Posted on 05/08/2007 6:35:55 PM PDT by rob21
Just thought that this would be of interest to Duncan Hunter supporters.
I was just watching Hannity and Colmes and Sean Hannity asked her who she supports for president. She replied "Duncan Hunter". Sean said, "But do you really think that he can win?". Ann then said that he might win if Sean Hannity would actually talk about him on his show.
I'm glad that Ann called Hannity on this. He has been hyping Giuliani for the past few months while ignoring the true conservative in the race.
Hurray!!! My favorite Ann pic!!
I just got online, otherwise I would have had it in already myself... Thanks!
Totally opposed to shamnesty.
LOL!!!
My daughter just sent this email to me. Her boyfriend wrote it. I thought it was pretty good.
>
> The speech George W. Bush SHOULD give:
>
> Normally, I start these things out by saying “My
> Fellow Americans.”
> Not doing it this time. If the polls are any
> indication, I don’t know
> who more than half of you are anymore. I do know
> something terrible
> has happened, and that you’re really not fellow
> Americans any longer.
>
> I’ll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before
> anyone gets all
> in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment,
> or to avoid
> prosecution or something, let me assure you: there’s
> been no breaking of
> laws or impeachable offenses in this office.
>
> The reason I’m quitting is simple. I’m fed up with
> you people.
>
> I’m fed up because you have no understanding of
> what’s really going
> on in the world. Or of what’s going on in this
> once-great nation of
> ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to
> do your homework
> and figure it out.
>
> Let’s start local. You’ve been sold a bill of goods
> by politicians
> and the news media. Polls show that the majority of
> you think the
> economy is in the tank. And that’s despite record
> numbers of homeowners
> including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And
> while we’re
> mentioning minorities, I’ll point out that minority
> business ownership
> is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as
> low as it ever was
> during the Clinton Administration. I’ve mentioned
> all those things
> before, but it doesn’t seem to have sunk in.
>
> Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock
> market has
> rebounded to record levels and more Americans than
> ever are
> participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you
> can do is whine about
> gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to
> realize that gas
> prices are high because there’s increased demand in
> other parts of the
> world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots
> are more worried
> about polar bears and beachfront property than your
> economic security.
>
> We face real threats in the world. Don’t give me
> this “blood for
> oil” thing. If I was trading blood for oil I
> would’ve already seized
> Iraq’s oil fields and let the rest of the country go
> to hell. And don’t
> give me this ‘Bush Lied People Died’ crap either. If
> I was the liar you
> morons take me for, I could’ve easily had chemical
> weapons planted in
> Iraq so they could be ‘discovered. ‘ Instead, I
> owned up to the fact that
> the intelligence was faulty. Let me remind you that
> the rest of the
> world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let
> me also remind you
> that regime change in Iraq was official US policy
> before I came into
> office. Some guy named ‘Clinton’ established that
> policy. Bet you didn’t
> know that, did you?
>
> You idiots need to understand that we face a unique
> enemy. Back
> during the cold war, there were two major competing
> political and
> economic models squaring off. We won that war, but
> we did so because
> fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive,
> just as we do. We were
> simply able to outspend and out-tech them.
>
> That’s not the case this time. The soldiers of our
> new enemy don’t
> care if they survive. In fact, they want to die.
> That’d be fine, as long
> as they weren’t also committed to taking as many of
> you with them as
> they can. But they are. They want to kill you. And
> the bastards are all
> over the globe.
>
> You should be grateful that they haven’t gotten any
> more of us here
> in the United States since September 11. But you’re
> not. That’s because
> you’ve got no idea how hard a small number of
> intelligence, military,
> law enforcement and homeland security people have
> worked to make sure of
> that. When this whole mess started, I warned you
> that this would be a
> long and difficult fight. I’m disappointed how many
> of you people think
> a long and difficult fight amounts to a single
> season of ‘Survivor’.
> Instead, you’ve grown impatient. You’re incapable of
> seeing things
> through the long lens of history, the way our
> enemies do. You think that
> wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.
>
> Making matters worse, you actively support those who
> help the enemy.
