Skip to comments.OPEN LETTER III By: FReeper David Osborne 25 October 2007
Posted on 10/25/2007 1:07:33 AM PDT by davidosborne
CLICK HERE....FOR PDF of this letter.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: PRESIDENTIAL RACE 2008 & HSLDA PAC
RE: (Home School Legal Defense Association Political Action Committee)
By: FReeper David C. Osborne
25 October 2007
Greetings ! The purpose of this open letter is to respond to the recent news that HSLDA has come out early this primary season and has publicly endorsed Gov. Mike Huckabee. As a home schooling parent I am asking HSLDA to reconsider this decision at endorse Duncan Hunter instead, or maybe even consider a DUAL endorsement.
I admire Gov. Huckabee for his Christian values, and I acknowledge his leadership and commitment to conservative values. However, I would ask that you consider the following facts about Presidential Candidate Duncan Hunter. If you take the time to consider the options you will see that Duncan Hunter is CLEARLY the best candidate to be Commander in Chief. Our nation desperately needs a leader with strong conservative values with the moral values to fight and win the war on terror, which is essential to our very survival as a free nation.
First, I was to address why I believe HSLDA should consider a strong endorsement for Duncan Hunter (the following is copied directly from a personal e-mail I received).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BEGIN QUOTE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Duncan Hunter is pro homeschooling.
Duncan Hunter on Education
Republican Representative (CA-52)
Make schools community-based with no mandated integration
Q: The Supreme Court recently ruled that even voluntary integration in America's public schools is unconstitutional.
A: I think the population of the school should depend on the community that you live in. And it should be, in my mind, small schools, and they should be schools that are close enough to mom and dad that you can get them down to the school when the teacher needs them. It shouldn't be based on any forced mandate by government, and I think it will work out a lot better that way. Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007
Supports vouchers & home schooling
Regarding educational choice; home schooling; and the freedom of private and home education from federal regulation: I support taking the actions necessary to strengthen our public educational system and school vouchers are a great opportunity to provide students and their families with additional educational choices. A significant percentage of high school students have difficulty reading at a proficient level, test well below the international average in math and science, and lack basic knowledge in history. Clearly, parents have a reason to be concerned. Many Americans support innovative plans that address our current education shortcomings and I believe school vouchers are an effective way of achieving this goal.
Taking into consideration that approximately 2 million children are taught at home, it is important that we make every effort to ensure these students have the same access and opportunities to federal benefits, such as financial aid, as those who attend public school.
Source: Campaign website, www.gohunter08.com, "Core Principles" Sep 1, 2007
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance.
Amendment to preserve the authority of the US Supreme Court to decide any question pertaining to the Pledge of Allegiance. The bill underlying this amendment would disallow any federal courts from hearing cases concerning the Pledge of Allegiance. This amendment would make an exception for the Supreme Court.
Proponents support voting YES because:
I believe that our Pledge of Allegiance with its use of the phrase "under God" is entirely consistent with our Nation's cultural and historic traditions. I also believe that the Court holding that use of this phrase is unconstitutional is wrong. But this court-stripping bill is not necessary. This legislation would bar a Federal court, including the Supreme Court, from reviewing any claim that challenges the recitation of the Pledge on first amendment grounds.
If we are a Nation of laws, we must be committed to allowing courts to decide what the law is. This bill is unnecessary and probably unconstitutional. It would contradict the principle of Marbury v. Madison, intrude on the principles of separation of powers, and degrade our independent Federal judiciary.
Opponents support voting NO because:
I was disappointed 4 years ago when two judges of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that our Pledge, our statement of shared national values, was somehow unconstitutional. I do not take legislation that removes an issue from the jurisdiction of this court system lightly. This legislation is appropriate, however, because of the egregious conduct of the courts in dealing with the Pledge of Allegiance.
