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.
((((PING))))
No candidate is perfect - politicians spend money (gasp!). I would like to see spending curtailed, definitely, but I happen to agree with Hunter's stance on China. When I compare my value system to Hunter and to the other candidates running - Duncan Hunter still comes out on top.
GO DUNCAN HUNTER!!!
How's his vote on the second amendment issues?
so,so true.
NO on NAFTA
NO on CAFTA
= 2 GRAND SLAMS.
He also is a Ranger.
Outstanding.
A Prolife anti-foolstrade Vet. He has my vote.
..he talks about a lot of stuff including 2nd Amendment...
:)
LBT
-=-=-
Since you support Ron Paul and do not support the war you have just given the best support to Duncan Hunter.
You and the other traitors to America who support Paul should start your own site.
Today I see supporters of Gingrich screaming it's only about sex.
Apparently the negatives only matter when they don't apply to your own candidate.
Conservatism can't be redefined to mean social issues only. Otherwise, it becomes a sectarian movement largely comprised of very religious folks that cannot get to 51% in any election.
I think there are some Freepers who would prefer conservatism to equal religious issues plus national security. That totally misunderstands the rich intellectual history of conservatism, both the Tory strain in the UK and the modern movement here started by, quite frankly, a bunch of New Yorkers! Buckley, the Kristols, Will, etc.
Political conservatism is a movement open to both religious and irreligious and is based on how one views the role of government more than anything. Economic freedom is one of its central tenets, as is taming the federal leviathan, and Duncan Hunter misses the mark on both counts.
"Never had the privilege of listening to Reagan speak, as I was born in 88', sadly. So I can't compare."
You should hunt down the audio of some of Reagan's speeches, they still are very inspirational. I don't think Reagan was more conservative than Hunter, but he had a way of explaining things that everyone could understand. That was a tremendous asset!
Like your post! Tend to agree with you!
I could call you a traitor to America for supporting a war/occupation that is not in the best interests of the United States. But I have enough dignity and common sense to avoid accusing of treason anyone who disagrees with me.
Thank you. Good data points.
LBT
-=-=-
I don't understand the hype about this guy Hunter here on FR. Granted, I'm a Rudy guy myself BUT (unlike some on the fringe right here who won't vote for Rudy if he wins) I will vote for Hunter in the general election if he wins the primaries. I am petrified of the Hildebeast.
However, Hunter just doesn't seem too presidential. He's kind of sloppy, a tad overweight, hair's always messy- anything but presidential, IMHO. Personally, I could care less about these cosmetic faults, but the Oprah age is now upon us...
You just described Denny Hastert...also.
You use the term occupation just like the far left.
We are arming and training the people of Iraq, and they have had elections. Yeah, that sounds like occupation.
But the point is that the Club for Growth represents the Open Borders, Free Trade Uber-Alles style of Republicanism. It is possible to get a 100% rating from them while supporting gun bans, abortion on demnad, and gay marraige. It's possible to be pro-terrorist and get a 100% rating from them.
The conservative party is having some internal squabbles, and they are definately party to them.
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.