> Every time you buy the New York Times, every time
> you send a donation to
> a cut-and-run Democrat’s political campaign, well,
> dammit, you might
> just as well Fedex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist.
> It amounts to the
> same thing.
>
> In this day and age, it’s easy enough to find the
> truth. It’s all
> over the Internet. It just isn’t on the pages of the
> New York Times or
> on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you’d be
> any smarter. Most of
> you would rather watch American Idol.
>
> I could say more about your expectations that the
> government will
> always be there to bail you out, even if you’re too
> stupid to leave a
> city that’s below sea level and has a hurricane
> approaching. I could say
> more about your insane belief that government, not
> your own wallet, is
> where the money comes from. But I’ve come to the
> conclusion that were I
> to do so, it would sail right over your heads.
>
> So I quit. I’m going back to Crawford. I’ve got an
> energy-efficient
> house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the
> capability to be
> fully self-sufficient. No one ever heard of Crawford
> before I got
> elected, and as soon as I’m done here pretty much no
> one will ever hear
> of it again. Maybe I’ll be lucky enough to die of
> old age before the
> last pillars of America fall.
>
> Oh, and by the way, Cheney’s quitting too. That
> means the smiling,
> vacuous nitwit Pelosi is your new President. You
> asked for it. Watch
> what she does carefully, because I still have a
> glimmer of hope that
> there’re just enough of you remaining who are smart
> enough to turn this
> thing around in 2008.
>
> So that’s it. God bless what’s left of America. Some
> of you know
> what I mean. The rest of you, buzz off.
History shows that James Garfield and Abraham Lincoln were elected to the presidency with a background in elected office that was primarily in the House of Representatives. John F. Kennedy was elected to the presidency with a background primarily in the Senate. I believe some earlier presidents were also primarily from the Senate. Which president was elected with a background that consisted primarily of being mayor of a big city?
I agree that Duncan Hunter's long career in government works against him to some extent, but if you're supporting Rudy Giuliani, you're also supporting someone without much real world experience. There is no perfect candidate with a perfect resume. My favorite resume in this race belongs to Jim Gilmore of Virginia, but he's a long way from being nominated. Mitt Romney also has an impressive resume for someone seeking executive office. While I wish that Duncan Hunter's resume were more like that of those candidates, he has other strengths.
The fact is that Rudy Giuliani is wrong for the party and wrong for America. He's a liberal extremist on issues like abortion and gun control. I could accept someone who was somewhat moderate on these issues, but Giuliani is an extremist. Those extremist views mean that he will never win the core voters that a Republican candidate needs and will never win the conservative Democrat crossovers that are a vital part of any Republican victory.
Bill
Get out of the press room you big dope! They could pay per view with those and make a mint.
I disagree-— generally only narrow minded libertarians like Sheldon Richman think of Ronald Regan as a protectionist, much less the “most protectionist since Hoover”. Richman’s list misses the fact that, as Dan Griswold another (wiser) libertarian put it, it was Ronald Reagan that
“launched the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations in 1986 that lowered global tariffs and created the World Trade Organization. It was his administration that won approval of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1988. That agreement soon expanded to include Mexico in what became the North American Free Trade Agreement, realizing a vision that Reagan first articulated in the 1980 campaign. It was Reagan who vetoed protectionist textile quota bills in 1985 and 1988.”
Even in the radio addresses you cite, he states that
“It’s sometimes said that if you put three economists together in a room and ask them a question, you’re liable to get more than three answers. It’s true, economists don’t often agree. But there is one issue on which almost all responsible economists, whatever their political persuasion, are unanimous. They agree that free and fair trade brings growth and opportunity and creates jobs. And they all warn that high trade barriers, what is often called protectionism, undermines economic growth and destroys jobs. I don’t call it protectionism; I call it destructionism.”
The biggest pro-protectionism statement President Reagan makes there is that he will fight “dumping” i.e. predatory pricing. Otherwise, he is in principle a free trader, just as every economist he admired (Friedman, Hazlitt, Bastiat, Hayek, etc.) was a free trader.
Ronald Reagan began the process toward agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA, which Hunter has voted against.
However, that’s beside the point, or at least mine. Free trade is not good simply because Ronald Reagan and Thomas Jefferson thought so; protectionism can’t become good because the greatest Republican, Abraham Lincoln, thought it was.
