Lawrence A. Hunter
Research Fellow,
Institute for Policy Innovation
Chief Economist,
Empower America
I’m glad we’ve finally outed the bastard.
Lawrence A. Hunter
Research Fellow,
Institute for Policy Innovation
Chief Economist,
Empower America
Every election you get this crap. Someone claims to be a staunch conservative but now will vote for the rat candidate because he/she is the best. This is just the same old tired play book that the rats use over and over. It has never really worked and I don’t know why they keep doing it.
I'm a lifelong conservative activist and I'm backing Barack Obama
- - - - - - - - - -
And ...
Stupid is as stupid does ...
It's called the "Surge". I guess Mr. Hunter is a little behind in his "studies".
Yuh, right. And Obama will do SO much more to further the cause which this guy claims as his own. /s
I suspect he is a Libertarian.
I’m not going to vote for McCain come hell or high water, but even I think Larry has gone off the deep end here.
There are two things that really bother me about Conservatives this year. One is when they can tell me they are going to vote for McCain. The others is when can they tell me they are going to vote for Obama.
We have a round hole and two square pegs.
.
KEYWORDS:
Lawrence Hunter
La Raza
United States Chamber of Commerce
Jack Kemp
Open Borders
Steven Greenhut (of the Orange County Register)
[2]http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/07/zombiecons.html
“Unjustified war”
Ok you’re against the war.
“unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights”
Except far worse from a demorat. They hate freedom.
“ill-conceived tax and economic policies”
Expect FARRRRRR worse for a spendorat. They HATE working Americans.
God what a brain dead loser. Don’t you even utter Reagan’s name you swine. Go drink paint.
Hunter is the former staff director of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee (currently Chaaired by Schumer) and president of the Social Security Institute (could not find any information on this organisation).
Ahh. Another David Brock Republican, I see.
I’m a conservative; but since I can’t vote for Gus Hall, I’ll vote for Obama.
"Paleoconservatives" like "neoconservatives" are a very small group. If, by contrast, you look at the Republicans of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s you find a lot of skepticism about foreign wars and adventures.
Few of those people would call themselves paleocons today. A lot of them are dead, and other have become Democrats, but that skepticism is a part of Republican tradition.
But to Iran his assumption is, of course, that we must avoid a war with Iran. That is not a given despite Hunter's squeamishness over the matter. In fact, his base assumption that war with Iran must be avoided places him in the immoral, Chamberlainesque, peace-in-our-times camp and that camp is not "conservative" but merely blind.
That's not what he's saying. The "must" isn't there in Hunter's column. It's something Huston sticks in (and italicizes) to make his case look stronger.
Ditto with the talk about pacifism and peace "at any price." It's not there in the article.
Hunter's wrong about Obama, but Huston distorts his point of view.
