Skip to comments.(vanity) Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
Posted on 11/15/2007 3:43:17 AM PST by Kevmo
click here to read article
Everyone here has been saying his lockout was a done deal.
Now I can watch it.
“So when I go vote January 3rd in the Iowa caucus; should I support Hunter (who I like) who only has 4-5% support?
Thats the big question.”
Would you rather have politicians leading you by a leash, or would you rather lead the politicians with a leash? Who’s the boss anyways, you or them?
Good post mogambo.
I know McCain isn’t too popular here on FR, but his stand against pork barrel spending has to count for something. I like Duncan Hunter & I expect to vote for him sometime in the future - I see this campaign as a “practice run” for him. He’ll be a real contender down the road. Meanwhile, McCain has more experience & a greater sense of fiscal responsibility, while attempting to continue the “Reagan Legacy” in many ways. THAT’S who we need in office! (Besides, wouldn’t you just LOVE to see him go toe-to-toe w/ Hillary? She wouldn’t stand a chance!).
Even though Duncan is an honorable man, his campaign has failed from the begining. It is honorable not to 'need consultants, or have people do work for you, or write your own speeches', but the downside is you are too busy doing the small stuff to concentrate on the major stuff, like RUNNING for POTUS.
When you run a NATIONAL campaign, the objective is to get your message out to the people, not just in specific localities, but NATION-wide. And that takes people, and a management that understands what a NATIONAL campaign entails.
To that end, his campaign management has failed their man, and those of you who cannot see that are fighting a losing cause, as noble as that is, it is still a lost cause.
I know that pains you and the responses will be what they always are, childish and delusional. You will respond with all the failings of every other candidate just to make your self feel better and your guy look good, but only to you.
There will be those who say... "it's a conspiracy'...."the powers that be are not letting Duncan get his message out"......"the MSM is in cahoots with the Bush administration to muzzle Hunter" No matter that the MSM hates GWB, and there is no basis for them to even be in the same room.
The truth, as painful as it is, is still the truth.
When the NRTL endorsed FDT earlier this week, the Mitt fans, Duncan supporters, Huckabee promoters, and Rudy ravers had a complete breakdown on this forum. More inconsequential, minor-league obscure articles appeared to try and promote 'your' candidate.
Face it. The NRTL endorsement is one of the biggest chips to have on your side of the table in this high stakes game.
Next for Fred will be the NRA endorsement, with it's 6-7 MILLION members. And that will be a very big chip, indeed.
I think you misunderstand. I’m not a Huckabee fan by any stretch of the imagination. However, policies and record aside, Huck managed to do what any presidential candidate needs to do to gain traction: He displayed the charisma necessary to get people to vote for him.
Huck has the charisma, but not the record to back it up. Hunter has the record with ZERO charisma. Neither is going to win anything, but charisma goes a long way, which is evident by Huck’s rising from the back of the pack.
If Hunter had what it took, he could have done what Huckabee did. He’d be a viable contender now who would be on his way to winning the nomination, rather than winning the nomination in someone’s delusion. Huck won’t succeed, because he doesn’t have the record to back up the charisma. Both are necessary.
The age old question. Hunter hasn’t been able to generate support.
If I vote for him and am with 4% or 5% of the voters, what good does that do? Candidates with that level of support will be gone very soon and your vote will have been wasted.
The candidates must be able to generate support, good ideas are essential, but good ideas without support do not really mean a lot.
Hunters organization at the straw here was embarrassing, it was almost nonexistent. I say the organization, not the candidate.
His message is good, he sounds good in the debates.
Posting on internet message boards supporting a candidate is one thing, but actually putting an organization together and getting people to vote for you is another thing entirely.
“If I vote for him and am with 4% or 5% of the voters, what good does that do? Candidates with that level of support will be gone very soon and your vote will have been wasted.”
My vote will be wasted if I vote for someone who will wreck the middle class with free trade, insourcing and outsourcing.
has made deals with the Dems -ex. Gang of 14 which undermined the simple majority requirements for judges,
wrote McCain Feingold (with Thompson’s assistance) to silence conservatives,
was integral to the amnesty attempt, while making comments about the need to do it quickly before “extracurricular” politics occured (read: before the people get home from work or the unemplyment line and notice)
and he’s been way too cozy with the liar’s bimbo-eruption manager.
No, I do not want him to represent us against her.
Now close your eyes and picture Duncan Hunter looking at her while she tells her lies.