If you subscribe to principles such as the government not picking winners and losers in the market and economic efficiency as the result of spontaneous rather than bureaucratically enforced order, and that social justice is an oxymoron, then you believe that maintaining a free market is a good thing and that free trade is essential to the free market. Rush Limbaugh, Thomas Sowell, Mark Steyn, Milton Friedman, Neil Cavuto and F.A. Hayek fit into this group.
If not, then you may be a protectionist or, if you like, fair trade conservative in the tradition of great men such as Robert Taft, Alexander Hamilton, Calvin Coolidge. This is what Duncan Hunter is. Is that a good thing? I don’t think so-— “fair trade” is as much an oxymoron as “social justice”, the latter being a species of the former, both seeking to make “fairness of result” the paradigm that replaces freedom on the one hand and justice on the other. But wherever one stands on the issue, clarity on it starts with the admission that “free trade” and “fair trade” are antonyms expressing different principles-— liberty and fairness, respectively.
I like Duncan, and will vote for him in the primary should Fred not choose to run. Do I think he has a chance at the nomination? No, but at least he is putting ideas out there that need to be discussed, and not coming off like a slick waffler (Romney), a one-issue metrosexual loafer (Giuliani), a tired aging man (McCain), or a simple horse’s a-s (Tancredo).
Free, fair trade with free countries. Not with China.
Romney likes Hunter as well. In his post Debate interview Mitt Romney made a few supportive statements about Hunter as someone he thought did well. He didn;t mention any of the other candidates.
COULTER: What do I think of Governor Romney's candidacy for presidency? I think he's probably our best candidate. I mean, I think it is fair to say -- and this is coming from someone who supported Pete DuPont, Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan, SteveForbes. So, you know, it's not like I won't go for an underdog. But I think we have to be serious about this, and I think our choice is among Gingrich, Giuliani, McCain and Romney. And Giuliani is very, very liberal. When this country gets to the point -- I mean, I have a love letter to him in my current book, Godless. What he did for New York was magnificent. But when this country gets to the point where both presidential candidates support abortion, I think we can hang it up as a country.
And McCain, I think has some problems, because everyone who supports him would have to switch party registrations to vote for him. I love Gingrich. I think he's brilliant. He was crucial, the man for his time. We don't know if he's running for president, but assuming he is, I kind of think his time has passed, and I don't know, you know, it could come back again, like '80s music, but I think his time is over. And you have to say about Romney, he tricked liberals into voting for him. I like a guy -- I like a guy who hoodwinks liberals so easily. And also, the one thing that I have a very soft spot for is that I love Mormons. And the reason why I love Mormons, well, among other things, is -- you may have forgotten this -- Bill Clinton in Utah in 1992 came in third in Utah. Now, that's a fine state.
I just wonder how can anyone support a candidate that seems to be a protectionist?
Globalization has been in progress since before the 1500s. The French, the Spanish, the Dutch, the English and the good ‘ol USA have spread their influence all around the world in an attempt to create their very own NWO. They all failed. Those who attempt this now will do the same
That's a good point. And why is it so bad to be a "protectionist"? A country that survives better protect itself, especially in these dangerous times. I prefer to think of it as "patriotism" - having pride in your country and making it strong and self-sufficient. Fair trade - I'm all for. Free trade - will end up hurting us when the chips are down. GO DUNCAN HUNTER!!!
“I can’t believe it took this long ...”
Sad. Truly sad.
“I’m glad that Ann called Hannity on this. He has been hyping Giuliani for the past few months while ignoring the true conservative in the race.”
I happen to catch that particular comment by Coulter last night, but had guests over to the house so I couldn’t watch the show.
She’s right. When Hannity isn’t ragging incessantly about Alec Baldwin (let it go, for God’s sake Sean) he’s talking about Rudy Guiliani.
Ann then said that he might win if Sean Hannity would actually talk about him on his show.
%%%
Good for her! The so-called front-runners would not be such if the media were not constantly flogging them.
Hehehehehehe!
We've got Ann!!!!"
How 'bout THEM apples? Hehe...
AMEN, Alice!
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.