Replies

> I suspect that Hunter will clarify his reasons in coming days. He’s had time to sit down and talk to the Huckster.<

No need to wait, IMO. Ed Morrissey has it about right when he refers to their protectionist tendencies.

I'd put matters this way:

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. This heresy sets them apart from the Reaganite mainstream of the GOP. So they end their campaigns as soulmates.

(Too bad that so many folks have invested so emotionally in the Dunk. But they'll eventually get over Dunk's betrayal. Time heals most wounds!)

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 ).

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