Posted on 04/11/2007 1:01:11 PM PDT by pissant
http://www.gohunter08.com/Home.aspx - MUCH INFO HERE.
I'm good with that. ;-)
Maybe after he's done axing that unauthorized expansion of Federal power, we can move him over to NASA, the FAA, the FAA, and the FDA.
Whoops... Second “FAA” was supposed to be “FCC”. Had a stuck finger I guess.
Bump’n Hunter... to the top!
He's good people and would make an excellent President from what I've seen so far.
You Hunter Freaks remind me of the Keyes supporters from 2000. Like da hood's going to elect a conservative oreo like him.
That's the problem with career politicans: They think they are entitled to the office because we really need them and they are irreplacable. What should be obvious to anyone who has ever spent time working with elected representatives on the State and Congresional level is that career politicans are not nearly as smart as they think they are, the job is not nearly as difficult as they think it is (which is something they would realize if they were smarter), and if they were to drop dead tomorrow, life would go on and there would be dozens of people from the same party willing to step forward and accept the nomination, who are as conservative, if not more conservative (or liberal) as the person they are replacing.
What is so very obvious is that the Republican controlled Congress that was voted out of power last November was as dysfunctional, spendthrift, and corrupt as its Democratic predecessors. Duncan Hunter was an important part of that Republican Congress, who abandoned their conservative roots, and decided to grow the government at an unprecedented rate and spend our hard-earned tax dollars like drunken sailors, and that makes him part of the problem, not the solution.
Thanks. See#46. Hunter is just like Keyes, too conservative to be electable.
And Alan Keyes was qualified to be CIC how? Who is better than Hunter for that role?
There is some merit to what you say. I’ve supported term limits. But Hunter being in Congress has been helpful, not hurtful. He has the highest conservative rating of any candidate running (including Thompson, who I think will run).
Gotta choose who is best amongst those that toss their hats in the ring. I’d much prefer a 26 year congressman with a good to excellent record and a bona fide military expert to a life long public servant that has shown nothing but contempt for conservative ideals.
I don't believe he was and I never supported him. He was just as unelectable as Hunter is now.
With the HUGE difference that Hunter may be THE most qulaified man to be CIC. So we shall see where that leads.
Four of the last 5 presidents were former governors.
I know. Never elected a black liberal freshman senator. Or a screeching hag senator, or a bald mayor of NY.
But we have elected Jimmuh Carter and Bill Clinton. That governor thing doesn’t always work out so well.
But that’s the problem — everyone says “It not my Congressman who is the problem, its the other guy,” and as result, they keep re-electing the same person over and over, who gets addicted to his job and power, and who then, uses his power to do everything he can to keep his job. One of the things that I like about Thompson is that he served a few years in the Senate and then left. Bill Frist is another example. In contrast, Duncan Hunter has spent almost as much time on the public dole as Bill Clintoon, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and other liberals who we love to hate, and in this regard, he is no better than they are. Perhaps if these politicans real jobs without all the perks and bennies that come with membership in Club Congress, they would be more respectful of the people they represent, rather than the lobbyists and special interest groups that put money in their pockets and help keep them in office.
The longevity is not the problem nearly as much as the policies. I’d give my left nad to have Jesse Helms still ruling the roost in the Senate.
Grover Cleveland was the mayor of Buffalo, NY.
No worries about getting back to me.
Politics are like a flying wedge. There is no way in hell that we’re all going to agree on everything, all the time.
I find Republican economic, tax, and trade policies to be quite bad, but it’s not relevant to my voting for Republicans because military and life issues are far more important in my scheme of values. This is the problem with Rudy, in particular: he’s so very bad on the morals issues that nothing he can do elsewhere can compensate.
The others are some kind of blah, but I could vote for McCain (he’s as good as Hunter on military issues, but weak on other issues), or Romney (I don’t really trust him on life issues, but he’s enough of an opportunist that he might be reasonably reliable, and better than Hillary anyway). Fred Thompson is good. He doesn’t have the strong military experience and background Hunter does, but if Thompson ends up being the compromise candidate, I’ll have no trouble voting for him. For now, I’m supporting Hunter.
I think Hunter could really take off if Thompson doesn’t enter the race.
I respectfully disagree — not about Jesse Helms — but about political longevity, in general.
Honest question for an honest answer: Given Mr. Hunter’s current position in the polls, his lack of signifcant movement, and the obvious concern about his campaign bank account, if Fred Thompson decides to run, will you support him based upon what you currently know about his positions and character?
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.