Posted on 01/19/2008 9:41:41 AM PST by pissant
I was surprised to hear Rush Limbaugh the other day say that there was no 'Thoroughbred' Conservative in the 2008 Republican nomination Field for President. I was thinking to myself, What? Rep. Duncan Hunter is Conservative right down the line. From his web site: Hunter' Ratings
National Rifle Association: A+
Americans for Better Immigration: A+
Eagle Forum: 100%
Christian Coalition: 100%
Family Research Council Action: 100%
Campaign for Working Families: 100%
Concerned Women for America: 100%
National Right to Life Committee: 100%
Federation for American Immigration Reform: 100%
National Federation of Independent Business: 100%
Gun Owners of America: A (Read GOA article here)
** GodVoters.org: A ** (the ONLY A they gave) (See their endorsement here)
American Conservative Union: 92%
Americans for Tax Reform: 88.5% (lifetime, most recent rating was 100%)
National Tax Limitation Committee: 88
National Taxpayers Union: B
ACLU: 7% (indicates very conservative)
NARAL: 0% (indicates a pro-life record)
Exactly how Conservative can you get? Ok, so what's with Limbaugh? Simple, found this On the Hill article that says:
"It is difficult to change Rep. Duncan Hunter’s mind. House leadership officials and the White House have found that out the hard way."
"When they wanted him to vote for a pending trade bill last year, Hunter (R-Calif.) refused — again and again. And when the Bush administration tried to convince the powerful Armed Services Committee on its controversial port security plan, Hunter refused to budge."
"Twisting Hunter’s arm is impossible, his close friends say."
The article continues:
"And Hunter, whom many call a protectionist, was instrumental in scuttling a deal that would have given the operations at six major U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates."
“He was shocked that the administration approved the deal,” said Rep. Jim Saxton (R-N.J.), a senior member of Hunter’s committee and a close friend. Saxton worked with Hunter to introduce legislation blocking the deal and revising the foreign-investment process to ensure national security.
“On the Dubai issue, he got all fired up,” a congressional source said. Hunter gathered information to prove that Dubai has not been trustworthy — despite repeated administration assertions that the UAE is a vital ally in the war on terrorism."
"It is not often that a guest on a TV news program has the boldness to put the interviewer’s political-activism past in the open, but Hunter wasn’t one to shy away. He made sure to point out, three times, that George Stephanopoulos, the host of ABC’s “This Week,” had worked for President Clinton, who supported the Dubai Ports deal."
“I don’t think President Clinton, your old boss, knows the facts of the transshipment that take place through Dubai sending nuclear components to all parts of the world,” Hunter told Stephanopoulos, in one of the references to Clinton."
I remember Rush getting particularly getting bent out of shape on the issue:
Rush probably felt he could personally change every American's mind on the issue from behind the EIB Golden Microphone, but alas, the deal fell through. Is El Rushbo taking out his frustration on the actual 'Thoroughbred Conservative' Republican Candidate for POTUS in 2008?
Hey Rush, why don't you give your ego a break bud?
Yes.
I agree. Unfortunately,there are many people who are out of work because of NAFTA and other bad trade deals. Rush does not seem to want to believe this. Yet, unemployment in some textile and farming areas have hovered around 10% ever since NAFTA.
Nobody gave him a blackout. He had plenty of opportunities over the years to make a name for himself but no one has heard of him. He has had numerous debates but nothing happened. So Hunter has no one to blame but himself. That’s just how it goes.
LOL. He always was deemed to be one of the top debaters. But lo and behold, the conservative media ignored him. After showing some strength in the WY caucuses, he was banned from the next round of debates, giving folks the notion he was no longer in the race. A conservative would not stand for that nonsense, yet the GOP was part and parcel of the decision to keep him out.
Well good morning, Sunshine!
“a conservative” should have been “a conservative party”
And thank YOU for bumping the thread!
This is exactly why I lost so much respect for many conservatives during that Dubai Ports World debacle. In the midst of all the controversy over the deal, nobody -- including (no, PARTICULARLY) Republicans -- ever pointed out that the Bush Administration had done exactly what the law required it to do at the time (i.e., before the adoption of the "revised" law described above in the quote I posted from the article).
