Posted on 02/13/2007 5:55:44 PM PST by Ultra Sonic 007
Love the speech. I like what I see. It is good to have this horse in the race. If Newt had his character, he would be invincible.
He's been in Congress since he was 32. Calling him a career politician isn't an attack, it's a fact.
And I said absolutely nothing about his honesty or ethics, nor would I. I have no reason to believe he is unethical or dishonest.
But sorry, if you've been in Congress for 27 years straight, and if you basically had only 5 years of having a job before that, you're a career politician.
Not all career Politicians are bad. Johnny Isakson has been in one office or another since he was about 32, I like him. I like a few others too.
But I do think that it makes you unlikely to be the best person to run the country. Your views are too focused on Govt. You can be a fine Senator or Rep, but sorry, it's a big minus for President.
What do you think of a Huckabee/Hunter combo?
Uhh, you don't think a guy who's been in Congress for 27 years in an 'entrenched politician'?
I think they would have all of Bush's problems (i.e. spend like drunken sailors), and few of his strengths.
I also think they would lose. Badly.
You're pretty selective about what you're looking for on a social conservative website. You might want to stop fishing for saltwater fish in a fresh water pond.
Tell me how that goes because I'm in the 95% agree range. I've never seen it before. Must be something wrong with my math.
wouldn't have the political capital to make real progress in the WOT even if he did win.
***He was chairman of the armed services committee. If he doesn't have the political capital, no one else does. But thanks for setting such a high standard for a candidate, I'd like to see who measures up to such high standards, he or she might be better than Duncan Hunter. But I doubt it, it's just another fantasy.
wouldn't have the political capital to make real progress in the WOT even if he did win.
***He was chairman of the armed services committee. If he doesn't have the political capital, no one else does. But thanks for setting such a high standard for a candidate, I'd like to see who measures up to such high standards, he or she might be better than Duncan Hunter. But I doubt it, it's just another fantasy.
Oh, I see, he's only a 'Career politician' if you don't like him. If you do, he's a 'Citizen politician'.
Fun system, but it just shows how blind you are.
You quite clearly don't even know what political capital is. Because being the chairman of the armed services committee gets you 0 political capital.
Keep up the good work. Your ridiculous arguments are winning us converts by the droves. Gotta go to bed now.
Political capital is primarily based on public figure's favorable image among the populace and among other important personalities in or out of the government. A politician gains political capital by virtue of their position, and also by pursuing popular policies, achieving success with their initiatives, performing favors for other politicians, etc. Political capital must be spent to be useful, and will generally expire by the end of a politician's term in office. In addition, it can be wasted, typically by failed attempts to promote unpopular policies which are not central to a politician's agenda.
Just so you know what it is you are saying, which you clearly don't.
Anyhow, Hunter has none of this. And he won't get any.
BTTT
http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/1-94.html
Even a Libertarian website as ardently free trade as Lewrockwell.com argues that NAFTA has very little to do with "free trade" in the classic sense. Now mind you, I'm not endorsing their website or claiming they have the final word on NAFTA. All I'm saying is that their is a wide range of disagreement over how much NAFTA and CAFTA resemble free trade. To say Hunter is automatically anti-free trade because he opposed those bills is way too overgeneralized.
Senator Bob Smith (R.- N.H.) spoke about the red tape faced by small businesses in New Hampshire. "When I think of free trade," he told the Senate, "I do not think of the 1,200 pages of complex rules, regulations, and specifications on who can trade what, when, how, and how much"- as embodied in Nafta. All this and the "invasion of the sovereignty of the United States make this Nafta a bureaucratic nightmare. This Nafta – and especially its side agreements"-- "impede free trade."
This is free trade? Nine hundred pages of tariff schedules cover everything from "concrete pumps for liquids, not filled with a measuring device from 36 up to 60 m3/hr capacity" to "twill weave polyester staple fiber fabric U% synthetic staple fiber, with cotton, 170g/m2, printed."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/11-92.html
A Bush sycophant ragging on someoone's fiscal record. That's amusing.
I was able to catch this speech on C-SPAN. You can't help but be impressed by the man when you see and hear him. He comes across very well.
Great post that says it all. More Hunters are needed in the GOP.
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.