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.
Yep...write-ins are powerful!!!
Agh, forgot the rest of my post regarding his fiscal conservatism.
DESPITE being pro-tax cuts (and I personally don't find his position on trade to be so worrying. I mean, it's China!), his spending is a bit worrisome.
We can only wait and see.
LOL, sorry for the wrong cut and paste. That obviously wasn't your quote.
I like the way it used to be
before much cosmetology
required such apology.
I liked it when a POTUS' core
was more than what he combed or wore.
Like all the things he stood up for,
like giving troops their due in war.
Nowadays a man's true worth
is measured by his guts, in girth,
instead of moral courage. Why?
Duncan Hunter's still my guy.
";^)
No problem. I almost did the same thing...butter from the popcorn making my fingers slide around on the keyboard.
Now remember, it's good to be honest about a candidate's short-comings. Yes, Hunter's fiscal conservatism is a tad worrisome. He's pro tax-cuts, and I don't find his positions on trade to be so problematic considering that he's the only one speaking out against China. But he has been a spender.
Nevertheless, he's far superior to the other candidates thus far. Depending on his choice for VP, his fiscal problem could be mitigated.
Does he conspire with the Demoncrats to bring down his own party like McCain does?
I think it's going to be a long wait for you.
Yeah, let's see... he's Ronald Reagan without the deeply held principles, without the track record, and without the leadership ability or communications skills.
And would be a heck of a lot better in other areas--border security and the trade issue with China...
Meh, the business conservatives have had their way for too long with this party. Now they are trying to just cram their own people, like Guiliani, down social conservatives throats and trying to sabotage anybody who doesn't tow their line.
They are going to end up getting Hillary elected when social conservatives just say the heck with it and sit home in November.
I don't think what is considered "free-trade" these days is supported by man conservatives. This one, for sure.
I wouldn't be that negative of Duncan Hunter. In the general election, if he were the nominee, I'd gladly vote for him.
Anyway, I'd describe him more as Bob Dole with a fence.
..I don't recall Sen. Dole being this openly pro-life...
Deeply held principles? Track record?
Socially, his track record is excellent. In regards to the 2nd Amendment, Abortion, Illegal Immigration, and the Border, he's downright great.
He's pro-war. He served in Vietnam, and his son has served in Iraq.
Fiscally, he's pro-tax cuts. His positions on trade are ones I don't necessarily see problems with, considering that he's choosy about who to trade freely with (Japan and Austrailia? Free trade it is! China? Not so much.). Fiscally? He's a spender. I will not be ashamed to admit that.
So that's one negative (A couple if you split 'spending' up into more specific issues) compared to how many shared by the other candidates?
At worst? I give his conservatism a B. At best? A-.
Better than the others at any rate.
So yes, he does have the principles and the track record.
Leadership ability...now, what about his demeanor or rhetoric indicates cowardice?
Communications skills...I've listened to him. I've liked what I've heard. Better than Bush, most definitely.
Never had the privilege of listening to Reagan speak, as I was born in 88', sadly. So I can't compare.
I have yet to understand how Duncan Hunter came to be perceived as the "true conservative" alternative to McCain, Guliani, and Romney. I am fairly familiar with the membership of the House, and when I think of principled, articulate, inspiring, "movement" conservatives in the House that might make a good conservative presidential candidate, Duncan Hunter simply does not come to mind. He blends into the crowd. Just another House Republican. Some of the facts listed in this column confirm my suspicion.
..I think you just hit the nerve in that tooth ; -)
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.