Posted on 02/02/2007 10:39:18 AM PST by Antoninus
If you're looking for someone who can represent the conservative wing of the Republican Party in 2008, California Congressman Duncan Hunter fills that bill far better that any of the top contenders who have already gotten into the race. Here's a short, but sweet primer that may help explain why that's the case.
In this Oct. 30, 2006, file photo, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., speaks at a news conference. Hunter, best known for his advocacy on behalf of the military, launched a longshot bid for the presidency Thursday in South Carolina. (AP Photo/Denis Poroy)
He Is The "National Security Candidate."
If you're looking for a candidate with credibility on national security issues, Duncan Hunter is your guy. Hunter is a hawkish, former Vietnam veteran who "served in the 173rd Airborne and 75th Army Rangers" and earned a Bronze Star. His son also served two tours in Iraq as a Marine, so we're talking about a guy who has had "skin in the game" over in Mesopotamia. Additionally, Hunter served on the House Armed Services Committee and rose to the rank of Chairman before the Democrat takeover in 2006.
So, when it comes to foreign policy issues like Iraq, we're talking about a candidate who oozes credibility. But, has he done an about face on Iraq now that the polls are against it? No, he strongly supports the surge and he had this to say about how he views the war in Iraq when I interviewed him back in December:
"Well, the U.S. is following in the same basic pattern that we've followed for 60 years in expanding freedom around the world. (The first step is) that we stand up a free government and we've done that in Iraq.
The second step is we stand up a military capable of protecting that government and the third step is the U.S. leaves. We followed that pattern in Japan and the Philippines and Salvadore and our own hemisphere and it's been the traditional and the effective method of this country spreading freedom around the world."
In my opinion, that's probably a better, simple explanation of what we're doing than George Bush has given in the last couple of years.
Good Fences Make Good Neighbors
Duncan Hunter has been one of the Republican House leaders in the fight against illegal immigration. Not only is Hunter the primary mover and shaker behind the San Diego border fence, he "wrote the Secure Fence Act" which George Bush signed into law in late October of last year.
Yet, Hunter has managed to avoid some of the harsh rhetoric that sometimes gets other tough-on-illegal-immigration pols in trouble. For example, in our interview last year, Hunter emphasized how important it is to get a fence up in order to prevent illegal immigrants from being killed as they cross the border:
"The first piece is that the major part of the fence is to be built between Calexico, California and Douglas, Arizona and that portion, that's 392 miles, that's the area through which most of the people come who have died of dehydration or sunstroke in the desert sun in the summer months.
So one provision that we put in there is that we have to have at least interlocking cameras...before the hot season, so there's a humanitarian dimension to this and that's something that's been missed by many of the liberals."
His Trade Position May Be a "Bug" To Republicans, But It Can Be A "Feature" To Democrats
There is one area in particular where Duncan Hunter departs from the conservative orthodoxy and that's on trade issues. He's neither a fan of free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA, nor does he think we're getting a square deal on trade from China.
Although many Republicans will disagree with Hunter on this issue, many Democrats find themselves nodding their heads in agreement with what he has to say. In important electoral-vote-rich states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, Hunter's message will resonate with working class Democrats who might not otherwise vote Republican. That could be the crucial factor that swings an election in our favor in 2008.
All This And He's Socially Conservative, Too
There have been a lot of complaints that the two front-runners for the GOP nomination, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, have little to offer to social conservatives who are going to have to turn out in 2008 if the GOP has a chance to win.
On the other hand, Duncan Hunter is opposed to gay marriage, staunchly anti-abortion, and should have no problem appealing to conservative Christians. As a matter of fact, Hunter has even introduced the, "Right to Life Act (which) specifically acknowledges the personhood of the unborn." Hunter says that bill, if passed, "would allow us to have a reversal of the effects of Roe v. Wade without a constitutional amendment."
He Has Lots Of Mileage, But No Heavy Baggage
One of the things that's becoming apparent about the top contenders in the race for the Republican nomination is that all of them have some extremely heavy baggage. We've got divorces, adulterers galore, candidates whom much of the party won't support for one reason or another, a candidate who will be 72 in 2008, and another one, who, unfortunately, may lose a considerable amount of support because of his religious beliefs. Now, Hunter? He has been married once, has no significant scandals to live down, and there don't appear to be any other major minuses that will cost him a few percentage points at election time. Could he have some scandal in his closet that we know nothing about? Maybe, but that's the case with any politician. At the moment, he looks very good on this front compared to the top contenders.
Furthermore, Duncan Hunter was first elected to Congress back in 1980. In a post 9/11 world, a Vietnam vet with 25+ years of experience in government makes a nice contrast to the trio of lightweights who are fighting for the Democrat nomination (Obama, 2 years in the Senate, Edwards, 6 years in the Senate, and Clinton, 6 years in the Senate). If there were another 9/11, with whom would you feel more comfortable in the Oval Office, John Edwards, who'd probably curl up in the fetal position under his desk, or a guy like Duncan Hunter, who has been around the block a few times?
