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.
Compare DUNCAN HUNTER, RUDY GIULIANI, MITT ROMNEY - the good and the bad:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfwddr/Choose.htm
I'm not saying it isn't hard.
I'm just talking about the comparison between the two positions.
Oo you can sit on your thumbs pouting because your candidate is just another big spending Republican.
This is from his site. It goes against the real data that shows that Americans are actually doing better since we started embracing Free Trade. It's all wrapped up in fancy "Fair & Equitable Trade" language, but it is a form of protectionism. It may not be something that bothers you, and I know there are many here that support this strongly, which is fine. I, however, do not for a multitude of reasons which I don't need to go into on this thread.
Here's the link: http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=11
I was initially responding to two things...the "far easier" wording, and the fact that Hunter has been in congress as long as he has. You'd think he'd would have mastered earmarks by now.
In any case, I understand you support him and I respect that. No worries.
So was it this contentious this early last time around? I lurked, but I can't remember since I wasn't invested in the same way.
I mean look at Newt. He says he's not even going to make up his mind till this fall (all the while he's running).
There is still plenty of time for other people to get into the race so why get this serious now.
At the frantic rate the anti-Guliani an anti-Romney crowd is going they're going to all be suffering combat fatigue long before the primaries. Fine with me.
For me, it comes down to the fact that I'm not sold on anyone yet.
People talk a lot around here about these folks "earning" our support and how important it is for them to not just assume they are going to get our vote—and yet when the time comes to stand back and let these guys earn it, everyone just "picks a team" and starts hurling garbage at each other.
That means no one had to EARN anything. Frankly, its embarrassing.
I think your chart does a good job of accurately showing Hunter's position on trade.
You keep saying the same things over, and over, and over, and over, and never back up what you say.
I believe that you are just making stuff up, so I will not bother to read your posts, which are always the same, anyway, but NEVER, EVER verified.
WOW, you are like a breath of fresh air. I have no intentions of making up my mind until I at the very least hear them debate each other.
Free trade should be for free countries - NOT Communist countries.
Communist China is building up it's military strength from American dollars, and some day it might bite us in the butt.
DUNCAN HUNTER is the only politician who is speaking out against trade with Communist China, particularly unbalanced trade.
Some people don't think China is a threat, but if they read articles by Bill Gertz, or read his book "The China threat," maybe they would.
"I think your chart does a good job of accurately showing Hunter's position on trade."
Yes, it does, and he gets it.
And here's more:
CHINA AND TRADE - http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/137666/a_concise_report_duncan_hunter_republican.html
"We're going to need a lot of fight left in about a year."
Actually we need to research candidates BEFORE the primaries, which is less than a year away.
We don't want to end up with a choice between tweedle dee and tweedle dumb, do we?
In general, this is the case.
Now once you bring in particulars (aka MSM, treasonous Democrats, etcetera), things get murkier.
It doesn't help that Bush has mostly rolled over to criticisms.
No, he agrees with your position. There is nothing to "get" in this discussion. There are simply different conclusions drawn from a set of facts.
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.