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.
Nope.
You forgot pro-big spending.
At first I thought you got a reply to that video on rudy. But it turns out to be a reply to something about "perfect candidates" and all that stuff. And the post doesn't even answer the question anyways. More sound & fury from detractors, signifying nothing. Keep up the good work.
everyone just "picks a team" and starts hurling garbage at each other.
***looking at the title of this thread, that tends to bolster your point. But this was posted by a guy who hasn't picked a team, so it sounds like some people are more interested in hurling garbage than being real about supporting a social conservative candidate on a socon forum.
Well said, even though I detect that I do not agree with your conclusions.
ROFLMAO! That would explain why every Guliani and Romney thread is totally spammed by Duncanites with their silly graphics and constantly repeated mantra. In fact, the other day a couple of us were discussing how the pro-Hunter threads were lucky to get 20-25 hits, and those by only 6-7 people, while the Guliani and Romney threads were getting hundreds of hits because of all the Duncanite spammers.
It seems you folks spend far more time on Guliani and Romney threads then you do on those supporting your own candidate.
How is that a straw argument, much less incorrect?
***I already explained how it's a straw argument. The fact that you can't or won't see it is very telling. Best of luck in supporting whichever candidate you choose, because you're going to need it.
Notice that you handwave over the substance and then proceed with "You can be all pissed off that Hunter isn't running away with the race, but reality is what it is." Again, this is ANOTHER straw argument. This time it's even deeper because you're presuming to tell me how I feel (you can be all pissed off because..." which isn't the case at all.
By all means, do tell this forum who your candidate is and how you came to the conclusion that this candidate was best for America and the republican party. Knowing that you have been using classic fallacies in your decision making process so far, it will be easy to see where you go off into the weeds.
Just to be clear... is it your position that the dems are *wrong* on this particular point?
Or did you even think it through that far?
I see. You're right because you say you're right. Very convincing.
I'm not supporting any candidate at present. I have previously stated that I like Newt the most, but am not sure that he'll run, and that he probably can't win if he does.
But since you've dismissed me with your brilliant analysis of the fallacies of my decision making, I'll just let you convince the world that Duncan Hunter should and can win.
I would go even further than you have.
I would submit that FR is not a "SoCon" site. It is a "Conservative" site. And Hunter is a "conservative" candiate. To label someone an SoCon, implies that one can be "social liberal" - and still be a conservative.
Rudy and McCain, and many of their supporters, are not conservatives - they're moderates or liberals. Some of them believe in SOME conservative positions, such as the war on terror, or reducing taxes BUT that doesn't make them conservative.
Take Rudy, for example, how is he a "Economic conservative"? He's in favor of the government paying for abortions!
As Rush stated, we're starting to redefine "conservative" to be nice to the moderates and liberal Republicans.
U-bet Rudy is not good on abortion.
Anyway, in addition to cutting taxes, Rudy cut spending 8 years in NYC. That's something conservative that Hunter and other Republican candidates could learn.
***"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?"***
You keep trying to sling that same mud. Hunter was not afraid to have all the records reviewed by a group of bi-partisan committee lawyers. He initiated the review.
---Although Cunningham did not serve on the House Armed Services Committee, its chairman, Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, has ordered a review of its records by committee lawyers from both parties to see if there were any attempts by Cunningham to influence the panel's actions.
So far, the staffers have not found any improper action.---
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060804-9999-1n4duke.html
Also, Hunter was one of many lawmakers that the company made donations to and Hunter was among the few who gave the donations to charity.
Reports were published that Hunter and Cunningham promoted the programs in opposition to the Pentagon, but Hunter has produced two letters to the Pentagon where he asked them to use their own judgement in the matter.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-09-defensecontractors_x.htm
LOL! I'm sure he pressured the Army to throw over $9,000,000 away to a campaign contributor of his to digitally archived records regarding the Panama Canal zone, records the Army didn't think import and didn't want to convert, out of a pure sense of conservatism and national defense.
That is simply an incorrect analysis. There is not one definition of a "conservative." It is a broad movement, and there are plenty of disagreements over the details of it.
Otherwise, we'd have a party platform that almost never changes and that there is little discussion about.
Even social conservatives disagree among themselves regarding social matters.
But there are numerous categories of people who identify themselves as conservatives. Neo-cons, paleo-cons, evangelicals, fiscal conservatives, libertarian conservatives, etc.
You can't just claim that your particular brand of conservatism is the only true one out there. If you try to do that, and be exclusionary about it, you'll find yourself alone in the wilderness.
I'd also like to add that I don't doubt that Hunter asked the Pentagon to consider the contract from Wilkes because the company was headquartered in his district in San Diego. That doesn't mean that he put undue influence on them, as evidenced by the letters that he wrote the Pentagon telling them to use their own judgement.
I don't know about you, but when I vote for a Congressman I vote for a man that will try to bring jobs and help the economy in my community. Just because Duncan was House Chairman of the Armed Services committee doesn't mean that he didn't still have obligations to the community that elected him to office.
Would you please give some sources on your information?
Yes, twenty some letters with the caveat to use their own judgement.
"I don't know about you, but when I vote for a Congressman I vote for a man that will try to bring jobs and help the economy in my community."
Then you will love Hunter. He's never met a spending bill he didn't like.
"Just because Duncan was House Chairman of the Armed Services committee doesn't mean that he didn't still have obligations to the community that elected him to office."
And I'm sure they appreciated the over $9,000,000 they received for doing a job that the Army didn't want done and which took funds away from important projects.
Vote Duncan Hunter...he delivers the pork!
Duncan Hunter has certainly been a good congressman for his district, but I'm quite sure that's all he'll ever be.
Has he announced that he won't be seeking re-election next year for his House seat?
No need to answer. I already know.
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.