Yeah, let's see... he's Ronald Reagan without the deeply held principles, without the track record, and without the leadership ability or communications skills.
I wouldn't be that negative of Duncan Hunter. In the general election, if he were the nominee, I'd gladly vote for him.
Anyway, I'd describe him more as Bob Dole with a fence.
Deeply held principles? Track record?
Socially, his track record is excellent. In regards to the 2nd Amendment, Abortion, Illegal Immigration, and the Border, he's downright great.
He's pro-war. He served in Vietnam, and his son has served in Iraq.
Fiscally, he's pro-tax cuts. His positions on trade are ones I don't necessarily see problems with, considering that he's choosy about who to trade freely with (Japan and Austrailia? Free trade it is! China? Not so much.). Fiscally? He's a spender. I will not be ashamed to admit that.
So that's one negative (A couple if you split 'spending' up into more specific issues) compared to how many shared by the other candidates?
At worst? I give his conservatism a B. At best? A-.
Better than the others at any rate.
So yes, he does have the principles and the track record.
Leadership ability...now, what about his demeanor or rhetoric indicates cowardice?
Communications skills...I've listened to him. I've liked what I've heard. Better than Bush, most definitely.
Never had the privilege of listening to Reagan speak, as I was born in 88', sadly. So I can't compare.
As succint an assessment as I've seen.
It is not necessary for Duncan Hunter to be compared to Ronald Reagan. Duncan Hunter is his own man. He is well equipped - (26 successful years in Congress; a good family man; highly principled; articulate (dare I use that word?); an advocate of peace through strength; a war hero - among many other reasons) - to be Pilot of this Ship of State. Ronald Reagan was a big spender, but he was also other important and necessary things. So is Duncan Hunter.