By striking "under God" from the Pledge, the Court has shown contempt for the Congress which approved the language, and, more importantly, shows a complete disregard for the millions of Americans who proudly recite the Pledge as a statement of our shared national values and aspirations. No one is required to recite the Pledge if they disagree with its message. Reference: Watt amendment to Pledge Protection Act; Bill H R 2389 ; vote number 2006-384 on Jul 19, 2006
Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges.
# This vote is on a substitute bill (which means an amendment which replaces the entire text of the original bill). Voting YES means support for the key differences from the original bill: lowering student loan interest rates; $59 million for a new Predominantly Black Serving Institution program; $25 million for a new graduate Hispanic Serving Institution program; provide for year- round Pell grants; and repeal the Single Lender rule. The substitute's proponents say: The original bill has some critical shortcomings. First and foremost, this substitute will cut the new Pell Grant fixed interest rate in half from 6.8% to 3.4%, to reduce college costs to those students most in need.
# It would also establish a new predominantly black-serving institutions programs to boost college participation rates for low-income black students, and a new graduate Hispanic-serving institution program.
# As we saw from 1995 to 2000, the questions employers were asking was not your race, not your ethnicity, not your religion, they wanted to know if you had the skills and talents to do the job. Most often today, those skills and that talent requires a higher education. A college education is going to have to become as common as a high school education.
* The substitute's opponents say: I feel it is not totally the Federal Government's responsibility to provide for all of higher education. The substitute has three critical flaws.
* 1.The name itself, "Reverse the Raid on Student Aid." Don't believe the hype. Not one student in America will receive less financial aid under our bill. Not one.
* 2. This amendment does not retain the $6,000 maximum Pell Grant award that our legislation has. In fact, they stay with the same old $5,800 maximum award.
* 3. It says that we are going to have a 3.4% interest rate for 1 year that is going to cost $2.7 billion, but it has no offsets whatsoever. How do they pay for it? They don't tell us.
Reference: Reverse the Raid on Student Aid Act; Bill HR 609 Amendment 772 ; vote number 2006-080 on Mar 30, 2006
Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror.
Children's Prayers Resolution: Expressing the sense of Congress that schools should allow children time to pray for, or silently reflect upon, the country during the war against terrorism.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Isakson, R-GA; Bill H.Con.Res.239 ; vote number 2001-445 on Nov 15, 2001
Voted YES on requiring states to test students.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Vote to pass a bill that would authorize $22.8 billion in education funding, a 29 percent increase from fiscal 2001. The bill would require states to test students to track progress.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Boehner R-OH; Bill HR 1 ; vote number 2001-145 on May 23, 2001
Voted YES on allowing vouchers in DC schools.
Vote to create a non-profit corporation to administer federally-funded vouchers for low-income children in the District of Columbia.
Reference: Amendment introduced by Armey, R-TX; Bill HR 4380 ; vote number 1998-411 on Aug 6, 1998
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools.
Vote to pass a bill to allow states to use certain federal funds designated for elementary and secondary education to provide scholarships, or vouchers, to low-income families to send their children to private schools, including religious schools.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Riggs, R-CA; Bill HR 2746 ; vote number 1997-569 on Nov 4, 1997
Voted YES on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer. Motion to add language to the "Goals 2000: Educate America Act" to give federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer.
Bill HR 1804 ; vote number 1994-85 on Mar 23, 1994
Rated 17% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes.
Hunter scores 17% by the NEA on public education issues
The National Education Association has a long, proud history as the nation's leading organization committed to advancing the cause of public education. Founded in 1857 "to elevate the character and advance the interests of the profession of teaching and to promote the cause of popular education in the United States," the NEA has remained constant in its commitment to its original mission as evidenced by the current mission statement:
To fulfill the promise of a democratic society, the National Education Association shall promote the cause of quality public education and advance the profession of education; expand the rights and further the interest of educational employees; and advocate human, civil, and economic rights for all.
In pursuing its mission, the NEA has determined that it will focus the energy and resources of its 2.7 million members toward the "promotion of public confidence in public education." The ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: NEA website 03n-NEA on Dec 31, 2003
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.
Hunter sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment:
H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.
