Can Fred Thompson Fill the GOP's Vacuum?

“I believe Hunter is part of that study committee as well.”

I am aware of that. This only makes it more problematic when he does not vote for their conservative budgets, or join them in opposing such monstrosities as NCLB, the Prescription Drug Plan, or support them Earmark reform, etc. What is the point of being a member of the committee?

Pork sucks. And Hunter has worked hard to stifle it throughout his career. But the method of doing it is important. He certainly does not want rank amateurs like Cynthia McCkinney and Congressman Flake able to pull out something he puts into the defense bill. There is no way that Congress needs to vote on the 100s of items in an omnibus bill. He does however, support the Balanced Budget Amendment, and the line item veto for the Prez.

And on top of it, he has recommended ways to keep pork out of the bills in the first place. Additional C-17s might be pork to Nancy Pelosi, but he ain’t gonna let her rip them out of a defense bill.

“He certainly does not want rank amateurs like Cynthia McCkinney and Congressman Flake able to pull out something he puts into the defense bill.”

Again, I find this argument to be unconvincing. ALL committee chairs think that THEIR pet projects should not be scrutinized by all the other “rank amateurs”. If we allow this type of thinking to prevail, we will NEVER stamp out the financial corruption in D.C. Our defense is too important to let such corruption seep into the appropriations process. That is why we need to shine a light on the process. I say let the challenges to any spending bill proceed. If a program is necessary for defense, and not merely proposed to line the pockets of defense contractors, it should hold up to public scrutiny with the testimony of defense experts. No less of an authority on the matter than former General and CIC Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the danger of the “Military Industrial Complex”. This is particularly so after the whole Duke Cunningham episode. See this article from last year: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051208/news_lz1ed08top.html

When we are spending 3.4% of our GDP on the military, compared to over 6 during Reagan’s era, something is amiss. Hunter has been key in rebuilding our military, preventing the gutting of missile defenses, protecting our military spooks and force feeding the Pentagon what they need, not always what they (political appointees) want. Just as Reagan had to compromise to get the military he wanted, Hunter sees defense as his job and THE most critical role of government.

The tiny contracts he yanked from a German outfit to give to a US company is peanuts. Yes, those contractors were Hunter supporters. But so is Boeing, Lockheed, TRW, Newport News Shipping, etc, etc. They have given very generously to Hunter. Is it because Hunter is a slithery bastard or is it because he is a hawk, and pro military, pro victory?

You are free to judge for yourself.

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.