Posted on 09/01/2007 11:18:33 PM PDT by anymouse
The Texas Straw Poll is one for the history books. The failure of the legislature to move up the Texas primary date, the scheduling of the event on Labor Day weekend and the first day of dove-hunting season, the limiting of participants to past convention delegates rather than Republican primary voters, and the lack of participation by the leading candidates all contributed to an extremely low turnout.
The event ended up being a showcase for Texas Congressman Ron Paul and California Congressman Duncan Hunter. Expectations were high for Ron Paul, and no doubt his supporters are disappointed by his third place showing. But Duncan Hunter, despite his lack of standing in the polls, gave an inspiring speech. And the fact that he took on the border problem in San Diego, got a wall built on the border to stem the tide of illegal immigrants, and was instrumental in the Secure Fence Border Act (which has yet to be implemented) made him a favorite with the grassroots of Texas. Here in Texas, the immigration issue rules. Memo to the other candidates: If you want to fire up the base, commit to securing our borders and our ports. Ordinary Americans are concerned about our national security. Congressman Hunter is right on this issue, and if he had the funding and the organization, he would go far. He also focused on the war on terror and the trade imbalance with China. The fact that China continues to capitalize on the trade imbalance and invests so heavily in military buildup is another national security issue, and one that needs to be addressed.
It is always good theater to attend a political event such as this, and the speeches of all five of the candidates were interesting. The fact that Senator Fred Thompson came in second and, since he is not yet an official candidate, did absolutely nothing to try to win this straw poll, demonstrates his undeniable appeal to the party faithful. And I would recommend that, as he officially launches his candidacy, he follow the example of Congressman Duncan Hunter and be a strong proponent of the Secure Fence Act. Those who say it will only be climbed over or tunneled under are missing the point. We have to close our borders, and a wall is the starting point. No system is perfect, but we must do something. It has helped curb terrorism in Israel, and it will help slow the illegal traffic of both humans, drugs, and terrorists into the United States. Just ask Duncan Hunter. It has worked in San Diego. And if you build it, Republicans will turn out to vote..
Denise McNamara Republican National Committee Texas
If Thompson stumbles our next President will be Guilianni, Hillary or Romney. People really need to wrap their minds around that. Then they need to realize that $100 or $1000 to Hunter will mean more to creating an alternative to that possibility than anything else they can do. It’s 133 days until the Iowa Caucuses. 133 days! Plenty of time, plenty, to build a grass roots movement that swamps the country club party . . .
From the article: “The fact that China continues to capitalize on the trade imbalance and invests so heavily in military buildup is another national security issue, and one that needs to be addressed.”
Duncan Hunter is the only candidate that really gets this - in addition to being the only EFFECTIVE politician on securing our borders, STRONGLY pro-life (authored the personhood at conception bill, attended the pro-life march in D.C., etc.), most qualified to fight the WOT, and check out his voting record for more:
http://www.issues2002.org/CA/Duncan_Hunter.htm
YOU should be suppoting Duncan Hunter, too, if you care about our nation’s morality, and our nation’s security.
I wonder how much of Hunter’$ campaign donation$ Roy Tyler i$ being paid? An inexperienced guy like him couldn’t be getting much.That would leave more in Hunter’$ PAC after he drop$ out.
Tyler'$ comment cut$ deep for tho$e who've $upported Hunter.
Are you saying the likes of Senator Inhofe don't care about our nation's morality and security?
“Are you claiming that this site’s owner is pro-illegal/pro-amnesty/pro-NAFTA?”
How the heck would I know?
That’s the second time you’ve tried to spin what I’ve said so you can find some stupid excuse to ping him. I stand by my post, so debate IT, refute IT, or move along.
Your response: How the heck would I know?
Really?? You don't know if that's what your saying??
Also, since you've been here a while, I would think that you would know that it's polite to ping people when you mention them in a post. I mentioned someone, and I pinged him. That's called "etiquette." Get some, why don't you?
Did you read mine?
Is Senator Inhofe not a man of extreme integrity?
How do you regard his support of Fred instead of Hunter?
It’s a fair question.
Is your amplification money played a role?
Shah Zam!
I do not know, do you have any info, maybe a link?
of course coming from me, I would not mind if you told me to find my own link.....
Can President Ronald Reagan still be in the area?
I do not know the answer to that one either....so in batting analogy, I struck out.....excuse me while I go stand in a corner.....looking for tinfoil....tinfoil has nice appearance when shaped as a hat. The kitties come out and I am the first one bit......no....no..... big tide.... herding, herding kitties, herding, herding kitties, herding, herding, kitties, kitty hide. Kitty hide, kitty hide, kitty hide, kitty hide, kitty hide, kitty hide, kitty hide.
There is no last verse only a typed word of branding, Our Man is Mr. Duncan Hunter, kitty hide.
