Another Odd Endorsement (Why Did Hunter Endorse Anyone?!)

This presidential cycle has seen a series of odd endorsements, such as Pat Robertson's support for Rudy Giuliani or Sam Brownback's endorsement of John McCain. Today brought another, this one from conservative stalwart Duncan Hunter, who recently withdrew from the race. Hunter endorsed Mike Huckabee, who has taken considerable criticism from conservatives on immigration and fiscal policy:

I don't find this anywhere near as shocking as other Republicans, although I admit to being surprised when I first heard it. Hunter's biggest issues in the race were immigration and trade, and he took a more protectionist tack on the latter. In that sense, Hunter's instincts are closer to Huckabee than any of the other candidates, who tend towards the free-market policies that typify Republicans.

On immigration, Huckabee would seem to be the second-oddest partner for Hunter apart from John McCain. Huckabee has tried to put out a tough line on immigration with only moderate success in convincing the base. Obviously, Huckabee hopes this has to help, and it might, at least on immigration and border security issues. However, Huckabee's populism won't get a better reception just because Hunter endorsed him.

This isn't the strangest endorsement of this cycle, but it is a little odd, and I wonder why Hunter didn't take his gracious words to their logical conclusion and just skip choosing a single candidate altogether.

You be the judge. Is this mindless free trade without regard to national security or American interests, or is this intelligent, balanced, free and fair trade?:

"I'm committed to and will continue to fight for fair trade. American exporters and American workers deserve a fair shake abroad, and we intend to see they get it. Our objective will always be to make world trading partnerships freer and fairer for all. So, while we will use our powers as a lever to open closed doors abroad, we will continue to resist protectionist measures that would only raise prices, lock out trade, and destroy the jobs and prosperity trade brings to all. There are no winners in a trade war, only losers"
Ronald Reagan on a radio address, 7 September 1985 (source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=39072 ).

Rush cannot be the defacto leader of the republican party. He does not want to be, nor should he be.

If the head of the republicans was a talk show host, we would be laughed at and it would be justified. Not only that, but he would no longer be able to be a show host.

Now if Rush was to quit radio and run for political office. It would make more sense. The head of the Republican Party is traditionally the President, or the highest ranking politico we have who also wants that title and can garner a following.

Rush is a private citizen, and a great asset as such.

The Dunk and the Huck are kindred souls in that they both give the impression of being closer to the anti-capitalist views of Lou Dobbs and John Edwards than to the free-market views of Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman.

WRONG

The words of Michael Reagan on his father and Duncan Hunter.

As Ann Coulter wrote in her new book, the best-qualified of all the candidates is Rep. Duncan Hunter. During the debate he was the candidate who provided the best information about the economy and had a first-rate suggestion of what we need to do.

He keyed in on what must be one of the most important economic issues – trade.

He talked about our shocking $800 billion trade deficit, and what the Chinese are doing to us. Duncan understands that when anybody cites Ronald Reagan as a free-trade advocate in defense of our present trade policies, they need to remember that in my dad's playbook, protection of the American people came before anything else.

Take the case of Harley-Davidson. My father protected this American manufacturer of motorcycles against lower-priced Japanese imports. When he acted in behalf of an American company, Kawasaki and Honda reacted by moving their plants to the U.S. and created American jobs for American workers.

His policy was so successful that although he gave five years of protective tariffs to Harley-Davison, they didn’t even need that long a time before they could turn their company around. Given a level playing field they proved their superiority as an American manufacturer.

Ronald Reagan did the same thing with semiconductors, and the auto and steel industries. He also forced the Japanese and others to open up their markets to American products so that trade would be fair. When that didn’t happen he would impose tariffs on those products coming into the U.S., thus protecting American manufacturers.

Sure, he was a free trader who wanted too open up trade, but he always sought first to protect the sovereignty of the United States and its manufacturing base. He did not confuse free trade with giving the store away.

The effects of our current trade policies and the horrendous trade deficit they have produced are a gun pointed at the heart of our economy, and the Republican who can stand up and tell the truth about this problem and its solutions will be the one who emerges from the pack. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelReagan/2007/10/10/where%e2%80%99s_the_fire

Rush cannot be the defacto leader of the republican party. He does not want to be, nor should he be.

Correct, but the views he expresses are enormously influential. We all know that President Bush will endorse the eventual nominee, so his endorsement means very little.

But millions of Republicans listen to Rush and certainly take his views seriously.

If Rush says that he cannot endorse our nominee, then millions will take his cue.

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.