Picture her squirming as he recalls, from his amazing numerical memory, specific dates and statements of various relevant actions that expose her as the liar she is.
Then, picture the stage as he offers clear, specific proposals to her nonsensical empty platitudes.
Duncan Hunter- the man we need to lead!
$1,000 burning a hole in my pocket? Not since I’ve had children :P
“Face it. The NRTL endorsement is one of the biggest chips to have on your side of the table in this high stakes game.
Next for Fred will be the NRA endorsement, with it’s 6-7 MILLION members. And that will be a very big chip, indeed.”
Sorry, lots of us prolifers have been questioning the NRTL’s tactics for many years-long before this election.
Three members of my household belong to the NRA. We’re not supporting Thompson because his record does not match his platitudes.
Official endorsements do not translate into automatic votes.
$1000??? Heck, not even $10 stays in my pocket with the kid around.
-Club For Growth is a treacherous Libertarian organization who wants to sell American jobs to the lowest bidder.
-National Taxpayers Union gave Hunter A’s before the Iraq war. Would you prefer Hunter join with the Democrats and stop funding the Iraq war? Thats what ruined Hunters record and dropped it from an A to a C, because he is part of the House Armed Services Committee, and so therefore, after 2001 he started receiving C’s.
Hey Kev, any trading going on with that new character, Cap Fendig?
LOL, I hear that!
I beg to differ. National orginzations throwing their substaintial weight and finances behind a candidate, do make a difference. It means volunteers to go door to door, it means monies for ads, mailings, and a host of other support only a vast organization can accomplish and support.
This is the basic difference between individual endorsements and organizational ones.
You and your family can dismiss that endorsement, but your view may not reflect the view of the entire membership. Granted, not every one will be pleased by any endorsement of a candidate that is not for 'their' guy, but the recognition by the majority, NATIONWIDE of that support pays off in the long run.
I get the ‘sad puppy-eyed’ look and I’m finished.
I get ganged up on with them working as some organized force. It scares me how they can plot together and negotiate. It is like living with a bunch of lawyers. I don’t know where they get it from.
In other words a solid pro life candidate, according to his voting record, thinks the first step to abolishing abortion is to make it a states issue therefore making it easier to abolish on the state level is unacceptable. I guess the reason he would be unacceptable is because as someone else quoted on FR "his goal is good but his heart isn't in the right place" or some such nonsense.
Are you a Huck supporter? The reason I ask is because Huck is just as pro life as Fred yet he is a big spender who believes in his heart that government should rule too many aspects of Americans lives, Fred wants gov't out of our lives.
just because someone is pro life doesn't make them a conservative.
“National orginzations throwing their substaintial weight and finances behind a candidate, do make a difference. It means volunteers to go door to door, it means monies for ads, mailings, and a host of other support only a vast organization can accomplish and support.”
I realize that this is the hope of official endorsements, but I will repeat to you that there are many other prolife organizations who represent prolifers as well, and many of us have watched prolife efforts undermined by the NRTL.
In essence, every organization is subject to an increased amount of scrutiny because of widespread mistrust. While it might be nice to get an official endorsement from these organizations, the organizations risk losing members by endorsing candidates who do not adequately reflect their articulated mission-especially when candidates with stronger records are ignored.
Look at Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy. Do you think everyone watching the 700 Club is gonna support Rudy because of it? More likely, they are scratching their heads, trying to figure out what kind of deal was made.
Tons of essays and editorials have already flown through the info. circuits questioning that.
I believe credibility will be key in this election. If people cannot support their current positions with their past records, words, and deeds, they will not be seen as credible.
Mine, would make a good lawyer, but she has other plans, thank God.
You answered your own question:
“National Taxpayers Union has not given him an “A” rating since early 1990s. He has gotten consistent “C” ratings since 2000. He is a tax raiser.”
Error: it was 2002 when Hunter went from A’s to C’s, right when War on Common sense started.
I’m kind of an isolationist myself, so you are preaching to the choir. Even Duncan Hunter isn’t Conservative enough for me. But I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially relative to other mooshy moderate candidates.
2006 Grade: B
2005 Grade: C+
2004 Grade: C+
2003 Grade: C
2002 Grade: C
2001 Grade: B+
2000 Grade: B
1999 Grade: B-
1998 Grade: B+
1997 Grade: B-
1996 Grade: B-
1995 Grade: B
1994 Grade: B
1993 Grade: A
1992 Grade: B
This is something Code Pink would punish Hunter for, spending more money in wartime. I think it is distasteful.
