Posted on 03/09/2007 6:44:43 PM PST by LdSentinal
Periodically, I get e-mails from supporters of the presidential candidacy of Alpine Rep. Duncan Hunter who express disbelief, befuddlement or fury, or a mix of all three, at my flat contention that he is a populist demagogue and anything but a principled conservative. These folks cannot fathom any talk that he's not free-trade, small-government Ronald Reagan reincarnated.
Here's a typical example of Hunterista reaction to my comment that he's been against trade deals that have been important boons to our economy:
You're supposed to be a columnist, an informed person. This is not an informed statement.
OK. If you don't believe me about Duncan Hunter's RRRINOitis, here's what the influential, admired-and-respected-in-conservative-circles Club for Growth has to say about him:
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".
Those Cs are incredibly generous. As CATO noted last year, with Duncan Hunter cheering him on ...
... President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn't cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush's first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton's last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush's first term.
The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.
The GOP was once effective at controlling nondefense spending. The final nondefense budgets under Clinton were a combined $57 billion smaller than what he proposed from 1996 to 2001. Under Bush, Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs.
And as bad as things are on the budget front, they're about to get a whole lot worse because of a pending nightmare that Duncan Hunter -- supposed tough guy, supposed truth-teller, supposed fiscal conservative -- has chosen to ignore. To borrow from what I wrote last year ...
... the single worst problem facing this country in coming years, with the possible exception of nuclear terrorism, is dealing with the massive fiscal impact of baby boomers retiring. As we slowly transition from a nation where there are 4 working adults for every adult getting Social Security and Medicare to a nation where that ratio is 2 to 1, we will face an incredible fiscal squeeze.
As a veteran member of Congress, Duncan Hunter knows this. He's heard the warnings, seen the bipartisan studies. So what did this self-declared fiscal conservative do in 2003? He voted to make the problem much, much, much worse by extending prescription drug benefits to seniors, three-quarters of whom already have coverage. The money that was saved by all the triumphant stands he claims to have taken is infinitesimal compared to the staggering long-term national debt he helped add with this one vote, which was tantamount to civic arson.
Yeah, right, our Duncan's a fiscal conservative. ... He loves spending your grandkids' money, and by the truckload.
Duncan Hunter is no Ronald Reagan. To those who say Ronald Reagan really wasn't Ronald Reagan -- that government didn't get smaller when he was president -- well, he tried harder than any president in modern times to get Congress to control spending and wipe out whole government agencies. By contrast, Hunter and the GOP Congress of 2001-2006 kept the national credit cards hanging on a string around their necks for easy and constant use.
The top four listed in that post are strictly "No way Jose".
Well maybe Romey would get a second look, but no way this guys is going to vote for an abortionist - or gun grabber - or anyone who won't protect this nation by closing the borders.
Fool me once....
"You know, I'm seeing an awful lot of people jumping on Hunter on this thread that have said he doesn't have a chance of winning. What's up with that?
Me thinks they doth protest too much."
They sure do protest too much, and isn't it kind of a poetic justice that this thread is turning into a pro-Duncan Hunter thread?
They make wise cracks, and we give facts.
LOL!
Respect the Queen of all Typos!!
In the meantime he supported things like partial birth abortion, which less than 10% of the electorate supports. That's not a moderate position, it's a far-left position that even most democrats don't hold.
Rudy splits the socon base.
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=172
No candidate has ever won a republican presidency with a split base. Rudy is doomed.
No worries, I'm not bothered by it, I have faith that we'll win out in the end. I just don't feel like argueing about the same things over and over again. Maybe another day, but I just finished a tough work week and just need to relax. Thanks for the support!
bump!
Free trade should be for FREE COUNTRIES - not Communist countries.
And, he is my guy!
That is why!
Then maybe this good man should be president.
Well it's been a great discussion. As Hunter starts to gain more ground - he'll have to sustain more & more attacks against his record - so we just have to get used to it & use our "asbestos keyboards".
I've got to turn in now - it's been fun. Goodnight everybody!
You are welcome.
'nite and sweet dreams.
It's called the Republican primary - not the Conservative primary.
- YES on the 2003 Medicare Drug Benefit
There are a lot of anti-Hunter freepers who still defend these monstrosities to this day. I've only started reading this thread, but I expect the cognitive dissonance to be out in full force.
It's called the Republican primary - not the RINO Party.
Exactly! Nam and China, even Russia now, Cuba, and a lot of other socialist countries do not believe in free trade.
They just want everything we have given to them, while they want us to buy their trinkets.
There is no such thing as free trade anyhow.
You think Fred Thompson would accept second billing? I don't think so. If he gets in, it will be for the marquee position.
The reason that Hunter and many others went against the Flake anti-pork bill is that the bill itself was flakey. For all his good intentions, the Flake bill was not a well written bill and it did very little to address the earmarking that he was trying to stop. Just because a bill sounds good doesn't mean that it is a well written meaningful bill.
No on NAFTA and CAFTA.....damn thats terrific....most people don't realize that these are designed to emasculate the middle class of America.
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.