Posted on 08/05/2007 3:16:16 PM PDT by WalterSkinner
Duncan Hunter at Iowa Presidential Debate at Drake University--8-5-07
Tancredo said to Steph. there are OTHER PEOPLE IN THE ROOM!
And you know, while I heard Tancredo SAY it, when I replayed it, and put it on mute, and could READ the words, Tancredo’s words were not included, so I’m wondering if ABC will leave Tancredo’s legitimate complaint out of their transcript.
The important thing is that Mr. Hunter be seen in ways that will make him stand out from the crowd. Being seen as just one more Republican candidate talking about abortion isn't going to help him. Posturing about abortion will help him with those five to ten percent of the voters who vote on nothing else and whom he is splitting with Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and maybe Tom Tancredo. Even if he could win all of these voters, he wouldn't be in the "top tier."
From what I saw on Walter's video, Mr. Hunter hit the issues where he can really distinguish himself from the other candidates. He understands the military issues. He understands how to make the Iraq War a success. Those issues are the ones that will put him in the minds of average folks who make up most of the voters.
Bill
B U M P
Wonderful job.
Thank you.
The debate was over 18 minutes ago here in my part of the West Coast.
Actually, I thought that John McCain came across very strongly in this debate. I did not like Romney’s stand on national health care at all. Tom Tancredo was noticeably angry at being ignored for so long, and rightfully so. The two most conservative and “right on” candidates, Hunter and Tancredo, were both given the least time, as usual.
“He understands the military issues.”
Hunter understands the military issues like no one else!
And he’s pro-LIFE, and I wouldn’t back him, if he tried to hide that fact, but he does NOT!
Also, don’t take pro-lifers for granted. A Republican cannot win the presidency without us.
You did it again, Walter! Great presentation! See my #26. Thank you. Ros :)
Which one was he?
I can never understand Stephanopolis..
Was Hunter the one introduced as "Hunk O' Clutter"?
My reception isn't that good here.
I'm not taking pro-lifers for granted, but I'm saying that a candidate gains no advantage from the "the most pro-life" in this field. The GOP hasn't nominated the "most pro-life" candidate in a competitive primary since 1980, and in 1980, the "most pro-life" candidate was Ronald Reagan who had governed California as a moderate on abortion. The GOP has never nominated someone who came across as a pro-life extremist. Mr. Hunter will not win by pushing the abortion issue too hard. His being a consistent pro-lifer helps him, but being the most zealous does not.
Bill
“I’m not taking pro-lifers for granted, but I’m saying that a candidate gains no advantage from the “the most pro-life” in this field. The GOP hasn’t nominated the “most pro-life” candidate in a competitive primary since 1980, and in 1980, the “most pro-life” candidate was Ronald Reagan who had governed California as a moderate on abortion. The GOP has never nominated someone who came across as a pro-life extremist. Mr. Hunter will not win by pushing the abortion issue too hard. His being a consistent pro-lifer helps him, but being the most zealous does not.
Bill”
It appears that you don’t have the passion for the life issue as Reagan, Brownback, Hunter and I, so have already made up your mind to fit your interpretation of voters’ intent on the LIFE issue.
There is no such thing as a pro-life extremist, as all life is sacred, from conception to natural death.
Many pro-lifers were against the war (I happen to support the war), and the antiwar pro-lifers supported Bush because he is pro-LIFE.
President Reagan and Duncan Hunter are on the same page on the life issue, and Reagan said the only people who aren’t pro-life are born.
Unlike former Gov. Romney, President Reagan didn’t flip flop just before the primaries, and he regretted a decision he made while gov. on the life issue.
Anyway, you are deflecting, but I don’t think it’s on purpose. The point is that they did NOT even ask Hunter the pro-life question. They ignored him, and it would have helped him, as more pro-lifers would have knocked on doors, etc. to support him.
Polls have shown that pro-life voters will vote for a candidate if they are pro-LIFE, but pro-”choice” candidates as a rule will vote for other issues.
Being strongly pro-LIFE does not weaken Hunter’s positions on fighting the WOT, borders, speaking out against Red China, etc. - it HELPS Hunter!
You should rethink your post.
On a far more relevant note, anything Hunter say that you disagreed with?
I, too, love this guy. He’s the best that the Republican Party has to offer- a winner. He has everything. What must we do to get that point across?
