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.
Obviously, he's the only candidate who will be perfect enough.
Hmmmmm. I don't know. It's been a WHILE since he's walked on water!
Duncan Hunter "gets" the China threat.
I don't agree that we have to choose between tweedle dee and tweedle dumb.
I'm not talking about perfect, because no human being IS perfect.
I'm talking about someone who is darn good on most of the issues, like DUNCAN HUNTER:
http://www.issues2002.org/CA/Duncan_Hunter.htm
excerpts are:
Duncan Hunter on Abortion
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Duncan Hunter on Gun Control
Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Rated A+ by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
Duncan Hunter on Foreign Policy
Voted YES on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Voted NO on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
Yes, I've done the research and I agree with him on many issues. Agreement on issues does not mean, however, that I am willing to commit right here right now to supporting his campaign. There are many other things that are important to me.
I think the thing I fear most about the radical right is their absolute conviction that their point of view is the only possible correct one and that their own holiness exceeds that of anyone else.
I honestly thought you were joking. I hope Newt has made his peace with the Lord, I like the guy a lot. I don't think he'd have a prayer in the election though - his negatives are at least as high as Hillary. I was never a believer in loud public confessions of any sort. The thief on the cross didn't call a press conference or go on a nationwide to confess. He made his peace directly with Christ. Anyone who makes a loud public confession always deserves a bit of skepticism, particularly when he stands to gain by it.
"This is probably a discussion for another day, but I do believe China is a threat.
That said, suddenly "cutting off" a country that has a strong emerging capitalist economy and a population waking up to the wonders of free societies is a good way to actually start a war. Also, there are many, many ways to fight a subversive war and making another country dependent on us for their survival can be one of those.
Finally, in relationship to Hunter, he doesn't just address China with his protectionist stances...he is pretty solidly protectionist across the board, even in our own hemisphere. I am completely against that, especially since prosperous and free North America is essential to solving a multitude of problems we have in our own country, including the lack of border security.
Again, I realize that others have serious issues with this position, but that's where I stand and that is why his position in this area bothers me. I am not coming to this from an uneducated position and have done my research into the topic. I just came to different conclusions than many others and can respect that my position is not necessarily the prevailing one around here."
I'm glad that you realize that China is a threat, and so does Duncan Hunter:
DUNCAN HUNTER QUOTE: "Not only do we have a bad trade deal with China but they're cheating on the one we do have. China is cheating on trade and they're using our trade dollars to buy ships, planes and missiles. They're becoming a super power and stepping into the shoes of the Soviet Union."
Appeasing China is not the answer. One of the principal causes of WWI and WWII was APPEASEMENT.
How did we get in this economical mess with China? Because the majority of politicians voted for the "Permanent Normal Trade Relations" with China.
But NOT Duncan Hunter!
As shown in my previous post with link:
DUNCAN HUNTER Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
No one expects that you have to decide here and now.
I don't think any of us will find a candidate who thinks EXACTLY like us.
Sun...you've made your case on China and Hunter.
I am still not going to commit on any candidate yet. I agree where I agree and don't where I don't. I will eventually make my decision on which candidate to support in the primaries based on my own set of criteria which is far reaching and complex, sometimes concrete and sometimes nebulous...but ALWAYS with the goal of moving conservatism forward. That time is not now.
I wish you good luck and success in the campaign.
There is no one that thinks exactly like me...heck, I don't even always think exactly like me. I think they call that learning. :-)
Seriously, I wish you good luck and great success in your support of Hunter.
"I wish you good luck and success in the campaign."
Thanks, and may the best man win!
That's the qualification I was looking for. F Cato and CFG and the horse they rode in on!
That is one of the most pristine examples of straw argumentation I have seen in a while. You set up the straw that there's "plenty of time for the diehard Hunter supporters to make their case to the readers of this forum." And then you proceed to argue against that position. "Even assuming they are persuasive, the readers of this forum probably total several hundred thousand people at best." It's bloody perfect!
Another hole in your initial statement is "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%." I agree with this statement. But it's meaningless because Hunter does not unite the GOP base. Yet. The 2 poll on Free Republic puts forth an obvious SOCON (only Hunter fits that description given) versus a SOLIB (it certainly fits rudy).
