Duncan Hunter to make “major announcement” at 2 p.m.; Update: Hunter’s still in
posted at 12:54 pm on January 7, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The other “true conservative” in the race bids us a fond adieu within the hour. With Fred staggering into South Carolina, it may well be that first three Republicans out of the pool as primary season heats up are … Tancredo, Hunter, and Thompson. RINOmania!
Even sadder is the fact that Hunter’s carrying such a low percentage that his endorsement almost doesn’t matter — except maybe to Mitt, since that will give him a vote of confidence on immigration from another border-enforcing stalwart. Anyone betting another way?
Update: MM wonders why Hunter never caught fire. Too much anonymity in a field of Giulianis and McCains and not enough charisma in a field with Huckabee, I think. Switch his bankroll with Romney’s and each of them would probably be polling where the other is now.
Update: False alarm. All he wanted to do is criticize ABC and Fox for excluding him from the debates; he’s still in the race, for reasons I’m sure I just don’t know.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I also heard that Huck is running very low on cash
ConservativePartyNow on January 7, 2008 at 1:54 PM
The media had no use for him.
Griz on January 7, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Ha! Remember, there’s a power other than human which causes poll-numbers to change…
Tzetzes on January 7, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Gee, I guess America was sunk in anarchy in 1900. How ignorant am I?
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 1:58 PM
What’s that, controlling the polling data?
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Huckabee ripped a great immigration plan, uncredited, directly from the pages of National Review. Hs record has never shown a desire to fight illegal immigration, so we can be forgiven for doubting his 11th hour conversion.
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Please!
Legalize drugs. No FBI. No CIA. No Homeland Security. No IRS.
What part of anarchist don’t you get?
Apparently the part of “anarchist” that I don’t get is your definition. Dictionary.com defines “anarchist” thus:
1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom
That’s a pretty good definition.
RP has never, ever spoken of the overturn of this government by violence, or promoted disorder or revolt against established rule.
So what we’re left with is dealing with your personal version of anarchy, which appears to mean that you like telling people how to live their lives, and if they go against you, they’re wrong, and should either be ostracized, jailed, or maybe killed. In other words, the modern conservative’s mantra of using government to their purpose, not using government as defined by the Constitution as the principle.
Did I miss anything?
RWLA on January 7, 2008 at 2:00 PM
2 F-18’s down in the persian gulf… abc news report
stlpatriot on January 7, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Ron paulinian alert !
William Amos on January 7, 2008 at 2:02 PM
You know, I would have liked to have gotten a chance to meet him, Redhead_Infidel. You make some good points. I often lecture Romney supporters for only supporting him because they think he is viable and in spite of his moderate past, but I suppose I only supported Thompson over Hunter because I thought he was more viable. Food for thought as a great conservative drops out of the race.
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 2:02 PM
I can’t find any more details about this anywhere. I’d love to watch.
Ludwig on January 7, 2008 at 2:03 PM
HA! HE’S STAYING!
Vizzini on January 7, 2008 at 2:04 PM
thanks
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Not quite. More like ignoramus alert. I just got done expressing disappointment and praise over Hunter’s dropping out. But I won’t stand by and let untruths not only about RP but about the classical libertarian strain which can be found throughout the history of conservatism be denied. Have you ever read the history of National Review? These sorts of arguments were continual with a couple of the editors almost coming to blows over it.
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 2:08 PM
These sorts of arguments were continual with a couple of the editors almost coming to blows over it.
I always did think Buckley was gay.
RWLA on January 7, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 2:06 PM
np
apparently not related to this mornings news.. or so they say..
stlpatriot on January 7, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Ron paulinian alert !
Why would this be a problem, Mr. Amos?
RWLA on January 7, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Make room for me…
It is 1413 and I haven’t heard anything yet.
Snooper on January 7, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Mid-air collision for the F-18s.
People stick with Fred because he sticks to principles, which is really all we’re looking for.
frode on January 7, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Uncredited???
“Note: This plan is partially modeled on a proposal by Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies. (”Re: Immigration: Ten Points for a Successful Presidential Candidate,” National Review, May 23, 2005.)”