To Know Him Is To Love Him, Or At Least To Like Him Better Than McCain
When you're taking a look at a 2nd tier candidate like Duncan Hunter, who has minimal name recognition at the national level, the first thing most people will think is, "Good, bad, it doesn't matter if he can't capture the nomination." That's a fair point. But, there have been a couple of indications that Hunter has what it takes to catch on.
The first was a mid-January "straw poll of Republican precinct committeemen" in Maricopa County, Arizona. Hunter took first place. He also did surprisingly well, given his lack of name recognition, in a poll of right-of-center bloggers. In that poll, Hunter drew the fourth highest level of support and when the level of opposition to each candidate was subtracted from that person’s support, Hunter actually came in second place.
Notice that in both cases, you have two groups of extremely well informed, conservative participants, that are probably several months ahead of the general public in knowledge about the candidates and in both cases, Hunter did very well. That's a strong indication that if Hunter can get his name out there, he can compete with the top tier candidates in the race.
Conclusion:
Granted, it's a little too early to endorse any candidate, Duncan Hunter included. After all, we don't know all the candidates that will be running yet and they haven't even had the first debate.
Moreover, there are a lot of different positions that many of the candidates have yet to take a stance on one way or the other. For example, there are 2nd Amendment issues. Hunter is "near perfect" there. A Balanced Budget Amendment? He supports it. What sort of judges would candidates appoint to the bench? Hunter would prefer someone like Scalia. Pardoning Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean? Hunter thinks that is the right thing to do. School vouchers, the missile defense shield, a 2/3 majority in Congress to raise taxes? Hunter is in favor of all of them.
Does that mean other candidates won't end up taking those same positions? No. Does it mean Hunter is perfect? No. But, when you compare Duncan Hunter to everyone else in the race right now, he looks very appealing. In the end, maybe that won't matter because Hunter won't get any traction, but I, for one, hope that conservatives will take a good, long look at Hunter before they make a decision on which candidate to support in 2008.
Mr. Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing news and Conservative Grapevine, both of which are conservative blogs. He also writes a weekly column for Townhall.com. You can e-mail him at johnhawkins -at- rightwingnews.com
"kind of off the point, What if hillary wins the nomination and out of the blue Obama runs independent, what do you think?"
Works for me.
The attacks on Christians of all denominations here is sickening, I feel as if I walked into DU sometimes...
I'm not sure why pro-federalists toss Reagan's name around so much. I guess he did watch over the largest % spending increase since WW2. Bush will be compared (fiscally) to LBJ.
This is our grand ole' party! This is the legacy of government restraint! The RINO socialist wing has gotten so puffed up here in the last eight years it seems to be the only thing keeping votes in the party.
What a shame.
It may seem spurious to you, but the fact that it hasn't happened in 126 years indicates that something is going on.
It has nothing to do with the merits of Mr. Hunter relative to any other candidate. I like him and he is a man that I could vote for.
History shows that a governor or general have a better shot. I guess it's an "executive experience" thing.
We need CONTEXT, wireman.
We know about the Congressman thing.
We also know that the others who are running, excepting Romney, Huckabee and Richardson, who were all governors, are in just about the same boat when it comes to historical precedent. McCain, Clinton, Obama, Biden, Dodd are all Senators. Also a near kiss of death in terms of going directly to the Presidency. Rudy was a mayor. When did one of those ascend directly to the Presidency?
That's why when you bring up the Congressman thing (which is all Newt was, too), we bring up the Senate and the Mayor thing.
I will concede that DH has a hurdle several of these others do
not have...lack of name recognition. On that, it could turn out to be fatal, OR it could be a plus if enough people are jaded with the names being forced on them from which they must choose.
Dear wireman,
"It may seem spurious to you, but the fact that it hasn't happened in 126 years indicates that something is going on."
Yeah, but there are LOTS of different sorts of folks that rarely or never get elected to the presidency.
No Italian-American has ever been elected president.
No one who was ever a prisoner of war was ever elected president.
Arizona has a rather bad track record with folks who run for president.
Massachusetts Republicans haven't done well in their quest for the presidency.
Folks whose only elected office was mayor have never won the presidency.
No Mormon has ever made it.
The last US Senator to be elected was nearly a half-century ago.
No one has ever been elected who has been divorced more than once, and only one divorced person was ever elected, and that was over a quarter century ago!
No one has ever been elected president whose sole experience in elective office was one term as governor.
There! There are at least three reasons a piece why it's just SO unlikely that any of Messrs. Giuliani, Romney, or McCain will be elected.