For the same reason you can have multiple screen names?
Yep. I’m accusing you.......
What good is DH if he can’t get his campaign off the ground?
Nothing personal!
In order to qualify you have to generate a base and come to the table with something!
I was going to post this on another thread, but it fits in here too.
There are a number of complaints about both Rush and Duncan Hunter on this thread. Maybe Duncan Hunter isn’t running the best campaign, but maybe Rush isn’t shooting straight with us either. Maybe Duncan Hunter’s campaign manager is doing the best he can, but is thwarted by the RNC at every turn. I have posted some comments on other threads about these issues but will try to tie it together here. Other people on this and other threads have made some of the points included below. Since I can’t read everything on FR, some of my theories may have been posted already in articles or comments by others.
Rush has stated many times that President Bush (43) is conservative on some issues but is not “a conservative”. President Bush (41) started the ball rolling down hill when he promised a “kinder & gentler nation” followed by President Bush 43’s “compassionate conservatism”. Both Presidents Bush were not “movement conservatives’ as Rush likes to call them. However, both Presidents Bush were able to get the endorsement of the conservative elites.
The endorsements of Mitt Romney by well-known conservative leaders William F. Buckley (thru NRO), Paul Weyrich, David Keene, and Bob Jones III have baffled me. Most of us have seen the articles posted here about Mitt, along with links to YouTube videos of the Romney flip-flops, etc. Romney isn’t really a conservative; he is a liberal to moderate Rockefeller Republican. Why are all these conservative icons endorsing Willard? My theory is that President Bush (43) has anointed Willard as his successor with the blessing of President Bush (41). President Bush (41) was probably pals with Willard’s father, George Romney (interesting read). The tip-off came when Willard gave his Mormon speech at the GHWB Library. With a White House blessing comes the gentle arm-twisting of conservative leaders, such as, Buckley, Weyrich, Keene, Jones, and Limbaugh. How can you say no to the White House?
In addition to anointing the favored candidate, the White House can also use its influence to knock out candidates it really dislikes. How does this happen? I can’t say for sure. It could be someone on the president’s staff having dinner with a media executive or background discussions with reporters. The president also controls the RNC and can make things happen using the party as cover.
The prime targets of White House wrath would be candidates they have crossed swords with on one or more issues. If one of the president’s senior advisors (Karl Rove) told you (Tom Tancredo) never to “darken the door” of the White House again (May 13, 2002) due to your stance on illegal immigration, I think that qualifies as crossing swords. If you (Duncan Hunter) get a bill passed to build a border fence and co-sponsor a bill to free two border patrol agents wrongly convicted by one of the president’s old pals you’re in deep trouble.
How would a Republican presidential candidate feel the wrath of the White House? I’ll throw out a few ideas. I’ve used the term “blackballed” a few times on this forum to describe the situation. Could the RNC quietly tell state party officials and contributors not to help several candidates because their position on immigration is hurting the party? This would make it hard to get support at the state level, such as access to donor lists and volunteers. Remember, Duncan Hunter said, “Don’t complain, work harder”. His motto may apply to more then just his lack of exposure in the debates. His campaign may be getting the cold shoulder straight from the top at the RNC.
In the debates themselves, would the “willing accomplices in the media” be happy to keep the number of questions to candidates that opposed amnesty to a minimum? Many of us complained that Hunter along with Tancredo received far fewer questions in the debates then their rivals. If the candidate doesn’t drop out is the next step to exclude him from a debate based on low poll numbers? This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy since the candidates were ignored in previous debates. Keep in mind that Roger Ailes (Fox News) is a friend of both Rush and Rudy.
