The Conservative Case for Duncan Hunter

TownHall.com ^ | 2/2/07 | John Hawkins

[zbigreddogz]

Yah, whatever.

I don't even support Giuliani.

[wireman]

I said (clearly) that I did not consider Hunter "unelectable."

All I tried to illustrate was that historical precedent shows the odds against him are pretty steep.

Hunter's a good man (IMO), we will see how he does.

Whenever somebody says "this time it's different," history shows it usually isn't.

I'm sorry if you take it personally.

[sitetest]

Dear wireman,

"I said (clearly) that I did not consider Hunter 'unelectable.'"

Yes, and that's why I qualified what I said:

"But that's a far way from saying that US Representatives are unelectable, or even to say that they are NEARLY SO." [emphasis added]

Which, I think, is justified from what you say even in this last post:

"All I tried to illustrate was that historical precedent shows the odds against him are pretty steep."

My point, however, is that "historical precedents" may not mean as much as folks think they do when the number of data points is relatively small.

That's why I provided examples of attributes of other leading Republican candidates (and one leading Democrat candidate) that would seem to indicate that historical precedents militate against their election, as well.

"Whenever somebody says 'this time it's different,' history shows it usually isn't."

I disagree. I think it's different in critical ways pretty much every time.

The 2008 presidential election may be an excellent example of this. It is quite likely that someone who is either:

- a former big city mayor with no other experience holding elected office

or

- a sitting US Senator

or

- a one-term governor with no other experience holding elected office

or

- a sitting US Representative

will be elected president.

If any of these happen, it will be different this time.

"I'm sorry if you take it personally."

Gee, I don't think there's anything to suggest that I took it personally. I just disagree with you strongly, and made my case.


sitetest

[Jim W N]

"he's anti-free trade"

Is he? Or is he for fair trade?

Milton Friedman said, "If you put equality above freedom , you'll get neither. If you put freedom above equality, you'll get a great deal of both."

Fair trade militates against free trade the way mandated quotas stifle freedom and productivity.

[zbigreddogz]

I think the average American is tired of the same old hacks

Yah, so they'll certainly turn to someone who's spent most of his adult life in Congress, non-stop since 1980...

[Jim W N]

...I'd guess you learned about government in church.

That' a good place to learn about government. You should try it sometime. Better than a lot of socialist-indoctrination colleges these days.

[Jim W N]

During the primaries...the party-over-principles crowd thinks we're stupid. Are we?

No, especially in this upcoming election. If we nominate the right man in the primaries, especially a clear conservative, I believe we'll walk away with the election, whether it's against Hillary or whoever else the Out-Of-Touch Socialist DEMOniCRAT Party puts up there. I think a large majority of Americans will vote against liberalism when the opponent is a clear conservative.

[Jim W N]

Nominee Hunter = President Hillary.

Nominee Hillary=President Any-Half-Wit-Conservative Republican

Even the liberals wince at her. The general public will reject her.

[Jim W N]

Back to his buddy Al Franken...

[Jim W N]

The status quo of the Republican party needs to head for the nursing home. We all saw who is who at the Ford funeral. The good ol boys club. No doubt Duncan Hunter is older but he doewsn't have the stench of the good ol boys club.

Sounds like Duncan is just what we need to win in 2008.

[WhiteGuy]

has this guy voted "FOR" or "AGAINST" the spending bills that have been signed into law in the past 6 years or so?

Has he voted "FOR" or "AGAINST" legislation that was passed in knee-jerk fashion that targets Americans for scrutiny (like many parts of the "patriot act") rather than foreign invaders?

[GulfBreeze]

Yes you do.

[freemike]

I agree fully!! But, if we get a wimpy "new tone" gutless Republican ashamed of being called a conservative,,, terrified of being called "hateful" "homophobic" "racist" or any other name,, anxious to show the public he/she can "get along",,,, then it's over. It's hello Shrillary!

[gonewt]

Nominee Hunter = President Hillary

My thoughts exactly.

[zbigreddogz]

No, I actually don't. Although I could see myself changing my mind depending on the circumstances, right now, I support Romney.

[taxed2death]

.....so Reagan was wrong for putting tariffs on japbikes and thus saving Harley Davidson?

[kaotic133]

You'd be surprised how opposite from either of those college can be if you come south and enroll in economics and politics. And you probably wouldn't like my ideas if I payed attention in religious school either, it was Catholic. They kind of learned their lessons on theocracy the hard way.

[GulfBreeze]

Whatever, you can be an 'athletic supporter' for all I care. Anyone who without any better reason would go out of his way to antagonize the very slice that is going to be needed to push any top tier candidate over the top later is nothing but freaking idiot troll. (BTW - Romney is not a top tier, has never been a top tier, peaked at 14%fluff support and has been on the decline every since).

I pop off and get irritated and start blasting at times so I guess that makes me a freakin idiot too. The fact is we all need to get back to the "harm no Republican" 11th commandment of Ronald Reagan.

That goes for he Duncan Hunter supporters doubly IMHO. I think conservatives/Republicans who think Hillary would be better for us short term or long term than Giuliani are acting like spoiled idiots too.

Ronald Reagan said a rising tide lifts all ships (and I know he was quoting someone else). Conservatives/Christians need to open their eyes and realize that whatever hope of making an affect on the political landscape God has given us, he has given it to us in the good ol' GOP.

(Our hope is built on nothing less, than Jesus Christ and his Righteousness, - yea I know I know).

I also know God commanded Shadrack, Mishak and Abednego to serve under one of the most corrupt Kings in history. I also know that God made Danial an ADVISOR to this King as he grew in power and corruption.

Whatever... I am sure this looks like a bunch of religious rambling to you so why don't you just laugh it off and go see if you can't piss off another whole section of the base? At least once EVERYONE'S thoroughly pissed off we can realize our differences and commonalities.

[Jim W N]

.....so Reagan was wrong for putting tariffs on japbikes and thus saving Harley Davidson?

Yes I think so. Legitimate costs of doing business domestically and overseas are valid. But when tariffs are created to curtail competition in the free marketplace, the consumer alway loses. In the free market, you and I get to choose which products we think are worthy of consumption so we are served by free-market competition - the best quality product for the best price and all companies, domestic and foreign, are forced to do a better job to compete. The winner is the consumer.

[taxed2death]

"The winner is the consumer."

How can you state your position if the winner is the consumer...if Reagan did not temporarily put a tariff on jap bikes...and let HD go belly up.
How would that benefit the consumer? Do you know how many motorcycles HD has sold worldwide since Reagan LIFTED his short term tariff on motorcycles over 750cc?

What detrimental effect did that short term tariff have on the consumer? You would not be able to go out and buy a brand new HD today if Reagan let that company go "unprotected".