And, if it makes anyone feel better, no woman has ever been elected president, nor any former First Lady, and no sitting US Senator from New York. So, let's hope the Dems nominate Mrs. Clinton, because according to historical patterns, SHE JUST CAN'T WIN!
It may seem spurious to you, but the fact is that we've NEVER elected a twice-divorced Italian-American mayor to the presidency. SOMETHING must be going on there.
It may seem spurious to you, but the fact is that we've NEVER elected a former prisoner of war, sitting US Senator, candidate from Arizona to the presidency. SOMETHING must be going on there.
It may seem spurious to you, but the fact is that we've NEVER elected a one-term governor with no other elective experience who is a Mormon and who is a Republican from Massachusetts. SOMETHING must be going on there.
Or not.
The difficulty is that we just haven't elected many presidents in a bit over 200 years. Thus, there are all sorts of data patterns that we seem to be able to discern. Whether those patterns are meaningful or are just artifacts is kind of difficult to determine with the relative paucity of data that we have.
I'll grant that the theory that governors are more readily electable seems plausible. But that's a far way from saying that US Representatives are unelectable, or even to say that they are nearly so.
sitetest
"We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people."
For those crying that Hunter is a "protectionist," Wouldn't the above portion of the FR platform apply to the WTO?
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2006/10/duncan_hunters_voting_record.php
I'm leaning Romney right now. But I'm 100% sure it won't be a lifetime pol who clearly can't win.
No such thing as fair trade. That's just code for protectionism.
Saying you are for fair trade not free trade is the same thing as saying you aren't pro-abortion, but pro-choice, and it's equally meaningless.
Excuse me, I mean to say, that saying you are for fair trade not protectionism is the same thing as saying you are pro-choice not pro-abortion.
So, what you are saying is that because Hunter is a protectionist, unions will give up supporting D's and support R's. And that'll somehow make up for all of the business people, both small and large, that'll abandon him because he'll destroy their businesses through his protectionist policies.
Riggghhhhtttt.
I am in NH watch the Bos, MA news...Mitt is a Liberal..not a leader, weak on the illegals, until his last month in office..He would be great if he ran against Teddy...
You are aware that NYC is roughly 20 times the size of Hunter's district population wise, and that it's bigger then all but a handful of states?
Even I can see the flaw in your silly logic, and I'm not even a Giuliani supporter.
Dear zbigreddogz,
"You are aware that NYC is roughly 20 times the size of Hunter's district population wise, and that it's bigger then all but a handful of states?"
Actually closer to about 12 times, but who's counting?
"Even I can see the flaw in your silly logic, and I'm not even a Giuliani supporter."
There is no flaw in the logic. Whether being mayor of New York City qualifies one to be president or not (I don't really believe that it does - but that's another thread), that isn't what is under discussion.
Folks are talking about who is electable, and using past performance of those who have and have not been elected president as an indicator of future performance. Past performance shows that folks whose sole elective experience is as a US Representative seldom get elected president.
Using this past performance indicator, I see that folks whose only experience is as a big city mayor also don't seem to get elected president.
Thus, based on how many big city mayors get elected president, one could say that Mr. Giuliani is darn near to unelectable.
Now, I think that the whole effort of predicting who is electable in the future based on what offices those elected previously held in the past is a little foolish, and thus, don't really think that Mr. Giuliani is unelectable because all he's ever done, electorally, has been Mayor of New York City, but that is, after all, my point.
No one has been elected from the House to the Presidency of the United States since 1880? Okay. No one has been elected to the presidency who had previously only been elected as a big city mayor.
sitetest
"Excuse me, I mean to say, that saying you are for fair trade not protectionism is the same thing as saying you are pro-choice not pro-abortion."
That is an absurd comparison. Pro-choice is normally a woman's choice to destroy an unborn child. Fair trade is simply the people's right to not have national security manufacture outsourced to potentially hostile countries, or to have extra-constitutional bodies like the WTO superimposing their will upon commerce. The two issues have nothing to do with each other, and commerce is much more complicated. I know that an opponent of DH must be capable of much better discrimination. It's not as simple as a "Free trade vs Protectionism debate."
You're spinning. Like the abortion thing, it's a meaningless semantics game that means nothing. There isn't any difference between being for 'fair trade' and being a 'protectionist', just like there isn't any difference between being 'pro-choice' and being 'pro-abortion'.
Everything you say boils down to standard protectionist boilerplate. It's funny that you don't even seem to realize it.
I'll take care of saying what I am saying. I don't need you putting words in my mouth.
You don't have the slightes idea of what a protectionist policy really is.
Obviously what you are saying is that we should vote for Giuliani so that we can get the HUGE gay vote that would come in... Not likely...
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.