Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Duncan Hunter on the Issues
www.issues2002.org ^ | 12/14/06 | Antoninus

Posted on 12/14/2006 9:14:26 AM PST by Antoninus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-275 next last
To: napscoordinator

Actually, we lost on Bush I because he caved on taxes, and then Bill Clinton ran on a middle class tax cut.


201 posted on 12/15/2006 10:13:56 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We need to crush the Iraq Study Group like we crushed Harriet Miers. Let fly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

Knocked of=knocked off


202 posted on 12/15/2006 10:22:15 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We need to crush the Iraq Study Group like we crushed Harriet Miers. Let fly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Unhappily, I do NOT see a candidate that can unite economic and social conservatives and the general run of Republicans.
What is required is an individual who can display solid executive experience and a successful record in whatever post or posts that he has held, as well as a personality that does not chase off the swing voters needed to actually win an election, and that seems to be in very short supply. The candidate should not have a voice that drones (a la John Kerry) or whines (a la Hillary Clinton) nor pisses one off (a la Al Gore). Petty details?? Maybe. Maybe not. The winning Candidate MUST have a solid record of support for conservative issues, and certainly more than cursory knowledge of history, geography and world affairs, military service if possible or a good reason for not having served; a cleaner than a hounds tooth record of non-corrupt personal income and a young boy/girl/goat free personal romantic history, including not using his wife/girlfriend as a heavy bag, or his dog/cat for a soccer ball.

The winning candidate should request that the party from which he seeks the nomination have a high quality private investigator conduct an inquiry equal to that of the "opposition research" that the Democrats will initiate.
And any minor, non-disqualifying event that could be embarrassing put out before the public, before the Democrats do it, "getting out in front" of the problem.
A disqualifying incident must do just that.Disqualify the candidate so as not to cause greater embarrassment to the party and waste time and funds as well as the personal effort of campaign/party workers.
The candidate must have sufficient organization in the states one would expect him to win, as well as a source for funding that is clean and transparent and NOT tied to any organization that is corrupt or has dubious ties to foreign elements, foreign nations, organized crime of corrupt labor unions.

There is very little time, and anyone lacking the listed characteristics will not dent the number of votes needed to win a primary. Wishing and hoping will just not do it.

I am of course, open to rational debate.
203 posted on 12/15/2006 10:43:34 AM PST by Gideon Reader (" All of us know who the enemy is, and where the threat comes from, except for the politicians.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Rated 7% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

What a laugh. If you're against the ACLU, you're against civil rights.

204 posted on 12/15/2006 10:52:51 AM PST by Cymbaline (I repeat myself when under stress I repeat myself when under stress I repeat myself when under stres)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Conservatives have been reading way too much into the political demise of some moderates in the last election. Those moderates were vulnerable in states with burgeoning democrat constituencies.

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.

205 posted on 12/15/2006 10:56:53 AM PST by Cold Heat ("Ward!.........Go easy on the beaver"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton
The average voter couldn't care less about what law school he went to.

(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.

206 posted on 12/15/2006 10:58:16 AM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

DUNCAN who?????? BAWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!


207 posted on 12/15/2006 11:15:46 AM PST by JimFreedom (My patience is growing thin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
I didn't read anything into losses by moderates. I made a conclusion by looking at the victories won by Blue Dogs. They won because they acted like social conservative Republicans, not because their opponents were moderates or conservatives.

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.

208 posted on 12/15/2006 11:20:16 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We need to crush the Iraq Study Group like we crushed Harriet Miers. Let fly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil

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.


209 posted on 12/15/2006 12:58:21 PM PST by johnthebaptistmoore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Gideon Reader
"Grow up kid. I have had bullshit thrown at me by adults with a serious mein in serious places you would never dream of."

You cut me to the quick! It is easy for me to imagine you in a serious place with bullshit being thrown at you.
210 posted on 12/15/2006 2:09:38 PM PST by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
"The odds are better with a moderate who can garner swing votes from the other side to replace defecting Republicans,"

So you think the "way to go" is for the Republicans to pick a liberal with the hopes that some Democrats will vote for them to make up for the loss of conservative Republicans? Why waste the effort? Just have one party, the Dems, and be done with it.
211 posted on 12/15/2006 2:18:58 PM PST by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
The average voter couldn't care less about what law school he went to.

"(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.

212 posted on 12/15/2006 2:33:17 PM PST by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton
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.

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.

213 posted on 12/15/2006 3:38:52 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
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.

214 posted on 12/15/2006 3:47:41 PM PST by WatchingInAmazement ("Nothing is more expensive than cheap labor," prof. Vernon Briggs, labor economist Cornell Un.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: WatchingInAmazement
...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.

215 posted on 12/15/2006 4:06:41 PM PST by Plutarch (I wouldn't want to burst any balloons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Are you kidding? Criticisms of Hunter on this thread have been few and far between--just a couple of the usual suspects trashing him for not having the proper pedigree. If you want discord, check out any of the Rudy McRomney threads...

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.
216 posted on 12/15/2006 8:37:51 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch

"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?


217 posted on 12/15/2006 10:12:19 PM PST by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
>> >> Do you plan on holding his hand indefinitely?

>> Huh? No te comprende, señor.

Yeah, kinda vague I guess...

My first reaction to your post on Hunter was "Right on!". But, then I questioned the need to bubble these guys up to the top. Wouldn't a real leader find his own way or at least be ahead of his supporters?
218 posted on 12/16/2006 12:30:47 AM PST by Gene Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus; bushfamfan; WatchingInAmazement; Mr. Silverback
Heads-up...

Hunter will be profiled on CSPAN's Road To The White House this Sunday evening @ 6:30 eastern time.

RoadToTheWhiteHouse

219 posted on 12/16/2006 7:45:15 AM PST by Rex Anderson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Rex Anderson

Are you ready to back up that statement you made about Hunter, yet, other than, "I know"???


220 posted on 12/16/2006 7:50:28 AM PST by WatchingInAmazement ("Nothing is more expensive than cheap labor," prof. Vernon Briggs, labor economist Cornell Un.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-275 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson