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.
That's because you're exaggerating the issue. There are only going to be a few items where Hunter broke ranks with republicans and voted for some big-spending thingamajig. So, no, he's not a "park barrel big spending RINO" unless you consider the REPUBLICAN PARTY platform to be RINO and then you're really waaaaay out there and I won't need to bother swatting that fly.
Nice straw argument with some excellent misspellings. Very crisp insult, but lacking in backup punch due to transparency. No aftertaste.
I'm so glad you're defending him. Do the nation a favor, don't change your preference of candidates.
I don't doubt it seems like that to you.
So being a tool of the GOP (following the Republican line) an excessive spending (no child left behind and the prescription drug give away aren't part of an anti-missile shield) don't register on your meter.
***You haven't been reading the thread. The Prescription Drug Benefit was credited with helping Bush WIN Florida, which as you know was the deciding factor in him becoming president -- BY A FEW HUNDRED VOTES. So, yes, I think the PDB vote is a big plus for Hunter and the republican party because it helped elect GWB into office. Hunter isn't a tool of the GOP when it comes to illegal immigration and fair trade, 2 big issues that are coming into play in a major way. Your argument loses almost all of its credibiity.
VOTE DUNCAN HUNTER: a big spending RINO who did it for the GOP!
You keep promoting your loser candidate who isn't going anywhere, who can't manage to garner 3% in the polls, or do well at CPAC, and I will keep promoting mine until the owner tells me not to do so.
In the meantime, take a hike, loser!
Thanks, he's just a crybaby, a hypocrite, and a little loser. Those types of people are irrelevant.
Excellent plan. As long as he doesn't mind being paid with pledges instead of actual money, it sounds perfect.
Hell, I'd pay his salary.
Let's see. You said, " 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. " Then you proceed to rip on another candidate -- a socon -- from the safety of your uncommitted "probably can't win" base. No, I think you're the one who ends up looking stupid, and cowardly.
Then later on you say, in the same post... "I'll just let you convince the world that Duncan Hunter should and can win." And I said, "Thank you." But you continue to come back onto this thread. Again, that makes you look stupid and you don't keep your word.
If you know Shakespeare then you should be able to recognize a few expressions. But you didn't. So you don't look so smart there, either.
You can continue with your sanctimonious approach as if you are the only type of conservative who owns this forum and the rest of us are stupid, ignorant, sinful, or uneducated.
***Almost every time you post, you exaggerate the other side in straw argumentation. Of course I don't vew "the rest of us" as stupid, ignorant, sinful, or uneducated", I will let the readers decide for themselves. You've given them enough material to help them decide.
Social Conservative base is split
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=172
Judging from his recent activity on rudy threads showing his disdain, Jim Robinson appears to be in this "fringe element" who believes the socon base would be split by a social liberal like rudy. And since you're posting on his forum, that makes your position look as ironic as it is just plain wrong. You are something else.
Why, thank you.
Sounds like a plan. Maybe we'll get an ambassador to Free Republic from the Duncan Hunter team. I'm sure you'll be pleased if that happens.
Do you hear voices? Does the sofa talk to you? You don't receive commands from dogs in parked cars do you?
Now, Elyse, you can't ask for something like that!! CWO is on every Duncan Hunter thread spreading the same propaganda, with no sources and total distortion.
In other words, don't hold your breath.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799200/posts
In other words, there's no hiding from Hunter's voting record.
Try to refrain from the personal attacks. The owner of the forum might just hold you to that one simple rule.
So, I am a socon who supports a socon candidate on a socon forum "who can't manage to garner 3% in the polls," and I'm having some trouble with some "conservatives" who are pushing a solib candidate on a socon forum and I'm called the bully. That's pretty rich. Of course, we all know what happened to Dean when he was front runner in the last election, but that's not proof enough that polls don't mean much this early in the game.
I ain't no bully, just someone surprised to see a social liberal being pushed onto a socon forum. And then they don't answer posts of substance. Their candidate is the loser. With a guy like that, even if he wins, the republican party loses.
Would you care to answer the false dilemma? Since team rudy is so fond of its own false dilemma, after all.
My contention: If rudy gets the nomination, he loses the base and the election.
Your contention: If Hunter gets it, he wins the base and loses the election.
Hypothetical to answer your hypothetical. Both sides losing to Hillary.
Side A: The solib republican splits the base. The MSM turns on him the moment he is nominated. Hillary wins. Republican party is split.
Side B: The socon republican wins the nomination, loses to hildebeast in a tough fight. Republicans are united against the hillary presidency.
Which candidate is best for the republican party, Side A or Side B?
Win-Win false dilemma:
Side A: Solib wins presidency by ignoring the socon base and permanently splitting the republican party.
Side B: SoCon wins presidency by (obviously) relying on the socon base.
Which candidate is best for the republican party, Side A or Side B?
That's a personal attack. Which proves my point that team rudy is not polite. Keep up the good work, you guys make it easy to win supporters by just being yourselves.
No.
I said that pharse to another poster because that poster initiated that tactic with me in post #383.
I would suggest Kevmo now that you've put your foot in your mouth that if you wish to be credible and non-hypocritical, that you withdrawn your apparent lesson to me and you now direct it to the original poster, AuntB.
I'll check back to see if you pass that test.
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.