Posted on 11/22/2010 8:55:22 PM PST by Josh Painter
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".
Free Trade is preferable to Protectionism every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Hunter has just a good a chance of becoming President as his father did NONE. You want to talk about a farce that was the Hunter campaign.
Yeah, let the politicians make even more decisions about the economy that is the ticket. Give them even more power over the markets isn’t that the conservative dream?
Is Duncan Hunter, Sr., seriously, considering running for POTUS in ‘12? Is this the main reason for posting this, or not? I, still, like him, despite all of the reasons why many other people don’t like him.
Free trade is no myth and what you are objecting too isn’t even free trade but managed trade. Tariffs are the means for politicians to seize even MORE power over our economic life something we should resist like the plague.
Almost as bad as McCain’s stalking horse, Fred.
So why do you support free trade over protectionism?
“When I see posts like this, I think of this sad song from the TV show “Dollhouse”:
Remains - (Burn down my home)”
Was there a song for Hannibal Lechter’s cannabalism?
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
No, the reason for posting this is to expose pissy’s blatant hypocrisy. He insists on dredging up posts from years ago and referencing leftist news sources to bash Palin.
As long as he keeps doing that, I’ll respond in kind. If he would stop, I would stop, and we could go on to more productive discussions. But I have no reason to believe he would stop. There’s no cure for PDS.
Not to change the subject, but we’ve beaten “free trade” to death.
So what’s wrong with “No Child Left Behind”? I’m usually against top-down micro-management, but when we have a politicized educational establishment and a teachers gone wild workforce, I’d call “No Child Left Behind” a valiant effort at stopping a runaway train.
Unfortunately, our Dept of Education was already an insane asylum when “No Child Left Behind” was conceived, and no cure is possible. So let’s use the remainder of the “education” budget to put the education administrators on a one way cruise ship to any continent that will accept them. Global Warming makes Antarctica the perfect destination.
pissant is a troll. Pity, but he’s crossed the line and the Sarah Palin hatred isn’t welcome. Can’t attack her current policies -— policies of her own, so this “flashback stuff from McCain’s run” is the stuff of hateful losers.
Good job, Josh!
Yep. It’s always a good job when you find an open borders outfit like CFG to lambaste Hunter. ROFL
BTW, her current amnesty policy sounds exactly like her old one.
Protectionist Porkers don’t get my vote.....
PDS? Pissant Derangement Syndrome...
Club for Growth didn’t like the most conservative in the race? Next thing you’ll tell me is that CPAC is pushing for gay rights.
Free Trade allows the market to more efficiently allocate scarce resources. When politicians decide relative prices and how and where goods are supplied it results in less for everyone.
Communist decision-making processes ruin the markets and increase the power of the political class. Protectionism uses the same principles where the Central Committee (Congressional Committees) decide on tariff rates and which industries are to be favored and also disfavored.
There has never been a totally Free Trade system in effect anywhere or at any time but that is the goal which should be aimed at by governments.
I would except certain defense industries from the application of Free Trade principles but that is for a political purpose i.e. national security.
Was that remark intended to have some meaning?
Rapunzel?
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.