[Kurt Evans]

“So you think No Child Left Behind and the 2003 Medicare Drug Benefit are solid, fiscally conservative votes?”

Of course not, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Congressman Hunter isn’t a solid, fiscally conservative candidate. As another poster has already noted, selective reporting can show just about any voting record in a bad light.

[CitizenUSA]

Kurt Evans wrote: “Of course not, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Congressman Hunter isn’t a solid, fiscally conservative candidate. As another poster has already noted, selective reporting can show just about any voting record in a bad light.”

Yes, but those particular programs are especially notorious expansions of government. They definitely don’t reflect well on Duncan Hunter in my opinion.

[cripplecreek]

selective reporting can show just about any voting record in a bad light.

Ain't it the truth. A few days back someone posted that Duncan Hunter had voted in support of McCain Feingold and even posted a link to prove it. I don't know if they didn't read their link or were being deliberately deceptive but I actually looked at it. Turns out that Hunter did vote yes....on a procedural vote to break McCain Feingold into 14 individual parts that could be more easily killed.

[Puddleglum]

“So you think No Child Left Behind and the 2003 Medicare Drug Benefit are solid, fiscally conservative votes?” Of course not, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Congressman Hunter isn’t a solid, fiscally conservative candidate. As another poster has already noted, selective reporting can show just about any voting record in a bad light.

Duncan also recently voted to override the president's veto of the Water Resources Development Act. It was vetoed because it was obscenely bloated with pork. Duncan chose to vote against the prez and pass the bill anway. It was a "safe" vote - most Republicans also voted to override. But it was not a gutsy vote, and certainly not that of a man opposed to government largesse.