Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kurt Evans; Sun; All

The Club for Growth and the 2008 Presidential Race - Know thy enemy Feb. 17, 2007

The battle for the republican nomination for president has taken an historical turn and started before the 2006 mid terms were even over. It’s all quite the study in human nature, greed, deception and the ugliness of political reality in these United States.

On the net, we see a fight shaping up between supporters of the left wing globalist leaders of the republican party, mostly Giuliani supporters and the more traditionalist wing, mainly supporters of Duncan Hunter.

By now, anyone paying attention has seen the photos of Rudy in drag, which I thought was one of his more endearing moments, but I digress....

We’ve heard about his 3 marriages and his diva/Pelosi like behavior of airplanes, hotel accommodations and taking $100,000 speaking fee for the victims of a Tsunami. But hey, that’s all just ‘personal’ stuff. Character doesn’t matter in the Ferengi economic model the globalist pushers would foist on us.

Then there are Rudy’s liberal leaning interpretations of the 2nd amendment, immigration, partial birth abortion, hiring and promoting corrupt officials like Bernie Karrick. All proven true allegations, but when presented to a Rudyite, they are dismissed as meaningless.

So far the only arrows being slung at Duncan Hunter have been to cite a rating given him by the Club For Growth. He only scored a 49 % with the ‘Club’. Never mind that most other conservative organizations such as the NRA, NumbersUSA, American Conservative Union - (92% LIFETIME) rate Hunter near or at the top.

The bottom line is this. Duncan Hunter wants to secure our borders, his 26 year legislative history proves that. He also wants the truth told about trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA and China, Fast track trade authority that bypasses constitutionally mandated congressional control. The Club for Growth, and the people involved in it have done just the opposite. As will their pick for president.

Anyone looking at Duncan Hunters voting and legislative record must conclude that perhaps the ‘Club’ is more RINO than Republican or Conservative. The Club cites this:

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”.

For the past few years? Well, yes, WAR appropriations happen to be expensive; he voted along the lines of his party and president. When Hunters record is examined bill, by bill his budget votes were about military spending. No one has yet made a case that any of his votes were ‘pork’ . But the ‘Club’ doesn’t mention that.

They do mention, “ Despite being a member of the Republican Study Committee, Hunter frequently votes NO on their fiscally conservative annual budgets (2006, 2005, 2003...)”

When you look at those votes, you will see that the MAJORITY of republicans voted NO on them.

You be the judge, is the ‘Clubs’ analysis of Hunter even remotely indicative of reality? If what they convey here is true, they admit they do not agree with just about 2/3 of republicans voting in congress.

So who does the ‘Club for Growth’ agree with? One of the bills they faulted Duncan for voting for was a transportation bill. Republican congressmen voted 218 to 9 for it. Is Club for Growth representing the republican base or something else?

“The Club for Growth is a section 527 political organization and an affiliated political action committee that raises money for candidates who support an anti-tax and limited-government agenda. It was created by former Cato Institute fellow Stephen Moore. “

Stephen Moore. That’s a name anyone involved in the battle to secure our nations borders needs to know. And where you find Moore, you find Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich and common agendas. Often, those agendas are not ‘conservative’.

Moore has written articles in favor of increased immigration to the U.S., and has debated against immigration restrictionists. In one article, Moore favorably cited a speech at Cato by Rep. Dick Armey, R-TX, who said he believes the U.S. “should be thinking about increasing legal immigration.” Moore worked on studies for the wing immigration advocacy group, the National Immigration Forum, which favors amnesty for illegal aliens.

In 1996, Moore along with Grover Norquist helped defeat any measures aimed at enforcement in an immigration reform bill.

Marcus Stern describes Moores involvement in an award winning article.

The coalition was a juggernaut that fought virtually any verification initiative. Because Republicans control Congress, conservative lobbyists were especially influential. The fact that some limited, voluntary verification projects stayed in the bill at all outraged some conservatives.

“I view it as the camel’s nose under the tent for a national ID card,” said Stephen Moore, an economist with the Cato Institute who lobbied against the bill. “The theme we played to Republicans was that if you’re trying to roll back big government, you shouldn’t be instituting this new police-state power.”

Social conservatives like Norquist and libertarians like Moore don’t see illegal immigration as a major problem.

“Illegal immigration is part of the price we pay for being both a prosperous and a free country, and I’m not willing to sacrifice some of our freedoms to try to keep out immigrants, especially when I don’t think it’s going to work very well,” said Moore.

He added that spending $3 billion-plus a year to fund the Immigration and Naturalization Service “probably is a waste of money. But this is a political issue. And the way you deal with illegal immigration is you increase the INS budget. It doesn’t do a lot, but at least politicians on both sides can go home and say, `Well, how can you say I’m not doing anything about immigration? I increased the INS budget.’ “

What you don’t do, he said, is involve employers in enforcement.

“Sometimes in politics you pass feel-good measures,” Moore said. “And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Passing a bill that’s mostly window dressing is a way of defusing public alarm about something. And in states like California, illegal immigration is perceived as a big problem.”

