California rep touts conservative appeal(Duncan Hunter)

Union Leader ^ | 1/9/07 | John Distaso

[bushfamfan]

Wrapping up a weekend visit to the first-in-the-nation primary state, likely Presidential hopeful U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter of California yesterday called himself the most conservative Republican in the Presidential sweepstakes.

That, he said, "gives me a chance," despite his low name recognition.

Hunter, 58, is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee and was first elected to the House from his San Diego-area district in 1980.

He said his formal Presidential announcement will be made later this month.

[bushfamfan]

Good to see Duncan Hunter making his way to New Hampshire. The more he's seen the better it is for people to know we have an awesome candidate for the GOP.

[JRochelle]

From Boston.com On Friday, an e-mail from Mitt Romney’s sons suggested that whoever the Republican presidential nominee is will have to raise $100 million. Hunter said he wouldn’t need to raise that kind of money because “most of that money goes to pay for consultants that help them look like they are conservative and I am conservative already." Go Hunter!

[bushfamfan]

Yes, he's his own man. He's going to do great when he is seen and heard.

[Vigilanteman]

I like Duncan Hunter. He communicates well and is the only of the declared candidates (besides McCain) thus far with genuine military experience. He needs to concentrate on exposing the phony pro-slave labour conservatite Brownbeck for what he is. He doesn't need to win here, he just wins the conservative vote. If Romney, McCain and Guilani compete for the mushy middle, Hunter could come out on top with the conservatives and actually do well enough here to get traction elsewhere.

Trouble is, I don't know his religion. He might be a closet Quaker or some other fringe not acceptable to the loony fringe. < / sarcasm >

[Brilliant]

This is the one issue that is keeping me from supporting Hunter:

"We have a $200 billion trade deficit with communist China, which is essentially a one-way street, based on China's cheating on trade," he said. "That's occurring to the detriment of American businesses and workers, and it's also providing China with the hard cash they are using to build a military which at some point will threaten America's security."


I don't think that there is anything wrong with our trade policy. The exchange rate will adjust. The international trade battle is one that we will win, assuming that the government doesn't screw things up. China's efforts to manipulate the market so as to increase exports to the US is bad for them, not so bad for us. The Japanese had the same policy in the 60s and 70s, and the predictions of doom did not pan out then either. The primary reason for our international trade deficit is oil, and that's not going to change.

As far as China's military is concerned, refusing to do business with China is not a good strategy. Giving China a reason to reform itself is a good strategy, assuming that we do not give them sensitive technology, as the Clinton admin did.

[johnny7]

“He said his formal Presidential announcement will be made later this month.”

Good... I'm looking forward to it in order to compare it to the DBM, 'welcome-aboard' party that the Breck Girl got last week. Whatever coverage Hunter and Romney will get... you can bet it will be negative or at least condescending.

[bushfamfan]

To each their own but I don't think he's too far off in saying that something has to be done in regards to our competitors playing fair.

[Brilliant]

I don't have any problem with him trying to negotiate more open markets in China. But if his proposal is to close ours, then I can't support it. And that's what it seems to me.

[JRochelle]

I was listening to WLSAM this morning and they were talking about China is now starting to make cars. For about 1.00 per hr. compared to our 28.00 per hr. Japan is beating us in quality, which is our fault. The US car makers can do better. But we can't compete with slave labor.

We can't compete with China when they cheat, and they are cheating.

So when Duncan says he is going to make it an even playing field, I support him.

[Dead Corpse]

"Most men move to the Center. Great men move the Center."

Reagan moved the Center. Todays GOP seems more concerned with moving to the Center.

Hunter comes across like one of those who could possibly move the Center back to the Right a bit. This constant move Leftward has got to stop...

[mdefranc]

"Trouble is, I don't know his religion." - Vigilanteman

His religion is government spending.

[JRochelle]

Ping.

[JRochelle]

He is for big spending on defense.

I can live with that.

[bushfamfan]

What good is the GOP if it tries to emulate Demonrats? And many people have complained about how the GOP doesn't respond and lets perceptions form in the public, but a major reason I'm rooting so hard for Hunter to pull up in the race and for people to take a look is that I think we'd finally have someone that would effectively get the message out there. And I'd love to see him destroy Hillary in the debates as he would.

[ElPatriota]

He is the only one so far that qualifies to get my vote... And he's got it. (bar any surprises)

GO DUNCAN HUNTER!! :)

[proudpapa]

Hunter by far is the best candidate out there.

It would be nice to see him elected without the help of the MSM.

[shempy]

Trouble is, I don't know his religion.

Perhaps I should look into supporting Mr. Hunter then. I just assumed that if he was being labeled the great conservative hope that he must be some sort of god-pimp. I want a candidate that can justify his ideology and world view using logic and reason. I don't need a candidate that shares my religious viewpoint. I can support a candidate of any religion provided that candidate is an advocate for capitalism and all that entails.

[bushfamfan]

Nice pic of a man who would be a strong President!

[Brilliant]

I don't think they are cheating. They just have lower costs.

The reason I don't favor closing our own markets is that the exchange rate makes that adjustment anyway. Using tariffs and quotas to manipulate the markets simply introduces inefficiency. It doesn't create more jobs.

Our economy is not in trouble. China is selling stuff here, but we're selling stuff overseas as well. We've got enough jobs. And that shows that imports really don't have squat to do with how many jobs we have. What they impact is just the kind of jobs you have.

If you protect your inefficient industry from low cost overseas competition, then that's the kind of industry you'll have--inefficient industry--and the same kind of jobs that the low cost overseas competition has. And I think we can agree that we don't want jobs that pay $1 an hour.

We did not get to be the strongest economy in the world thru protectionism. If someone can make a widget for less overseas, then let them do it, and use our resources to make something that we can't buy from overseas for less.

[ElPatriota]

From Boston.com On Friday, an e-mail from Mitt Romney’s sons suggested that whoever the Republican presidential nominee is will have to raise $100 million. Hunter said he wouldn’t need to raise that kind of money because “most of that money goes to pay for consultants that help them look like they are conservative and I am conservative already."

WOW!... If he came up with that line... WATCH OUT! (That is what I call a **MAJOR DIG**)

:)