H. J. RES. 78 (1997):
To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.
* Proposed Legislation:H.J.RES.52, School Prayer Amendment, 6/13/2001 (Murtha)
* H.J.RES.12, School Prayer Amendment, 2/7/2001 (Emerson)
* S.J.RES.1, School Prayer Amendment, 1/22/2001 (Thurmond)
* H.J.RES.108, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 9/21/2000 (Graham)
* H.J.RES.55, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 2/13/1997 (Stearnes, Hall, Watts)
* H.J.RES.78, Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom, 5/8/1997 (Istook, et. al.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> END QUOTE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Having said all that, let me now address several reasons why I believe Duncan Hunter is overall the BEST candidate in the race, and why I believe very strongly that Republicans and moderate Democrats alike should rally behind him to ensure his victory in 2008.
Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee differ greatly on other key issues which should be seriously considered. Duncan Hunter is far stronger on NATIONAL DEFENSE, ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, & FAIR TRADE.
I believe that in the PRIMARY voters should vote for the BEST candidate, not the candidate that think can win.. however there are a lot of voters who would disagree with me, and if you are one those folks consider this point that I recently made in an e-mail I sent out to some fellow Duncan Hunter supporters...
A point I have been making in every open letter that I write.. Rudy is the candidate that the LEFT is fighting for to be the GOP nomination its a toss up between Giuliani and Ron Paul in the race for the LEFT spoiler of the GOP primary I would like to see some in depth analysis of the money trail for both Giuliani and Ron Paul I suspect that we will discover that they are BOTH largely supported by the FAR LEFT in an attempt to affect the outcome of the GOP Primary.. this is the SAME reason that Duncan Hunter is NOT getting the coverage that he deserves.. Duncan Hunter is the candidate that the LEFT does not want to see win the primary. and they are pulling out all the stops to make sure that he does not get any traction.. I have seen this very clearly for several weeks now.. and others will see it if they just take a look at what is going on.. DUNCAN HUNTER is the ONLY CANDIDATE qualified to be Commander in Chief.. and if the GOP primary voters dont see that they will effectively DESTROY our party with the help of the DEMOCRATS !! ---- Duncan Hunter is the ONLY candidate that ALL CONSERVATIVES will rally behind in the General election in addition to MANY of the moderate Democrats.. this will result in a Ronald Reagan type victory for the GOP If ANY OTHER Republican candidate emerges from primary they will effectively split the base, and will not be able to rally enough support in the General Election to beat the HildaBeast
Here are a few additional observations ..
1. FRED THOMPSON Interestingly enough, Fred made his first debut in a presidential debate, and to put it mildly he fell flat on his face, and the numbers are starting to reflect that. Many of his grassroots supporters have left the campaign in the wake of the disaster. Many folks on a conservative web forum that was created to support Fred Thompson have shifted their support to DUNCAN HUNTER.
2. MITT ROMNEY What can I say, the guy has the MONEY, he even has the so-called NAME RECOGNITION, and yes his grassroots supporters are few and far between. I dont know if this has anything to do with him being a Mormon or not, but that issue always seems to come up in conservative circles.
3. MIKE HUCKABEE I confess that my opinion of Mike Huckabee is not as objective as it should be. Many of my fellow Christian/Conservatives insist that he the THE MAN, however the conservative family is much larger than the Christian Conservative family, and I just dont see Mike Huckabee breaking out.
4. TOM TANCREDO I have heard a rumor that Tom Tancredo is considering dropping out of the race, if this is true, I hope to see his supporters come over the DUNCAN HUNTER CAMP. In fact if Tom decides to endorse Duncan Hunter I think it will be a very wise move for him.
5. JOHN MCCAIN Way too much of RINO to get ANY support from the grassroots conservatives. While I respect John McCain and thank him for his service to our country his opportunity to become President of United States has come and gone. I hope to see him drop out of the race as well, but I dont see that happening any time soon.
