Tuesday, July 31, 2007

The Case for Duncan Hunter

As you know, I am a big supporter of Fred Thompson for President. I like most of his policy stances, and I think he is a great man for the job. He stands for strong border security and immigration reform, honesty in government (see his roles in Watergate and the Clinton Campaign Finance Scandal, among others), he communicates his positions well, and supports supply-side economics and the fair tax. He also supports smaller government, and even has a good record of supporting sensible environmental legislation.

However, that doesn't mean there aren't other candidates who wouldn't make a fine president, as well. For instance, I like Rudy Guiliani, his stances on the economy, foreign policy, and national defense are all strong and sensible. The issues that some conservatives disagree with him on (abortion and gay marriage) are really small wedge issues that are of lesser importance to the greater good of America.

However, I also like Duncan Hunter. Now, Kilo has been a huge Duncan Hunter supporter, and has produced many a blog post that express reasons why conservatives should support Hunter (see here and here for a couple of these posts). Although, Kilo has really taken to "Fred-bashing" in order to provide reasons to look at other candidates, I can't sit here and deny that Hunter has many conservative credentials.

The man has served in the military, received high marks from the American Conservative Union and the NRA, and has chaired the House Armed Services Committee. His support from the National Right-to-Life organization, anti-gay marriage position, and intentions to appoint more "originalist" justices to the Supreme Court may appeal to other conservatives...but honestly, doesn't mean that much to me. However, his economic, defense, and foreign policy stances are very agreeable and he does have a plan to leave Iraq (if we haven't done so by November of 2008).

Free Market and National Defense conservatives like myself would be wise to keep a man like Duncan Hunter in mind...at least for a Vice Presidential candidate.

4 comments:

kilo said...

Phil,
Thank you for the link and throwing some respect to Duncan Hunter. I would not call what I post as “Fred Bashing”. Questioning a mans past record, statements, and now with the hiring of Spence throws up red flags to many conservatives. Bashing? If you think I am bashing you wait till the Hillary millions $tart.
I do not see Fred as conservative. I will call out any candidate whose claim to fame was strongly pushing McCain Feingold into law, who lobbied for questionable causes for 18 years. I will not settle for Fred and his McCain like leadership. Don't be fooled they are two peas in a pod.
I honestly believe that we conservatives have been betrayed. We have been taken for granted by the GOP for too long. Spencer Johnson writes in my latest post “History has proven that moderates do not win for the Republican party. In fact, if the GOP could rally every conservative vote, they would win by a landslide unprecedented in American history. If the people decide that they want a president who will actually enforce their borders, stand up for their jobs, protect their economy, end government over spending, and strengthen our national security, I strongly suggest that we rally behind Congressman Duncan Hunter. We can do it.”
I believe that. The conservative revolt will happen, maybe not in 08, but it will happen.
My question to you and Fredheads everywhere – When you compare the records of Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson, why is it you like Fred?
You may settle for a moderate, I will support the man with the best record and a vision of a great America.

Phil Chroniger said...

The "bashing" that I'm referring to are the whole "Duncan Hunter: He's not some Hollywood flake" type of lines.

As I said, I really do like Duncan Hunter. I also agree that the GOP has taken it's base for granted for too long.

I'm not "settling" for a moderate. I simply look at my views/priorities as to what's important for America. Hunter, Thompson, and Guiliani all appeal to me in that sense, but for different reasons.

While I personally have my dislike for an issue like abortion, it's not a "hot button" issue with me. I also couldn't care less if gays and lesbians were allowed to get married. That's just my view on it.

Hunter has a great record on many issues I support. However, a 100% rating from the National Right-to-Life isn't as important to me as it is to you.

McCain-Feingold was a good idea in theory, just badly introduced. Plus, as FDT said, things have changed in how campaigns raise money that McCain-Feingold is pretty well null and void at this point.

I think focusing on abortion and gay marriage has sidetracked the GOP from putting more emphasis on the continued bolstering of the economy, as well as taking care of this Iraq situation the right way. I'm working on a "Weekly Podium" column that speaks about this, actually.

However, I do agree with you on one thing...the possible (it hasn't been confirmed as far as I've seen) hiring of Spencer Abraham does concern me on the immigration front...especially given FDT's stances against illegal immigration. However, whether or not Abraham will be hired, or have any influence on that issue, remains to be seen.

conservativegrunt said...

