***YES on the 527 bill (like most Republicans, he flip-flopped, having first voted NO on McCain-Feingold)***
I'm going to go through all of these, but I'll start with this one. Hunter voted a solid NO on McCain-Feingold because it was a BAD law. The 527 bill attempted to clean up that BAD law by making 527 orginazations identify all of their contributors.
I urge you all to read this article -
http://thehill.com/business--lobby/527-bill-splits-republicans-2006-04-05.html
You will see that the Club for Growth which is a 527 organization has an ax to grind with Duncan Hunter and any one that voted for this bill.
Great post, and we thank you!!
Good research. Thanks.
Thank you for clearing up Hunter's vote on McCain-Feingold.
So far the only arrows being slung at Duncan Hunter have been to cite a rating given him by the Club For Growth. He only scored a 49 % with the ‘Club’. Never mind that most other conservative organizations such as the NRA, NumbersUSA, American Conservative Union - (92% LIFETIME) rate Hunter near or at the top.
The bottom line is this. Duncan Hunter wants to secure our borders, his 26 year legislative history proves that. He also wants the truth told about trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA and China, Fast track trade authority that bypasses constitutionally mandated congressional control. The Club for Growth, and the people involved in it have done just the opposite. As will their pick for president.
Anyone looking at Duncan Hunters voting and legislative record must conclude that perhaps the ‘Club’ is more RINO than Republican or Conservative. The Club cites this:
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".
For the past few years? Well, yes, WAR appropriations happen to be expensive; he voted along the lines of his party and president. When Hunters record is examined bill, by bill his budget votes were about military spending. No one has yet made a case that any of his votes were ‘pork’ . But the ‘Club’ doesn’t mention that.
They do mention, " Despite being a member of the Republican Study Committee, Hunter frequently votes NO on their fiscally conservative annual budgets (2006, 2005, 2003...)"
When you look at those votes, you will see that the MAJORITY of republicans voted NO on them.
You be the judge, is the ‘Clubs’ analysis of Hunter even remotely indicative of reality? If what they convey here is true, they admit they do not agree with just about 2/3 of republicans voting in congress.
So who does the ‘Club for Growth’ agree with? One of the bills they faulted Duncan for voting for was a transportation bill. Republican congressmen voted 218 to 9 for it. Is Club for Growth representing the republican base or something else?
"The Club for Growth is a section 527 political organization and an affiliated political action committee that raises money for candidates who support an anti-tax and limited-government agenda. It was created by former Cato Institute fellow Stephen Moore. "
Stephen Moore. That’s a name anyone involved in the battle to secure our nations borders needs to know. And where you find Moore, you find Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich and common agendas. Often, those agendas are not 'conservative'.
Moore has written articles in favor of increased immigration to the U.S., and has debated against immigration restrictionists. In one article, Moore favorably cited a speech at Cato by Rep. Dick Armey, R-TX, who said he believes the U.S. "should be thinking about increasing legal immigration." Moore worked on studies for the wing immigration advocacy group, the National Immigration Forum, which favors amnesty for illegal aliens.
In 1996, Moore along with Grover Norquist helped defeat any measures aimed at enforcement in an immigration reform bill.
Marcus Stern describes Moores involvement in an award winning article.
The coalition was a juggernaut that fought virtually any verification initiative. Because Republicans control Congress, conservative lobbyists were especially influential. The fact that some limited, voluntary verification projects stayed in the bill at all outraged some conservatives.
"I view it as the camel's nose under the tent for a national ID card," said Stephen Moore, an economist with the Cato Institute who lobbied against the bill. "The theme we played to Republicans was that if you're trying to roll back big government, you shouldn't be instituting this new police-state power."
Social conservatives like Norquist and libertarians like Moore don't see illegal immigration as a major problem.
"Illegal immigration is part of the price we pay for being both a prosperous and a free country, and I'm not willing to sacrifice some of our freedoms to try to keep out immigrants, especially when I don't think it's going to work very well," said Moore.
He added that spending $3 billion-plus a year to fund the Immigration and Naturalization Service "probably is a waste of money. But this is a political issue. And the way you deal with illegal immigration is you increase the INS budget. It doesn't do a lot, but at least politicians on both sides can go home and say, `Well, how can you say I'm not doing anything about immigration? I increased the INS budget.' "
What you don't do, he said, is involve employers in enforcement.
"Sometimes in politics you pass feel-good measures," Moore said. "And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Passing a bill that's mostly window dressing is a way of defusing public alarm about something. And in states like California, illegal immigration is perceived as a big problem."
Working closely with Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute, Cesar Conda (former domestic advisor to Dick Cheney) circulated a statement against Prop. 187 of California in the nineties.
And what have Moore and his associate Grover Norquist been up to lately? More of the same.
Last fall the Club for Growth worked against conservative republican candidate Robert Vasquez, an ardent illegal alien opponent by funding his opposition.
Moore, along with Norquist, Newt Gingrich, Tamar Jacoby and other amnesty advocates penned a letter to the Wall St Journal proclaiming Bush’s guest worker plan as "a humane, orderly, and economically sensible approach to migration."
On September 19, 2005, the Federal Election Commission filed suit against the Club for Growth for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act for failing to register as a political action committee in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 congressional elections.
You can be sure that both Stephen Moore and Grover Norquist are working full time to keep our borders open and promote any and all trade/labor agreements whether they benefit the USA and it’s people or not.
Moore said this about Norquist. "From the moment he gets up to the moment he gets to bed, he thinks, 'How am I going to hurt the other team?"
Whoever the Club for Growth decides to push for president, you can be sure they don't believe it if that candidate pretends to want to secure the border and implement sane trade policy.
Buyer, BEWARE.
It should come as no surprise that the Club for Growth would come out against Duncan Hunter.
Wear it as a badge of honor, Congressman!
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2007/02/club-for-growth-and-2008-presidential.html