6. RUDY GIULIANI Former mayor of New York, has the name recognition that other candidates could only dream of, however he is NOT a conservative. I encourage the Moderate Republicans among us who support him to consider the consequences of supporting a candidate that can certainly make it through the PRIMARY, but will have ZERO chance in the GENERAL, simply because many conservatives have vowed to not vote for him even if he IS the nominee.
7. RON PAUL In short Ron Paul is the LEFTs dream candidate for the Republican party I cant help but offer this conspiracy theory Who thinks its possible that the ANTI-WAR crowd will register REPUBLICAN in the Primary, JUST to vote for RON PAUL ! --- Not to give the left any ideas, but think about it for second. If ALL THE Anti-War folks register Republican, and vote for Ron Paul in the Primary, they can marginalize the REAL conservatives and all but guarantee a GIULIANI victory. Which of course will result in a HILLARY CLINTON victory in the General Election.
8. DUNCAN HUNTER O.K. Now that we got through all that I have saved the BEST for LAST. DUNCAN HUNTER is the only candidate in the race that can not only win the PRIMARY, but is the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton in the GENERAL ELECTION. In my humble opinion, it is imperative that REAL conservatives seriously consider who they are supporting in the PRIMARY. If you do this, I am sure you will, as many already have, come to the conclusion that DUNCAN HUNTER IS The RIGHT man, at the RIGHT time, and is the only candidate in the race that can pull of a RONALD REAGAN type victory in 2008.
It is my sincere humble opinion, that Duncan Hunter is MOST qualified to wear the Commander in Chief hat in 2008 and on into the foreseeable future. No other candidate in the race on either side of aisle comes even close to his qualifications.
Having said that; It is very frustrating to me that so many folks out there who KNOW in their heart that Duncan Hunter is the right man at the right time are buying into the notion that Duncan Hunter cant win. They seem to suggest that no matter how qualified Duncan Hunter is, if the MEDIA says he cant win, then it must be true. Some have even suggested that its all about NAME RECOGNITION. If you have not heard this excuse yet, then you just are not paying close attention to the primary race. If these well meaning conservatives would quit spouting this garbage, the name recognition factor would be dramatically reduced. In my research I have found that many of the folk who say that Duncan Hunter cant win are the folks who have already committed to supporting another candidate. This is a clear indication to me that it simply is NOT TRUE, but rather a campaign slogan for the other guy.
In fact if you look at the national polls, you will see that a very significant number of folks out there are UNDECIDED when asked which REPUBLICAN candidate they will support in the PRIMARY. Truthfully, I look at the national polls simply for entertainment sakes, because personally I dont believe that polls taken so early in the game are any real indication of who really can or cant win the REPUBLICAN PRIMARY.
However, the FreeRepublic.Com polls in my humble opinion ARE a very good indication of where grassroots conservatives stand. I have been watching these polls very carefully since the beginning of the campaign season. I have made a couple of observations that I would like to share. Before I state these observations, let me say that the only numbers I consider relevant are the members numbers. While this of course in not scientific by any means, if supported by additional data can be a very good barometer of where grassroots conservative INDIVIDUALS are leaning.
1. Fred Thompson seems to pull a high percentage of all member votes, however this high figure is NOT supported by the fact that so few of these folks post anything PUBLIC on the forum itself. My latest estimate is that about 35% of the folks who have posted publicly in support of either Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter are actually Fred Thompson Supporters. However, 65% of the folks who have posted publicly in support of either Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter have indicated support for Duncan Hunter. Again, not scientific, but a very interesting observation, for which there may be a number of explanations.
2. As of this writing, the FR polls have made a dramatic shift toward Duncan Hunter and away from Fred Thompson. In fact Fred Thompsons numbers have been in steady decline since the Michigan Debate. This phenomenon is not just on FreeRepublic.com, but other conservative web forums as well. Look for this trend to continue as we get deeper into the campaign season.
In conclusion, it appears to me that as more conservatives start to take a serious look at the candidates in the race, Duncan Hunter seems to be gaining momentum, it is my sincere hope that this trend continues into the primary, and that folk stop the Duncan Hunter cant win rhetoric.
