Another Odd Endorsement (Why Did Hunter Endorse Anyone?!)

Captain's Quarters ^ | Jan. 23, 2008 | Ed Morrissey

[paudio]

Thompson was not against NAFTA, he was an ardent free trader, as most people with a healthy appreciation for capitalism and economic liberty should be.

I think many Republicans have turned to Buchananites. They want free-trade as long as "it doesn't hurt American workers". I don't see it as too much different from liberals' "Fair Trade".

[Lexinom]

You be the judge. Is this mindless free trade without regard to national security or American interests, or is this intelligent, balanced, free and fair trade?:

"I'm committed to and will continue to fight for fair trade. American exporters and American workers deserve a fair shake abroad, and we intend to see they get it. Our objective will always be to make world trading partnerships freer and fairer for all. So, while we will use our powers as a lever to open closed doors abroad, we will continue to resist protectionist measures that would only raise prices, lock out trade, and destroy the jobs and prosperity trade brings to all. There are no winners in a trade war, only losers"
Ronald Reagan on a radio address, 7 September 1985 (source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=39072 ).

[Primetimedonna]

I was under the impression that Romney’s connection to that company ended years ago. My opinion of Hunter has definitely tanked!!

[LowOiL]

Thank you Lexinom... it is free and fair trade...

[LowOiL]

Hunter had to endorse someone, IMHO.. he endorsed the lesser of the evils... but as all Freepers have basically stated... there wasn’t much to choose from.

[Gondring]

Read real slow, if you have a problem with what hunter said take it up with hunter. I told the guy what he said that was all. Now take your willard and stick it.

org.whodat, I'll try to remember that any post on FR that replies to one of yours will be taken personally, rather than a reply to the comment itself.

...and also try to remember to post warnings...

[Cold Heat]

Rush cannot be the defacto leader of the republican party. He does not want to be, nor should he be.

If the head of the republicans was a talk show host, we would be laughed at and it would be justified. Not only that, but he would no longer be able to be a show host.

Now if Rush was to quit radio and run for political office. It would make more sense. The head of the Republican Party is traditionally the President, or the highest ranking politico we have who also wants that title and can garner a following.

Rush is a private citizen, and a great asset as such.

[cripplecreek]

The Dunk and the Huck are kindred souls in that they both give the impression of being closer to the anti-capitalist views of Lou Dobbs and John Edwards than to the free-market views of Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman.

WRONG

The words of Michael Reagan on his father and Duncan Hunter.

As Ann Coulter wrote in her new book, the best-qualified of all the candidates is Rep. Duncan Hunter. During the debate he was the candidate who provided the best information about the economy and had a first-rate suggestion of what we need to do.

He keyed in on what must be one of the most important economic issues – trade.

He talked about our shocking $800 billion trade deficit, and what the Chinese are doing to us. Duncan understands that when anybody cites Ronald Reagan as a free-trade advocate in defense of our present trade policies, they need to remember that in my dad's playbook, protection of the American people came before anything else.

Take the case of Harley-Davidson. My father protected this American manufacturer of motorcycles against lower-priced Japanese imports. When he acted in behalf of an American company, Kawasaki and Honda reacted by moving their plants to the U.S. and created American jobs for American workers.

His policy was so successful that although he gave five years of protective tariffs to Harley-Davison, they didn’t even need that long a time before they could turn their company around. Given a level playing field they proved their superiority as an American manufacturer.

Ronald Reagan did the same thing with semiconductors, and the auto and steel industries. He also forced the Japanese and others to open up their markets to American products so that trade would be fair. When that didn’t happen he would impose tariffs on those products coming into the U.S., thus protecting American manufacturers.

Sure, he was a free trader who wanted too open up trade, but he always sought first to protect the sovereignty of the United States and its manufacturing base. He did not confuse free trade with giving the store away.

The effects of our current trade policies and the horrendous trade deficit they have produced are a gun pointed at the heart of our economy, and the Republican who can stand up and tell the truth about this problem and its solutions will be the one who emerges from the pack. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelReagan/2007/10/10/where%e2%80%99s_the_fire

[jmaroneps37]

Hunter will swing his sixteen supports over to the huckster and it will mean nothing.

[Dog Gone]

Rush cannot be the defacto leader of the republican party. He does not want to be, nor should he be.

Correct, but the views he expresses are enormously influential. We all know that President Bush will endorse the eventual nominee, so his endorsement means very little.

But millions of Republicans listen to Rush and certainly take his views seriously.

If Rush says that he cannot endorse our nominee, then millions will take his cue.

[demshateGod]

“That would be smart in my estimate. - and perhaps just the right thing to do.”

I bet Thompson endorses McCain by Sunday afternoon. Rush already hates McCain and Huckabee and has been soft on Mitt. He’s basically already endorsed him.