We know that deep down the president wanted to pass the amnesty bill. Rush said that “powerful forces” sent people to “get his mind right” about immigration. Rush didn’t buckle to the pressure then, but maybe now feels he owes the president, Karl Rove and his idols in the “conservative movement” a favor. Maybe that’s why he never mentioned Tom Tancredo’s name and only mentioned Duncan Hunter’s name a couple of times. Rush never spoke up about the unequal treatment the conservative candidates received during the debates. Rush was also silent about ABC and Fox excluding Duncan Hunter from the debates. As one poster on another thread stated, “Rush treated them like Terri Schiavo”. Fred is harder to marginalize since he is a TV/movie star and more conservative then the remainder of the pack. Since Fred was the only candidate remaining with anything close to conservative credentials, he eventually said something positive about him. However, in the same breath he will usually say nice things about Willard. The bottom line is that Rush has been in the tank for Willard all along. I don’t know if he owes the president a favor or if its loyalty to a friend and mentor (William F. Buckley) to back Willard. The problem is that Rush, along with Ann Coulter and other conservative leaders lose credibility when they try to tell us a candidate is conservative when they are not.
The other problem(s) for Willard and Rush are the remaining candidates. Even though Rudy is an acquaintance from Rush’s days in NYC he can continue to not mention him. Besides, it would be hard to sell Rudy to his audience. If you can’t marginalize them by ignoring them, you attack them. It’s easy for Rush to attack McCain since he has done it before on many issues. Not that McCain doesn’t deserve being attacked over amnesty, the gang of fourteen and opposing tax cuts. It is also easy for Rush to attack Huckabee. Mick Huckabee can be portrayed as a cross between Gomer Pyle and Forest Gump. Sometimes the Huckster makes it all too easy.
Mike Huckabee is the joker in the deck. The one person they didn’t count on emerging from the pack. No one could see him coming except a few Freepers that noticed this thread. Mike Huckabee is reliably pro-life, pro-gun and anti homosexual agenda. That’s more then can be said about Willard. If Hunter and Thompson go the way of Tancredo, it might be worth climbing on to the Huckabee bandwagon, warts and all. Besides it would make great blowback for Bush Inc., and the conservative and media elites, including Rush, for trying to sell us Willard packaged as shinola.
Duncan Hunter first, Fred Thompson second and Huck third. After that, I don’t care. If the conservative elites had backed Duncan Hunter from the beginning, we wouldn’t be here right now. At this point it might be worth McCain or Huckabee getting the nomination just to see Rush and the conservative elites have a collective fit. If Willard isn’t the nominee, where can they go? Whom are they going to vote for?
Too many Republicans complain about GW's globalist actions (open borders and sucking up to the Democrats) but want to replace him with more of the same.
Some learn by listening. Some learn by observing. Some have to piss on the electric fence for themselves (and some must do so more than once).
When the MSM marginalizes Hunter because he is the only adult conservative running, it is the MSM who sabotages his campaign.
And BTW your candidate is going no wheres fast.
Late to the campaign, dragged his feet then way down in the primaries and polls.
You better take care of your own guy.
It is more than embarrassing for your candidate.
Get over yourself. Duncan is a solid conservative in a field infested with RINOs.
Thank you!
Rush is a typical rich country club Republican from a family who are a big fish in a little pond.
Rush is not 1/8th the man Hunter is.
Hunter from a blue collar family and worked himself up.
A war vet and major career in Congress.
His son 3 tours in current war and Marine Capt.
Hunter also married to same wife vs. Rush’s 3 failed marriages
Pretty ludicrous article.
Just my humble opinion.
Neither Hunter supporters, nor any other committed conservatives, are ever going to fall for the "conservative" act being put on by Romney, McCain, Huckabee, etc.
In this case Congress tried to apply US law overseas, which is a major international no-no. It's as if Iran tried to apply sharia law to the US.
The World Trade Organization, meanwhile, carries legal weight among the nations that signed onto it. The US, as one of those signatories, has to abide by its decisions if exercised within its jurisdiction - the jurisdiction we agreed to when we signed. That jurisdiction is international trade.
In this case, our gambling decision caused the WTO to allow the injured party, Anguilla, to help themselves to $21 million of our copyrighted entertainment as compensation for the damage caused to its online casinos by our decision.
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.