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.
The fact is, that America needs these young backs for our labor pool,
***Prove that assertion. This is exploitation. And with this issue linked to WOT as a security issue, any candidate who approaches it that way is consequently weak on WOT.
The only reason to debate Hunter's campaign is for the fun of it, because I guarantee you that he'll never become a contender in this election. He'll be lucky to reach Dennis Kucinich status.
I agree, ...
***Then why waste your time on these threads? Methinks the ladies doth protest too much. And the fact that we're pushing a socon candidate on a socon forum and you questionables are pushing some kind of solib candidate in the name of compromise almost a year before the primaries tends to make this socon wonder what you're doing here on this socon forum other than being a provocateur.
I totally agree...the real question is, what team. Do you mean when he teamed up with Randy Cummingham to pressure the DoD into spending over $9,000,000 on a digital archiving contract for Panama Canal Zone documents that the Army did not what, that the GAO says took funds away from other projects?
Or is his team the defense contractor who won that lucrative deal...after giving him a big fat campaign contribution?
Duncan Hunter isn't the answer, he's part of the problem.
I don't need any crap from you, Kevmo. My posting history here is extensive and it far exceeds yours.
I don't have anything against ladies, but I'm not one and your schoolyard taunts should be beneath you. Grow up.
When was the last time you AuntB gave 80K to charity.
***Probably the same time she kept 20% for herself.
FreeReign:
Here's what the demos have to say about our front runners. Interesting you should be on the same side as them.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/8/204147/318
GOP Cattle Call 2008: Week of 12/04/06
by Trapper John
Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 05:48:36 PM PST
Imagine, if you will, that the three front-runners for the Democratic nomination were: 1) Joe Lieberman; 2) a fundamentalist Christian governor of Utah, and; 3) an anti-choice former mayor of Colorado Springs who isn't just against gay marriage, but who actively and publicly dislikes gay people.
Ouch. That wouldn't be much fun. In fact, it might well sour the Dem base on the entire primary process. Fortunately, we have a much less offensive candidate pool. But Republicans looking at their real field of candidates must feel much the same as we would in the nightmare scenario above. Because each one of the top three candidates in the inaugural 2008 GOP Cattle Call has at least one trait that makes them anathema to large swaths of the Republican base.
Prescription Drug Benefit... Hunter voted for that. Hunter has a spending problem.
***On areas that happen to attract crossover voters. This could easily be turned into an advantage. At any rate, it doesn't hit all that high on my care-o-meter, so I'll leave it up to the other Hunter fans to tackle it if they are so inclined.
Nice class envy response.
No thanks.
$80K given is $80K given.
Did you ever think you'd see the day when folks on FR would be defending a big spending Republican?
***On areas that happen to attract crossover voters. This could easily be turned into an advantage. At any rate, it doesn't hit all that high on my care-o-meter, so I'll leave it up to the other Hunter fans to tackle it if they are so inclined.
Yes, I fully understand the potential political advantages. After all Bush won an election by several hundred votes in the state of Florida, promising a PDB.
That said, big spending is one of our biggest problems, entitlements are the biggest part of our spending and the PDB (outside of Homeland Defense and DOD type spending) is what adds to the problem.
In all honesty, it's been less than civil on all fronts.
I'm doing my part to be civil.
I promise not to use the phrase "Rudybot" or post pictures of Rudy in drag.
Your post is dopey.
I simply mention Hunter's spending problem and defend Rudy for giving 80K to Tsunami victims.
And you post the above remark to me.
Stick it elsewhere.
Thanks!
LOL!
It seems to have hit a nerve.
You're making no points against Hunter and I'm not running for president. My 'giving' is none of your business. Rudy's is.
The hilarious thing is, many of his faithful supporters have been complaining about the President's big spending ways for six years, now suddenly big spending is a virtue.
I appreciate your efforts and attitude. FR has become a less friendly place over the past several weeks and it doesn't have to be that way.
It's not always possible to have friendly disagreements, but that should be the standard we should try to reach if we do disagree.
It's awfully early in the Presidential race to be getting as heated as we have been.
All this re-defining conservatism conveniently overlooks the fact that this is a socon website. I'm not interested in re-defining conservatism to fit the image of your tootyfruity solib candidate. I doubt Jim Robinson is, either. Such attempts are much better suited elsewhere, on another website. We're pushing a socon candidate on a socon forum and running into people who like to think of themselves as conservative but they're pushing a solib candidate on this socon forum and trying to get socons to compromise. Knowing that a solib candidate splits the socon republican base and that no republican ever won the presidency with a split base, that leaves me to conclude that this cult of personality values its own solib beliefs more than the health of the republican party. Folks like you are doing REAL damage to the republican party and I doubt your loyalty to it.
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
Free Republic ^ | Jim Robinson
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc.
That's a pretty strike against him.
Draft Haley bump
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.
***That's where we differ. And since this is the primary season, I'll stick with my socon candidate. Just ask Dean: High early poll numbers do not a nominee make.
Actually Rudy wasn't running for President when he gave 80K of the 100K to charity. Not that it should matter, because it is Rudy's private money.
And I not only commend Rudy for giving 80K to charity, I also commend Rudy for being able to make 80K so that he can give 80K to charity.
That's called the just rewards of capitalism. Remember when conservatives used to think that way?
(Maybe you never did?)
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.