Posted on 11/24/2007 6:20:54 PM PST by Kurt Evans
Since Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) is apparently going to explore the possibility of running for president in 2008, I thought I'd dig up some of his roll call votes. Like most Republicans, he's strong on tax cuts, but he's been part of the big government spending spree of the last 6 years. He also has a protectionist streak in him. Here are some of the more troubling votes:
NO on NAFTA
YES on No Child Left Behind
YES on Sarbanes-Oxley
YES on the 2003 Medicare Drug Benefit
NO on CAFTA
YES on 2005 Highway Bill
YES on the 527 bill (like most Republicans, he flip-flopped, having first voted NO on McCain-Feingold)
Hunter also went 0 for 19 on the Flake anti-pork amendments.
Despite being a member of the Republican Study Committee, Hunter frequently votes NO on their fiscally conservative annual budgets (2006, 2005, 2003...)
We gave him a 49% on the 2005 Club for Growth scorecard. That places him 187th within the House GOP conference, out of roughly 230 members.
National Taxpayers Union shows a more telling trend. He was strong in the early 1990s, getting "B's" and one "A", but as time went by, like most politicians, his score dropped. For the past few years, he's been getting "C's".
Among other problems with their list of "troubling" votes, I'd say their suggestion that a vote in favor of the 527 Reform Act constitutes a flip-flop on McCain-Feingold is blatant deception and an outrageous cheap shot.
The club for growth cares only about money but are otherwise pretty erratic about who they support. They supported my congressman who is a good anti amnesty conservative. Frankly one of the reasons I voted against my old congressman was his yes vote on CAFTA.
Kurt Evans wrote: “I’m not posting this to discredit Congressman Hunter, who I think is a great candidate and a great man. I’m posting it to discredit the Club for Growth, which apparently specializes in creating the impression that conservatives are liberal.”
So you think No Child Left Behind and the 2003 Medicare Drug Benefit are solid, fiscally conservative votes?
I give Hunter a pass on the Flake Amendments, as a committee chairman he had to support the other chairmen!
Are you asking who I’m currently supporting or who I currently think has the best chance to win?
The club for growth is perhaps the most outstanding political organization in existance, IMO. They have an excellent track record and reputation so I take what they say as money to the bank, IMO.
I keep thinking this is the group that helps bald guys. But that’s another one right?
The economic republicans are no better than the far left anti war.
Hunter’s record re military and national security along with dealing with the issues of illegals for decades are the main issue facing us starting with the war.
BTW Hunter’s son just got home the other day from his third tour in the war.
If your home is buring down are you going to call your stock broker or the fire dept.
I don’t care what any candidate thinks on economics.
If we don’t win this war, no money, constitution, etc. will mean nothing.
I was curious as to who you were supporting. If you would like to prognosticate as to the odds on winner, I’d like to hear that as well...General stuff. I like Duncan Hunter.
Committee votes are interesting animals. With committee votes you can try to increase H-1B visas and with others you can seek to change rules and allow companies to fire American employees. Both are things that Duncan Hunter would never do but one former senator senator in the race has done.
I don’t put any stock in anything the club for growth wants. They just don’t make any real sense.
At this point the integrity of the nation is far more important than anything else.
Evans supports the Huckester, the guy who spoke before Mexicans in support of La Raza.
The guy is kidding himself.
The Huckester is from a town with the enter and leaving sign on the same post.
Also from a back water state full of trailer trash with
a population of only 3 million
Duncan Hunter is the only true conservative. He is the one to vote for.
By selective reporting, just about anyone whose vote is on record can be shown in a bad light. Hunter voted and wasn’t coy about it—or absent. That’s what representative government is about.
Meanwhile, not a word in what you cited about the Sanctity of Life, for example, or the Second Amendment—or private property rights—or swift, sure criminal justice. The closer I look at Club for Growth, the more RINO it looks and the less I trust their rankings. I’d sure like to be wrong on this but it walks like a duck...and I hear quacking.
“Conservative” means that human life and private property matter supremely—and worth going to war and building fences to protect and defend.
“I was curious as to who you were supporting. If you would like to prognosticate as to the odds on winner, I’d like to hear that as well...”
I started out supporting Congressman Hunter and still think he might be the best candidate to reunite the Reagan coalition, but his relatively lackluster speech at the FRC Washington Briefing caused me to question whether he was still running to win. I’m currently leaning toward Governor Huckabee, but the only candidate I’ve absolutely ruled out is Giuliani.
Prognostication isn’t really my thing, but barring a grassroots miracle for Governor Huckabee, it looks to me like Governor Romney is in a much better position than most commentators realize.
SoCalPol wrote: “If we don’t win this war, no money, constitution, etc. will mean nothing.”
Yet even Guiliani seems to be strong on the war. Isn’t is possible to accomplish more, as in economic and constitution-related issues?
Well said TSOA!
“The closer I look at Club for Growth, the more RINO it looks and the less I trust their rankings”
Would you say that the Club for Growth could be compared to the Concord Coalition?
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.