Thanks for listening, feel free to pass this letter on.
David C. Osborne
Passing it on... TOWARD VICTORY !!
Wait....you’re supporting Duncan Hunter?
I am as everyone knows a Duncan Hunter supporter. I want to say that I agree with David. Duncan is a conservative and they are not going to give him the time of day; just like they didn’t Reagan, even Carter and Clinton(hold my nose); but each of them won and hopefully we will select Duncan as the new President. I want a real conservative; not what the power elites and whoever are trying to force on me so business as usual or worse; a Hillary WH with the skunk and her rapist husband back in. Then what is going to stop them. I predict they will try and manuver Bubba in as head the UN. Awful pic; isn’t it.
And this should scare you. What about our beloved FR? I refuse to give up Jim and my FR.
I guess what I am saying; please think before you vote and look at the actions before and now of the candidates. They are pretty good indicators of what the person is sometimes more than words. Don’t let the powers that be divide us and put us into defeat. No more Bushes and no more Clintons; no more dynasties. We are America.
FAIR & EQUITABLE TRADE
ECONOMY & TAXES
SAFETY & SECURITY
FAITH & VALUES
ADDITIONAL AUDIO & VIDEOS
Ping EMPHASIS to this thread to HomeSchoolers in my List: thelastinkling,davidosborne, metmom, tired of taxes
I’m going to add quite a bit of information onto this thread. Please, please, please, if you don’t understand something ask me! I have a very bad habit of killing mosquitoes with bricks. In other words, I offer up info that tends to make people’s eyes roll back in their heads. But this is important, so please keep coming back and checking this thread.
The point in referencing that, stories were coming out about putting restrictions on school lunches. I started following the stories and found that the grant initiatives went back to the same source as the animal tagging sources.
See my thread here:
Animal Tagging and SCHOOL LUNCHES???
I couldn't get over the relation! I found they both came from USDA related sources.
In RESEARCHING this further, I ran into articles from the HSLDA. It seems there were the first and savvy out on the internet and knew all about this beast. The beast is called:
Healthy People 2010
HSLDA has been covering Healthy People 2010
Healthy People 2010 is huge. It has 28 categorized initiatives encompased that branch off into far reaching initiatives with public private partnerships and grants programs.
Healthy People 2010 has been being introduced incrementally. In sections, it looks harmless; but when the initiatives are zipped together, it is devastating.
One of the aims of Healthy People 2010 is to end private ownership and rights. It makes us stakeholders of our properties. It makes us stakeholders of our personal rights. That means of our health and our children.
State departments of educations have been encompassing in loco parentis in their Healthy Schools programs. Healthy Schools is the evil offspring of Health People 2010. This is about MORE than issuing birth control. THIS is about changing parental rights with children to STAKEHOLDERS.
In the United States, courts often must determine who the legal parents are among the many adults who might be involved in planning, conceiving, birthing, and raising a child. Judges in several states have seized upon the idea of psychological parenthood to award legal parent status to adults who are not related to children by blood, adoption, or marriage. They have done so even over the objection of the childs biological parent. Advances in the same-sex marriage debate have encouraged group marriage advocates who wish to break open the two-person understanding of marriage and parenthood.
The National Health Education Standards has gone further and envoked in loco parentis by redefining parents as families. Families have been classified as stakeholders. Childrens stakeholders are being identified as any entity that is seen as a resource in a childs community. The legal definition of stakeholder is a third party who temporarily holds money or property while its owner is still being determined.
Schools often have insufficient resources to provide a comprehensive and multifaceted continuum of interventions. By having direct contact with families and key informants in the community, schools are better able to identify barriers to student success and well-being and better equipped to develop solutions that overcome these barriers. Schools can enhance home-school links by sharing concerns with families and developing solutions that address students unique needs.
In addition to the benefits for students education and well-being, students families, and school staff, there are reciprocal benefits for community agencies who partner with schools. Businesses, the justice system, community health and safety systems, and others may benefit from a healthier population. Community agencies and organizations that provide services to children and families often gain a more visible profile when they become partners with schools.