No, for me, having a prolife record, not just a new prolife position, is a critical, necessary, elimination factor.
Anybody who thinks killing babies is “private” is as unqualified to be president as someone who thinks the killing of the elderly, the disabled, the blue-eyed, or brown-skinned, or any other already born human beings, is “private.”
We have foundational unalienable natural rights- chief among them is the right to life.
No, saying that a foundational right can be deffered back to the states is not only a cowardly copout, but it is an unconstitutional authorization of the death warrants for millions of innocent human beings.
Once I am convinced the person is truly prolife, and I have eliminated the wild cards from the deck, I look at the records and positions of the remaining candidates.
“No, for me, having a prolife record, not just a new prolife position, is a critical, necessary, elimination factor.”
That probably should say “qualification” factor. It qualifies prolife candidates, and eiminates the others.
Wow thats a brilliant position. Instead of having perhaps 25 states outlaw abortion outright, saving the lives of millions, you are content on keeping RvW in tact. How do you think abortion will be outlawed and how do you think a President can even do that?I am beginning to think the pro life movement doesn’t really want to end abortion. Perhaps its become too big of a money making industry for them too.
I hope mine have other plans as well.
Only here for a sec but have you seen any of Fred's anti-gun senate bills?
Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation gun ban
On September 12, 1996, the Senate passed the Lautenberg gun ban as an amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation Gun Ban disarms gun owners for small (misdemeanor) offenses in the home offenses as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse. This lifetime ban, in certain cases, can even be imposed without a trial by jury. It is also retroactive, so it does not matter if the offense occurred 20 years ago. Thompson voted in favor of the amendment.
“Ok, lets look at Hunter WITHOUT the assessment of the Club for Growth or the National Taxpayers union. This is from my previous post:”
You just copyed and pasted from Club for Growth again.
Cliches oughtn't shield any federal branch from scrutiny into its spending. Sorry.
Please tell me the solution then.
Nice understatement. It's been at 0.1 (dollars per share, not percent) since early July, not just "the last few weeks".
The volume looks to be total shares traded ever, not on a daily basis. Looking at the advanced graphing link, one can easily see that there has been no appreciable activity on the contract AT ALL since mid-October, and the trade price still remained constant at 0.1 even then.
I do note, however, that there now appear to be more (by about 7 to 8 percent) shares available today at 0.1 (the minimum trading price) than there were a couple of days ago, which means interest in Hunter is actually fading on the market, and that people are trying to dump shares if anyone will buy them.
There are none. GOA's "analysis" is a crock and a deception.
I too am “trying to make a difference” a POSITIVE difference. And as far as I am concerned, Duncan Hunter, while a good man, and acceptable to me as a nominee, is far from the most conservative candidate in the field, and he is a terrible campaigner. He is going absolutely nowhere.
The same thing is true of another man I respect and admire, Tom Tancredo.
The sooner these men drop out and endorse someone with a chance of winning, the greater their influence will actually be in the party and in the race.
Now, I’d like to ask you, but I don’t think you would like to answer, and I respect that, but I’m curious. If Tancredo and Hunter should both drop out, who from among the remaining field whould you think they would or should endorse?
Your source just got deleted or it is the wrong page.
“You can even pull out the “no” vote on CAFTA, as I am against both NAFTA and CAFTA albeit for different reasons than those normally cited.”
Then Club for Growth will give your favorite boy a bad score too.
Is this all you can come up with?
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)
What is No Child Left Behind?
What is Sarbanes-Oxley?
What is 2003 Medicare Drug Benefit?
What is 2005 Highway Bill?
What is 527 bill?
Everyone knows what McCain Feingold is.
You cut and paste it, its up to you to get into the details. Fun details too, finance bills are so exciting to go through with a fine tooth comb.
“Your source just got deleted or it is the wrong page.”
National Taxpayers Union? Its working for me.
“Cliches oughtn’t shield any federal branch from scrutiny into its spending. Sorry.”
Fine, you want House Armed Services Committee to cut military spending? Take it up with them, and Code Pink.
wasn’t me :)
Despite our best wishes, we have to deal with being a minority voice in a Federal Republic.
To change the game we have to be the winners. Otherwise we are just those crazy folks bitching a lot...
Thanks for bumping the thread. I’ll be answering pings in the order they came in.