This view in no manner, shape, or form reflects the views of Free Republic.
weeg’ did you go to the straw poll? I heard that dozens of delegates waiting for their badges at will-call were turned away, is this true?
“Are you saying the likes of Senator Inhofe don’t care about our nation’s morality and security?”
Huh?
I was talking about presidential candidates.
I feel that the majority of GOP presidential candidates have it right on the social issues, but Duncan Hunter and Sam Brownback seem to be the most committed to the LIFE issue.
But Duncan Hunter is THE MOST QUALIFIED on protecting our national security.
DUNCAN HUNTER actually had a fence built which stopped drug trafficking and crime in San Diego, and HUNTER authored the bill for a fence from California thru Texas, which was signed into law, and HUNTER got us ABS deployed in Alaska, and HUNTER built up the defense that Bill Clinton tore down, and got equipment and weapons to protect our troops, and our country, when he Chaired the House Armed Services Committee (when the Republicans had the majority), and HUNTER went to Iraq FIVE times, and HUNTER did some tough fighting duty in ‘Nam and won a medal, and HUNTER has a son who did two tours in Iraq, including Fallujah, and is now doing a 3rd tour in Afghanistan, so HUNTER has a lot a stake personally, as well.
That’s just a little bit of what HUNTER has DONE, while the other candidates talk or write articles.
The above thread says that delegates had to have certain credentials in order to vote.
Believe what you will.
I disagree with this statement, and I'm going to tell you why. I guess some people will claim that my post is "Fred bashing" because I'm explaining why I don't support Fred Thompson to be the president. In their eyes, any post that doesn't consist of fawning over Mr. Thompson seems to be defined as "bashing."
First, I disagree with the notion that Fred Thompson is any kind of great Constitutionalist. His support for campaign finance reform shows that he really isn't a strong supporter of the 1st Amendment. The Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment to let Americans work together to advocate their political views and to comment on specific candidates at any time that they choose. No matter how campaign finance reform supporters spin things, this law was an attack on the principles of the First Amendment. Mr. Thompson can say now that it maybe wasn't such a good idea and hasn't worked out as he'd hoped. In saying that, he is admitting that he doesn't have a great deal of foresight. The lack of foresight is another reason to doubt his ability to be president.
Fred Thompson supported the Lautenberg gun ban that revoked Second Amendment rights in some cases for anyone even accused of domestic violence. In other cases, the people who lost their Second Amendment rights were those convicted only of a misdemeanor. I understand the appeal of this kind of legislation. We all want to think that we can do something proactive to stop violence, but that way of thinking is behind all gun control. If Mr. Thompson were truly standing on Constitutional principle and standing for America's gun owners, he would have voted against this ban. The Founding Fathers would not have agreed to restricting the Second Amendment rights of someone only accused of a crime or convicted of a misdemeanor. The Lautenberg gun ban was a clever piece of legislation designed to peel the gun rights from only a small slice of the public, but this ban was a part of the incrementalism that gun control advocates are using to take our Second Amendment rights. Mr. Thompson's failure to stand against this ban says that he'll sacrifice our Second Amendment rights to be politically correct.
Fred Thompson has no executive experience. The presidency is an executive office. We first need someone who holds the right beliefs, but we also need someone who can get things done. Mr. Thompson's one shot at being in charge of something and under the spotlight was the investigation into Chinese money in the 1996 presidential campaign. Instead of keeping the hearings on track and investigating wrongdoing by the Clintons, he allowed the hearings to digress into a forum on campaign finance reform. The committee that should have taken us closer to bringing the Clintons to justice simply became another opportunity for campaign finance reform supporters to posture.
I can't support any of the 2008 "wholeheartedly." Like you and many others, I long for that kind of candidate, but he won't be running next year. Instead, I must try to make the best I can of the candidates that we have.
My favorite candidate is Duncan Hunter, but I recognize that he has flaws. The biggest flaw is that he has no executive experience. I don't know whether he can get things done as president. A second weakness is that he's never represented anything beyond a fairly narrow constituency in southern California. A third problem is that he's a little too pro-life for me personally and for the country as a whole. Against these weaknesses are his positions on almost all other issues. These positions overcome these weaknesses. His military experience is also a positive. He's the real man that Fred Thompson portrays on TV and on the campaign trail.
If Fred Thompson is elected, I think he'll do a reasonably good job. I'd certainly vote for him if he were nominated and would vote for him if only he and Rudy Giuliani had a chance when the campaign came to my state. I wouldn't volunteer for his campaign directly, but I volunteer for the local Republican party. The work I do for the party would be in support of his campaign.
Bill
We can see where the Fraudheads learned to “debate” just like FRaud Thompson....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmKUMuPAMSE
Until then, I see Fred as our best hope.
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.