Examples of neighborhood stakeholders in student health and well-being are students themselves, as well as their families and teachers. Other school staff, community business owners, police, faith-based institutions, universities and colleges, local health departments, health and mental health service providers, dentists, emergency medical services, educators of first-aid, departments of health, justice, education and social services, and other agencies that serve families have stakes in the well-being of the student population and school staff. Communicate regularly with partners and potential partners in order to learn what each has to offer.
Mike Huckabee is being endorsed by HSDLA. Yet, Mike Huckabee is OWNED by Healthy People 2010. That is where all the 'nanny stater' nicknames comes from. Look:
Promoting Health for a Nation: Healthy People 2010
After studying this chapter, the student should be able to 1. Explain the historical development process of Healthy People 2010.
2. Describe the goals, objectives, and function of Healthy People 2010.
3. Identify the 10 leading health indicators used to monitor progress toward Healthy People 2010 objectives.
4. Describe the processes used to evaluate the impact of Healthy People 2010 objectives.
Snip, snip, snip, etc.
Chapter 2 Promoting Health for a Nation: Healthy People 2010
Access to Health Care
The health care system is really designed to reward you for being unhealthy. If you are a healthy person and work hard to be healthy, there are no benefits.
Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas
Snip, snip, snip, etc.
Snip, snip, snip, snip etc.
[Mike Huckabee] has created Healthy Arkansas, an initiative that sets the state on a course to reach the Healthy People 2010 goals in obesity, physical inactivity, and tobacco use. The program is a comprehensive effort to clearly define specific areas where behavioral changes can lead to healthier citizens. Efforts include enlisting the media in disseminating information and presenting awards to encourage the participants.
Mike Huckabee even publishes his books under grant initiatives from Robert Wood Johnson. If you read my Healthy People 2010 threads (above), you will see they are the main funding source as the grant providers.
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Annual Report:
Mike Huckabee’s books are listed here.
The emphasis on linking Mike Huckabee to Healthy People 2010 and HSDLA opposition to it, once parental rights are changed across the board to stakeholders, homeschooling options will end. HSDLA saw that years ago.
I think many would be surprised to know that the un is pushing 'Healthy People 2010'? Has been for some time. WHO. I may be off, but I don't think so.
You are correct. From my Healthy People 2010 link:
World Health Organization http://www.healthypeople.gov/Implementation/Consortium/Annual_Meetings/1996_consortium/kickbusch.htm
* Division of Health Promotion, Education and Communication
* 12 indicators of GLOBAL HEALTH FOR ALL strategy that were to be assessed by all countries in the world
* At least 5% of the Gross National Product to be spent on health; A reasonable percentage of the national health expenditure devoted to local health care; Equal distribution of resources; (snip)
* Same with the Model School Nutrition Program http://www.state.nj.us/agriculture/PolicyQA.pdf which falls under 7. Educational and Community-Based Programs and 10. Food Safety programs listed above. Our state just mandated it. So what does that mean? Our state took the grant money. Now, agents of this program get to enter our school systems to gather data and have auditing rights to the schools records.
* They have now criminalized the peanut butter and jelly sandwich so these agents can come in and gather information on our children in public and private schools.
* Target Setting and Assessing Progress for Measurable Objectives
And always the subject RETURNS to Duncan Hunter. I have a feeling that if you posted a thread about the latest Hubble discoveries, you would somehow be able to segue into a Duncan Hunter promo.
Good idea! I will get right on having a Vote for Hunter yard sign planted on the moon :)
Now that is creative!
Maybe we can get the next shuttle mission to hang a ‘Duncan Hunter’ banner on the International Space Station!
Oh, I like that!
Hi, Cal! How’re you doing? Thanks for the ping.
I still don’t know who I’ll be supporting, but I see that Hunter wants school vouchers. I oppose school vouchers, so that part of Hunter’s plan does turn me off.
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.