DUNCAN HUNTER ‘08
Let's look at some numbers. In 1992, voters had the choice of G.H.W. Bush who was opposed to legalized abortion even though he wasn't as passionate as some pro-lifers wanted, Bill Clinton who favored legalized abortion, and Ross Perot who favored legalized abortion. The combined vote of the candidates who favored legalized abortion was sixty-two percent against only thirty-eight percent who opposed legalized abortion. In 1996, the even less pro-life Bob Dole won about forty-three percent of the vote against the same two pro-abortion candidates. In 2000, the pro-life G.W. Bush won about forty-eight percent of the vote against the pro-abortion Al Gore and Ralph Nader. In the primaries, G.W. Bush was often considered too soft in his pro-life stances by the hard-core pro-lifers. In 2004, the pro-life G.W. Bush finally received more than fifty percent of the vote, but he was helped by the fact that several states had gay marriage on the state ballots to drive up conservative turnout, people still supported him as a wartime president, and John Kerry was a very weak candidate. A pro-life candidate will not have any of those advantages in 2008.
A careful examination of the facts suggests that my interpretation is correct. People are less comfortable with abortion than they've ever been, but they aren't ready for the kind of complete prohibition that hard-core pro-lifers want. I think someone with Mr. Hunter's beliefs can win, but he doesn't help himself by posturing on the issue every time the voters see him.
There is no such thing as a pro-life extremist, as all life is sacred, from conception to natural death.
I'm sorry, but this statement is just so much nonsense. Some situations can kill the mother before the baby has time to develop well enough to survive. In these situations, the question is not between life and death. The question is between one life and the other or sometimes between one death or two. Pro-life extremists are people who insist that two deaths are better than one if saving the mother depends on treatment that would kill the baby or who believe that they have the right to make the decision of which life to save. Let me make this clear. You don't have the right to decide which life will be saved, and if a woman decides to save her own life, that's none of your business.
Unlike former Gov. Romney, President Reagan didn’t flip flop just before the primaries, and he regretted a decision he made while gov. on the life issue.
Unlike President Reagan, Governor Romney acted in favor of life whenever the issue arose during his term as governor. Governor Romney's rhetoric has not been all that the pro-life movement would like over the years, but his performance in office was good. The question becomes whether we want posturing on the campaign trail or performance in office.
Anyway, you are deflecting, but I don’t think it’s on purpose. The point is that they did NOT even ask Hunter the pro-life question.
No, my point is that Mr. Hunter was not hurt by the fact that they didn't ask him the question. He doesn't need to spend more time posturing about the abortion issue.
They ignored him, and it would have helped him, as more pro-lifers would have knocked on doors, etc. to support him.
The pro-lifers who are willing to knock on doors are people who will research the candidates on their own or people who have already decided and are just watching the debate in order to see how their candidate would do. Having another chance to posture on this issue would not have gained him any volunteers. He did a great job with the questions that he received. More time would have been nice, but one more repeat of his abortion position would not have changed anything.
Polls have shown that pro-life voters will vote for a candidate if they are pro-LIFE, but pro-”choice” candidates as a rule will vote for other issues.
No one is suggesting that Mr. Hunter would get more votes by supporting legalized abortion. No one doubts that Duncan Hunter is pro-life, and he doesn't have to answer one more abortion question in one more debate to solidify his pro-life credentials. He already has as much of the hard-core pro-life vote as he's going to get. The rest of the support that he gets will consist of people who think that abortion should be illegal, and most of them would vote for someone else if Mr. Hunter weren't against legalized abortion. However, the notion that he's going to win more votes by more pro-life posturing is wrong.
Bill
Thanks, I’m glad that someone noticed.
You’re making a short story long.
Let’s try logic.
Why do you think the candidates, outside of Rudy, were falling all over themselves to show that they are pro-life?
Thanks Walter.
G O H U N T E R - 2 0 0 8
I know many women who were told the same thing by their doctors, and there turned out to be nothing wrong with their babies.
Rape traumatizes women. Abortion also traumatizes women. You do not erase the memory or trauma of the rape by killing the baby.
I know a young lady who is the product of a rape. She is sweet and joyful and the love of her mother’s life.
It is good your friend did not listen to the bad advice she got. She may have joined the silently suffering mothers and fathers throughout the country who silently grieve over their mistakes.
There is nothing extreme about being prolife. Without life, there is no liberty. This country was established to defend our rights and the first unalienable right that was recognized was the right to life.
“Bill... you’re interjecting logic rather than emotion.
You should rethink your post.”
Lately all of the pro-”choicers” and other libs are acting as if emotion is a bad thing. Are you a lib sir/ma’am?
And speaking of LOGIC, does one have to be devoid of emotion to have logic?
Over 46 million preborn babies killed since Roe. You can bet your butt, we’re emotional.
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.