Phil, Given the fact that you're concerned regarding a connection between Spencer Abraham and Fred Thompson on immigration - consider these facts:

Fred Thompson and Spencer Abraham served in the Senate together from 1995 to 2001. Spencer Abraham is an open borders icon and received an award from LaRaza.

Americans for Better Immigration (ABI) Report Cards for Abraham and Thompson reflect a grade of "C" on immigration during their career in the senate. It is interesting to note that Spencer Abraham and Fred Thompson's grades are identical on every ABI subject:

Subject & Grade

Reduce Chain Migration = C
Reduce Visa Lottery = C-
Reduce Unnecessary Visas = F
Reduce Fraud: Refugee & Asylum = C-
Reduce Enticement - Illegal Immigration: Amnesties= D
Reduce Illegal Immigration - Anchor Baby Citizenship = No Vote
Reduce Illegal Immigration – Other Awards = A+
Reduce Illegal Immigration – Border Enforcement = A+
Reduce Illegal Immigration – Interior Enforcement =C+

View Fred Thompson's Report Card here:
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=TN&VIPID=743&retired=1

View Spencer Abraham's Report Card here:
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=MI&VIPID=401&retired=1

Additionally, a review of their immigration profiles via NumbersUSA indicate that Thompson and Abraham cast the same votes on immigration in the senate. Thompson supported every one of Abraham's open borders amendments on immigration to include the following:

Voted to strip legal reforms from 1996 bill

Senator Thompson helped defeat legal immigration reform when he voted for Senator Spencer Abraham's amendment to remove the legal immigration reforms from S.1664, the Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996. This vote effectively killed any chance of Congress considering the Jordan Commission recommendations on easing legal immigration levels.

Voted for a foreign worker bill with no anti-fraud measures in 2000

Senator Thompson voted for S.2045, the Abraham foreign worker bill to nearly triple the number of foreign high-tech workers. On the heels of the release of a GAO report finding no proof of a high-tech worker shortage and evidence of abuse in the H-1B program, Senator Thompson voted for this foreign worker bill that contained no worker protections or anti-fraud measures. The bill passed the Senate 96-1.

As Committee member, produced H-1B doubling bill in 1998

Senator Thompson was a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that created the Abraham H-1B doubling bill in 1998, S.1723. He voted with the 12-6 majority to send the bill to the floor of the Senate without safeguards for American workers.

Tried to kill voluntary pilot programs for workplace verification in 1996

Senator Thompson voted IN FAVOR of the Abraham Amendment to S.1664. He was part of a coalition of pro-business conservatives and liberal civil libertarians who tried to use the amendment to kill the establishment of voluntary pilot programs in high-immigration states. The programs were intended to assist employers in verifying whether people they had just hired had the legal right to work in this country. Such verification is considered by many experts to be an essential tool for withdrawing the job magnet from illegal aliens. The verification system established by S.1664 did not involve an ID card. Rather it provided that when new workers wrote down their Social Security number on an application, employers could phone into a national verification system to help assure that the number was a real number and belonged to the person giving it. In earlier smaller pilot programs, businesses had hailed the verification system for making it easier for them to avoid hiring illegal aliens. Sen. Thompson was unsuccessful in stopping the voluntary verification system. The Senate tabled the by a 54-46 vote.

View Fred Thompson’s Immigration Voting Profile: http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=TN&VIPID=743

View Spencer Abraham’s Immigration Voting Profile: http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=MI&VIPID=401

conservativegrunt said...

Kilo, Like you, I also do not see Fred as a conservative. By 1994, Californians had grown weary of the federal government's failure to enforce the laws in the IRCA of 1986. I was among those who worked to bring Proposition 187, the Save Our State initiative, to the ballot in 1994. Prop 187 passed with 59% of the vote. It was immediately challenged by the ACLU and other organizations. A federal judge placed a restraining order on the law and it sat in federal court. In 1996 the senate met on an immigration bill. Californians had Senators Feinstein and Boxer in our corner on this issue in the senate. Fred Thompson and Spencer Abraham were not with us. Check the immigration profiles for these 4 senators for the 104th congress in 1996. Thompson was against us.

In 2001, as member of the National Rifle Association and the National Right to Life Committee, I fought alongside these groups against the McCain-Feingold-Thompson Campaign Finance Reform Act. So, as for me, Fred Thompson stood against us on the issue of immigration in 1996 and again on McCain-Feingold-Thompson in 2001. Twice is enough. I have no desire to see him or his ilk in the oval office. I support Duncan Hunter.