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=171
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=172
At this point there are several socons in consideration and that's why Hunter doesn't unite the base. YET. It also shows that rudy DOES split the base. No candidate has ever won a republican presidency with a split base. Of course, you gloss over that in your haste to introduce straw arguments.
Good points.
Politics is the art of compromise.
***The word for politics comes from the same word as Polite. Team rudy is not very polite. In particular they're pushing their solib candidate on this socon forum and using straw arguments and false dilemma reasoning. When I called it the height of imposition, one rudybot just got all upset, pinged the rest of the team and said, "look at this piece of work". There is no real substance to their positions other than poll results, and when we point out that Dean had great early poll results, we get crickets.
Polls show that McClintock would have won if aRINOld had not entered the race. There goes your theory. From a simple quick search within FR:
Will the last fiscal conservative in California turn the lights ...
Without Arnold in the race, McClintock would have won. But the intent of the recall effort was to get a terrible Governor out of office. ...www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782833/posts - 45k - Mar 9, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages
User Posts
But, I am not sure McClintock would have won with Arnold's vigorous support. Many, who voted for Arnold, obviously didn't vote for McClintock. ...www.freerepublic.com/~lajustice/in-forum - 111k - Cached - Similar pages
Former pro wrestler Nikolai Volkoff runs for office as a ...
this is freaking Baltimore County there's no freaking way any Republican is possibly going to win, unlike California where Tom McClintock would have won his ...www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1627549/posts - 43k - Cached - Similar pages
Kennedy Republicans (Closet Democrat Arnold Schwarzenegger has ...
George is the first columnist I have seen make the claim that, had Arnold not entered the recall race, "Tom McClintock would have won easily". ...www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1532498/posts - 49k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
Al-Qaida Wins
David S. Broder: Schwarzenegger might show GOP the way
McClintock would have won, and we could have had a convservative governor. But NO, the Orange County RINOs didn't have the huevos. ...www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1712500/posts - 28k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
Bush, Schwarzenegger won't meet on president's California trip
Going into the recall, the polls clearly showed that if the election had been between Bustamante & McClintock, that McClintock would have won hands down! ...www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1473168/posts - 17k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
McClinotck Begins Luitenant Governor Campaign
Had Arnold NOT stuck his nose into the race, McClintock would have won and returned California back to her golden-state glory. ...www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1390159/posts - 50k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
Thanks for that research on Duncan Hunter's spending. Perhaps you could post a little bit of detail on how you came to that conclusion?
Actually, that would be you. Duncan Hunters big spending Republican voting habits, and his penchant for big money from defense industries, are a matter of public record...and you keep whining over, and over, and over that it's not backed up.
I can understand your angst...damn those public records.
"Free trade I guess"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/705954/posts
Debunking the Myth of a Desperate Software Labor Shortage
Testimony to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Immigration
Dr. Norman Matloff
Department of Computer Science
University of California at Davis
Davis, CA 95616
(530) 752-1953
matloff@cs.ucdavis.edu
©1998, 1999, 2000, 2001
Presented April 21, 1998; updated February 4, 2002
You can make the assertion that I made a straw argument, but that doesn't mean you're right.
You're the one who said that there was plenty of time for Hunter to emerge.
I agreed.
I also said that it doesn't matter if he emerges at this forum, because that's not where it counts.
How is that a straw argument, much less incorrect?
You can be all pissed off that Hunter isn't running away with the race, but reality is what it is. It's not your fault or mine.
Dunken whoever is polling between 1% and an asterisk. ***Sounds about right. That's just a little below John Kerry about this time last race. And Dean's numbers were way up there. Of course, Kerry won the nomination and Dean fizzled.
He has as much chance as being the next POTUS as Custer's Bugler.
***Then he isn't even worth the few seconds you have taken in this post to swat this fly. And in your other posts where you actually bullied a freeper to quit Free Republic. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Hunter is part of the spendaholic GOP
***Hunter is a team player. I've been saying all along that this so-called "spending problem" is more of an indictment of the republican party than Hunter. Hunter breaks with the team on free trade when it's with countries that have ill intent for the U.S. and with illegal immigration. Both of those issues have wide appeal and make him a candidate who can attract crossover votes in large numbers.
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.