Posted on 12/14/2006 9:14:26 AM PST by Antoninus
Duncan Hunter on Abortion
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mothers life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Duncan Hunter on Budget & Economy
Supports balanced budget amendment & line item veto. (Sep 1994)
Duncan Hunter on Civil Rights
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 7% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Duncan Hunter on Corporations
Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 83% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Duncan Hunter on Crime
Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)
Rated 30% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)
Duncan Hunter on Drugs
Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
Duncan Hunter on Education
Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted YES on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Voted YES on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer. (Mar 1994)
Rated 17% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
more...
Actually, we lost on Bush I because he caved on taxes, and then Bill Clinton ran on a middle class tax cut.
Knocked of=knocked off
What a laugh. If you're against the ACLU, you're against civil rights.
What was more telling was the loss of the conservatives, in conservative districts.
In the next cycle, those moderates will not be there. The next cycle will show that it is Republicans in general, saddled now with the label of "republican=conservative", are a threatened species.
(1) That is what legions of Freepers said about Harriet Miers, whose nomination was withdrawn, wasn't it?
(2) The Dems & MSM will use the material at hand to caricature the candidate into negatives the public does care about. The law school will be part of a Stupid tag (the Dems favorite). Hunter will be portrayed as a rigid right-wing, no talent GOP hack. Unless Hunter is obviously brilliant in debate, they would make it stick, because there is nothing in Hunter's bio to combat it with.
DUNCAN who?????? BAWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!
Every election cycle the line we hear from libs and faux libertarians is one of the following:
"The GOP won because of fundamentalist voters who came out to vote on (insert social issue here)."
"The GOP lost because not enough voters like the social issues they stand for, such as (insert social issue here)."
Click here for details of how this song was sung after the 2004 election.
Sorry, not buying.
I'm not convinced that two years is enough time to make a majority of U.S. voters vote for the Republican ticket in '08. I want to be wrong on this, but I don't think that I am. A possible "President Clinton/Vice President Obama" situation is coming after what just happen to Republicans this November, and having "establishment" Republicans elected to all of the major leadership positions in the next Congress instead of having "reformist" Republicans elected is not a good start for the Republican Party. It also doesn't help conservatism overall when "pro-amnesty for illegals" President Bush picks "pro-amnesty for illegals" Senator Mel Martinez as a Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee.
"(1) That is what legions of Freepers said about Harriet Miers, whose nomination was withdrawn, wasn't it? (2) The Dems & MSM will use the material at hand to caricature the candidate into negatives the public does care about. The law school will be part of a Stupid tag (the Dems favorite). Hunter will be portrayed as a rigid right-wing, no talent GOP hack. Unless Hunter is obviously brilliant in debate, they would make it stick, because there is nothing in Hunter's bio to combat it with."
If you think Harriet Miers withdrew her Scotus nomination because of the law school she attended, well, you just weren't paying attention. She withdrew because of the pressure put on by people who wanted a conservative candidate.
Why are people so worried about what the Dems and MSM will do? They're on the other side and will do whatever they can to defeat any Republican candidate. So what? Are we supposed to let the Dems and MSM control who Republicans run for President? Have we become so gun shy that we are afraid to support a candidate who the MSM doesn't like?
God help us if this is true.
You couldn't be more wrong, the vast majority of the objection to Miers was because she was a mediocrity. This Ann Coulter column should refresh your memory, as would many contemporaneous FR threads.
Does this law degree make my resume look fat?
Why are people so worried about what the Dems and MSM will do?
Because with GWB the Republicans have barely won two elections in a row, and it is difficult for a party to win three in a row. Our candidate in 2008 will need to be especially good, attract new GOP voters, and to bust out of the 50-50 Red-Blue divide. Duncan Hunter appeals to Freepers, but I don't see him appealing to anyone that GWB did not. Since he has not made himself known outside of his district, he will be introduced to the people by the MSM. They have the Stupid Republican template ready to go for him, and the rinky-dink law school will be part of the story line, you heard it here first.
It would be hard to forget since that's all you've talked about since Hunter announced. If that's all you got, give up, you are the only one who cares.
You're right. Having better things to do, I will further refrain from pointing out to FR Hunter fans what a lame general election candidate he is, until he cracks 1% in a 2008 Republican preference poll.
What does criticism or discord have anything to do with what I posted on #131? Nothing in my post suggests that.
From my post:
However, if the posts on this thread made almost 10 hours ago is an indication of Hunter's ability to unite conservatives (in a primarily conservative forum,) just imagine how he will be viewed by the general voting public.
OK, so let me clarify this for you. It's now been not 10 but over 35 hours since you posted this thread and you got a bit over 200 posts. My idea of unity isn't a pat on the back between buddies, but the merger of the political support of LOTS of conservatives. In other words, I was expecting hundreds of posts, especially in a mainly conservative forum where the idea of a real conservative running for the presidency would be greeted with excitement and enthusiasm, generating lots of replies.
Also from my post:
Anyway, I will support him and I will continue to support Rudy, and let's see who fares better in the public arena, because in the end, the one who has more acceptance among the GOP is the one who will win the primaries.Exactly, the one who garners the biggest support in the GOP (as in the amount of votes) will win the primary. Discord doesn't produce a winning candidate, but acceptance does, as I mentioned in my earlier post. Hope this helps.
"You're right. Having better things to do, I will further refrain from pointing out to FR Hunter fans what a lame general election candidate he is, until he cracks 1% in a 2008 Republican preference poll."
Don't bother. The last thing conservatives need is another poll watcher who is led around by their nose by the MSM.
We don't have any better thing to do than get a conservative elected as President. I guess we're just not as important as you. BTW, what law school did you graduate from?
Hunter will be profiled on CSPAN's Road To The White House this Sunday evening @ 6:30 eastern time.
Are you ready to back up that statement you made about Hunter, yet, other than, "I know"???
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.