

That, and probably a house full of cats.

[I Hired Craig Livingstone]

Hmmmm... NEXT!

[firebrand]

I'm going to reply before reading the thread, but Hunter is a big-government conservative rather than a small-government libertarian. He is less than doctrinaire on free trade and judges legislation with regard to its total impact on Americans.

He made a mistake if he voted yes to Sarbanes-Oxley, but so did many others on this complicated legislation, and the law has since been changed to give some relief to small businesses.

Many Republicans were convinced to vote for Part D of Medicare because it included private health savings accounts--that may have been the reason for Hunter.

OK, now I'll read the thread : )

[bushfamfan]

AuntB just refuted you! LMAO.

[no dems]

Well, this is disheartening. But, since I read Newt's interview with Dr. Dobson and he said he has sought God's forgiveness for his past moral failures; that's good enough for me.

I think I'm leaning toward the Newtster.

[b9]

~ thank you ~

[The_Eaglet]

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.

Thanks. Keep up the good work.

[WalterSkinner]

..re the immigration issue, did you see this?

Video Link

Very interesting...

[Maeve]

Thanks, Coleus!

[Spyder]

That's what amazes me. We have all this proof that conservatism wins everytime its tried and "moderate Republicanism" loses (see Ford '76/Bush '92/Dole '96) yet they sing the same old song.

Really? Worked real well for Tom McClintock, didn't it? (is that the guy's name who ran against Ahhnold in the primaries?). If McClintock had been the Republican nominee, say "Hola, Governor Bustamente."

[SoCalPol]

thanks for the link.
I find hypocrisy with some on FR who claim to like the U.S. But aid or support illegals who are destroying our country.
Europe is being ate up and taken over by the Muslims
and the U.S. the same by the illegals.

[Spyder]

But, since I read Newt's interview with Dr. Dobson and he said he has sought God's forgiveness for his past moral failures; that's good enough for me.

Please, please tell me you forgot the /sarcasm tag. Assuming you're serious (which I'm not sure you are, LOL) I'd rather a Rudy who owns up to it and doesn't excuse it than someone coming clean just in time to run for the election.

[FreeReign]

AuntB just refuted you! LMAO.

Actually, I refuted her.

AH

[CWOJackson]

Odd, the purists cheering for a big spending RINO. Duncan Hunter isn't the answer, he's part of the problem.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Keep them coming! Hehehe.

[ForOurFuture]

In a word, yes. If a young jihadi in, say, Saudi Arabia or Iran wants to go fight the Great Satan today, where does he go? Well, clearly, he goes to Iraq, because the media is telling him that the US is losing to his buddies. He thinks he can go to Iraq and kill the soldiers of the Great Satan. In reality, our soldiers are mostly killing the terrorists, not the other way around. The basic answer to your question is, yes, this is a smart strategy. We attract terrorists from around the world to Iraq precisely because they *think* they can hurt us there. The truth is, they mostly end up getting killed. If we don't provide that battleground then the terrorists come over here, and *we* mostly end up getting killed. On September 11, a mere 19 terrorists killed around 3,000 Americans. In Iraq, any given 3,000 terrorists are probably lucky to kill 19 Americans. I like those numbers quite a bit better, although any American deaths are regrettable. So yes, I'd much prefer that the young jihadi go up against our soldiers rather than spend his time looking for our women and children at home and around the world.

Is it perfect? Definitely not. Is it better than your strategy of hiding in a hole and hoping the terrorist world forgets about us? Yep.

At least you admit it. Most of the cheerleaders for this operation say something like "better to fight them over there than here" and leave it at that, as if it were truly that simple.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Excellent post, thanks! Worth repeating:

Conservatism can't be redefined to mean social issues only. Otherwise, it becomes a sectarian movement largely comprised of very religious folks that cannot get to 51% in any election.

I think there are some Freepers who would prefer conservatism to equal religious issues plus national security. That totally misunderstands the rich intellectual history of conservatism, both the Tory strain in the UK and the modern movement here started by, quite frankly, a bunch of New Yorkers! Buckley, the Kristols, Will, etc.

Political conservatism is a movement open to both religious and irreligious and is based on how one views the role of government more than anything. Economic freedom is one of its central tenets, as is taming the federal leviathan, and Duncan Hunter misses the mark on both counts.

[ForOurFuture]

Duncan Hunter is a social conservative. This is a social conservative site.

I never disputed that Duncan Hunter is a social conservative. Reread my original post and observe the implicit distinction I make between "conservative" and "conservative who has the credentials, record, image and charisma to make a good dark horse conservative candidate." But this is all academic. He cannot win the nomination. He doesn't even have the stature to influence, or "hold their feet to the fire," the candidates who can win the nomination.