Working closely with Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute, Cesar Conda (former domestic advisor to Dick Cheney) circulated a statement against Prop. 187 of California in the nineties.

And what have Moore and his associate Grover Norquist been up to lately? More of the same.

Last fall the Club for Growth worked against conservative republican candidate Robert Vasquez, an ardent illegal alien opponent by funding his opposition.

Moore, along with Norquist, Newt Gingrich, Tamar Jacoby and other amnesty advocates penned a letter to the Wall St Journal proclaiming Bush’s guest worker plan as “a humane, orderly, and economically sensible approach to migration.”

On September 19, 2005, the Federal Election Commission filed suit against the Club for Growth for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act for failing to register as a political action committee in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 congressional elections.

You can be sure that both Stephen Moore and Grover Norquist are working full time to keep our borders open and promote any and all trade/labor agreements whether they benefit the USA and it’s people or not.

Moore said this about Norquist. “From the moment he gets up to the moment he gets to bed, he thinks, ‘How am I going to hurt the other team?”

Whoever the Club for Growth decides to push for president, you can be sure they don’t believe it if that candidate pretends to want to secure the border and implement sane trade policy.

Buyer, BEWARE.

It should come as no surprise that the Club for Growth would come out against Duncan Hunter.

Wear it as a badge of honor, Congressman!

http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/search?q=club+for+growth


203 posted on 11/25/2007 6:44:24 AM PST by AuntB (" It takes more than walking across the border to be an American." Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: AuntB

I have followed the Club for Growth for many years. They have done some excellent work but you are correct that they have a blind spot where illegal immigration is concerned.


226 posted on 11/25/2007 9:33:07 AM PST by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

To: AuntB

Excellent post! Reaffirms my commitment to Duncan Hunter.


235 posted on 11/25/2007 10:33:09 AM PST by upsdriver (Duncan Hunter: For those who demand the very best!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

To: AuntB

We’ve heard about his 3 marriages and his diva/Pelosi like behavior of airplanes, hotel accommodations and taking $100,000 speaking fee for the victims of a Tsunami. But hey, that’s all just ‘personal’ stuff. Character doesn’t matter in the Ferengi economic model the globalist pushers would foist on us.

***************

I like entertaining reads. :) Nothing beats good literature, more.


241 posted on 11/25/2007 11:03:44 AM PST by Hunterite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

To: All; AuntB

“Wear it as a badge of honor, Congressman!” Soooooo true!

Great, INFORMATIVE counter to Opening Post in Post 203!

Please read it for the truth, folks.


259 posted on 11/25/2007 12:59:59 PM PST by Sun (Duncan Hunter: pro-God/life/borders, understands Red China threat, NRA A+rating! www.gohunter08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

To: AuntB

Thanks for going to the trouble of digging all this up. I knew they were globalist, but the Gingrich/Norquist linkage is an important issue that we must never forget. That pair is about the most dangerous duo in the Republican party. Newt was the reason that nothing of importance ever got done when the Republicans took over congress in ‘94.


268 posted on 11/25/2007 1:30:49 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

To: AuntB
In 1996, Moore along with Grover Norquist helped defeat any measures aimed at enforcement in an immigration reform bill.

That is a real eye-opening post, AuntB. Moore, Norquist and their ilk at the Country Club for Growth are the elitists of our party. They are very powerful and very influential. It's going to be very difficult to keep them from nominating Rudy next year.

As far as I am concerned, the Moore-Norquist bunch can burn in hell. They don't seem to care at all about this country.

269 posted on 11/25/2007 1:36:08 PM PST by tear gas (Because of the 22nd Amendment, we are losing President. Bush. Can we afford to lose him now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

To: AuntB; Kurt Evans; Sun; All; editor-surveyor; SoCalPol; cripplecreek; The Spirit Of Allegiance; ...

Free trade is ‘globalist’? I thought Conservatives were the party of free trade while it was the democrats (cuz of the unions) who were the protectionists and isolationists. Big government is required to squash free trade.

It is not accurate to state the CFG supports ‘open borders’. They support free market economic policies with limited government. I am a regular reader of their blog (IMO it is the best blog on the internet) and hardly ever see an article on immigration, I think it is a minor issue to them, but, incidently, I think Moore’s (who hasn’t been president for the past few years) comments in this article are dead on.

The article stated the following:

“Last fall the Club for Growth worked against conservative republican candidate Robert Vasquez, an ardent illegal alien opponent by funding his opposition.”

And in turn got Bill Sali, whom this author is apparently ignorant of. IMO, Bill Sali is one of the best represenatives in Congress. FYI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Sali

“Sali was first elected to the Idaho House of Representatives in 1990. During his time there, he gained a reputation as a staunch conservative on social and economic issues, frequently drawing the ire of the more moderate Republican house leadership.[2][3]”

The CFG elects true conservatives who will stick it to the Republican leadership, who represent libertarian economic policies. Their criticism of Duncan Hunter is spot on, IMO.


297 posted on 11/25/2007 6:23:50 PM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson