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?
Good post. There could easily be something there. Hunter seems to have the right enemies as far as I can tell. That little thing about excluding him from the debates was probably historic.
On Poll Results and the End of Conservatism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1951282/posts
It does not bode well for our republic.
I love Duncan Hunter, and think he’s a damn fine American. He’s not getting any traction because 1)he’s not a leftist darling of the MSM, and 2)he doesn’t have the financial backing to get his message out.
It takes money, BIG money, to mount a presidential campaign. The folks with that kind of money see Hunter as a direct threat to their interests, and would never finance his run. The only part of the conservative platform that concerns them in the least is tax cuts and the WOT. The rest is just theoretical posturing to them. They have enough influence and/or lawyers to insulate themselves from government largesse and the everyday realities most of us have to face.
Thompson’s in a little better shape because he had some private money and built-in name recognition he could capitalize on to get the small individual donations coming in. Otherwise he’d be in the same boat.
The leftists figured out they can vote themselves into everyone else’s pocketbook. The elites figured out they can just buy-off the politicians on both sides of the aisle. The rest of us are stuck with the bill. What a country!
Good post.
However, I think Huck, though non-establishment, is a more ‘compassionate’ conservative than even GWB. His envoronmentalism for Jesus is too much to take for this conservative.
Yet it may very well be that Fred is gone and Hunter remains after this weekend.
Less confusing for those that refuse to see. I hope Michael doesn't mind.
I said he isn't exceptional as a fiscal conservative. I said nothing about other areas; we all know he's good on immigration and abortion and stuff. But he's still not going to excite fiscal conservatives.
Here are the numbers from the NTU (whose ratings are far more comprehensive in this area than, say, the ACU's):
2005:
McCain: 78% (A)
Thompson: N/A
Hunter: 56% (C+)
2004:
McCain: 77% (B+)
Thompson: N/A
Hunter: 56% (C+)
2003:
McCain: 72% (B-)
Thompson: N/A
Hunter: 58% (C)
2002:
McCain: 64% (B)
Thompson: 73% (A)
Hunter: 52% (C)
Note that Senate Republicans tend on average to be about 5% higher, so you can adjust Hunter's numbers for that if you want (the grades are already adjusted for that). He's still clearly not a particularly strong fiscal conservative.
And here I thought I was just another voter who followed his conscious.
I guess I'd rather be known as a "nobody" than a SELLOUT.
I think you meant that for someone other than AuntB; perhaps Oneretard99
You are absolutely correct, Dog. Even more strange is the day that one can post sourced, factual information and be attacked, suspended or banned simply because certain others do not like the record of their candidate exposed.
You have been here far, far longer than I so you know very well that personal attacks and idle vicious rumors were not tolerated. Not so today. Nor does what you read on most of these candidate threads resemble a debate. Just a lot of useless garbage being flung around.
Mega dittos!
I have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of regarding what I have posted on this thread.
You and I apparently disagree on which candidate to support, but your opinion of who is more conservative doesn't trump mine.
Apparently in the Kevmo universe, everyone here has to agree on everything, or more precisely YOU, or they are a RINO.
Not only is that hopelessly naive, but it's BORING. I'm happy to have debate, but it somehow threatens you. Talk about something being off.
It would require a lot of research. I can't recall anyone being shutout of a debate in the primaries.
The RNC must of had a hand in this. Notice that there were no protests from the RNC.
In short my dear gidget .....
NO!!!!!
As you have pointed out, they have records! Instead of studying those, we are treated to idle campaign promises...rhetoric...verbiage... LIES! Worse, those that should be exposing them are endorsing or supporting the lies by spinning the truth of their past records!
I was really laughing at the "other" candidate and the small government comment!
You do have something to be ashamed of in this thread, and you know it. Otherwise you’d have logged onto that other thread straightway. I didn’t start that thread, so arguing against the Kevmo universe is just hyperbole.
I don’t proceed from my own definition of conservative. JimRob has a perfectly good definition, and since Duncan Hunter fits this description to a ‘T’ and you’re on the wrong side of this discussion, it’s an indicator. You’ve built up several indicators, just on this thread alone.
From the front page of Free Republic:
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. .... We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. .... We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
LOL! Only when I’m hungry and not seething in anger!
I don’t jump through hoops for you to prove that I’m a conservative.
If you haven’t seen that in my ten years of posting, you are blind, and your demand is an insult. Kiss off.
Hunter just withdrew from the race according to another thread posted here, so perhaps that will divert your attention from your pointless crusade.
How many non-Governors have ever won the Presidency?
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.