I’m 110% against him wanting to give scholarships to illegals but besides that I really don’t know what people expected him to be able to do ask govenor of arkansas.
irish_infidel on January 7, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Because Ron Paul backers are cultists
William Amos on January 7, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Thanks to open registration, the comment section will now be spammed by PaulBots. Shouldn’t you guys be out skateboarding or something?
Gregor on January 7, 2008 at 2:15 PM
And as a challenge I ask Ron Paul backers to give me reason why Ron Paul wouldnt make a good president ?
William Amos on January 7, 2008 at 2:16 PM
While most definitely the best man in the race, Duncan was ‘not ready for prime-time’ yet’ in this world of style over substance. I sent him money fairly regularly, just to keep him in the race, even though I had no expectation that he would win.
I still have high hopes that whoever wins the nomination will have the good sense to select him for the VP slot.
Don’t disappear Mr Hunter: Work on getting some name recognition amongst the general public. Set yourself up for a strong run in 2012.
And please endorse Fred. He is the last hope we have for having someone that is even close to being a true conservative in the race. Tancredo betrayed his supporters when he quit. Don’t you do it too.
LegendHasIt on January 7, 2008 at 2:16 PM
That was added after the fact. I remember when the plan first came out.
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 2:19 PM
He IS very impressive. Heard him speak in person for 1/2 hour, 1 hour Q and A, twice in 2 or 3 person groups. Knows his stuff and BELIEVES it. Just yesterday won the endorsement of the NV conservative Republican group. If he drops out, watch Fred and Romney scramble to get him on their team.
That’s the problem. He WON’T enforce it. His heart and soul are with the children of illegals, not enforcing our existing laws. His religious bias gives him too much sympathy to law breakers of all sorts. Just this past weekend he would never simply say “they gotta go home.”
fred5678 on January 7, 2008 at 2:20 PM
I find it very strange that conservatives here are not in favor of small government. Here Ron Paul is libeled as an anarchist? Just for wanting rid Americans of unnecessary government spending and put more money into the pockets of our nation’s citizens?
Very strange indeed.
BlackCapitalist on January 7, 2008 at 2:20 PM
So, what was the 2pm announcement?
Hooray for PaulBots!
Darksean on January 7, 2008 at 2:22 PM
P.S. I certainly concede the point that Huckabee is far from being the only one who has changed his views on things, and all that matters is that he acts on it. You are right to say that.
For me the real Huck-killer is the pardons, and his sanctimonious attitude about them. I don’t think he has any respect for the rule of our courts or laws. All can be circumvented if his personal conscience dictates that it be so.
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 2:22 PM
He wants to cut the Military and Intelligence communities while we are at war. I havent heard him be as vocal about cutting Social Security or earmarks or any other spending
In other words Ron Paul is a phoney fiscal conservative in love with gold
William Amos on January 7, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Mr. Amos,
I’m not a Ron Paul backer, though he has always had my respect. I am also educated enough (are you, or are you just dishonest?) to understand that he’s no anarchist and, moreover, his viewpoints up till fairly recently were not alien to, nor rejected by, the conservative movement.
But alas, when Michael Huckabee is presently gathering the raves and support of a mass of self-proclaimed conservatives, I fear that conservatism no longer is conservative. Or maybe the better question might be: conservative of what?
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 2:24 PM
I have no doubt, R.I., that Duncan Hunter is hundred times more charismatic than the average bear. Unfortunately, the President of the US of A needs to be around 10,000 times more charismatic than that even to have a chance.
I’ll say it again, shorter, and it gives me no great joy to say so, since I have high respect for the man, but Hunter is one of those candidates whose mere presence in the race already suggests that he lacks the qualities of judgment that we require in a president. At some point, it may even begin to harm his chances of consideration for some top post in a Republican administration, if we’re lucky enough to get another one.
Maybe he hopes that the handful of delegates he accumulates, beginning perhaps with his home district, may at least give him a seat at some very large table at the convention. Failing several consecutive acts of God in his favor, that will very likely be the peak of his influence on this election.
CK MacLeod on January 7, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Really? Was that all? You couldn’t find any other reasons listed? That’s it? Is it really dark down there?
Gregor on January 7, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Because Ron Paul backers are cultists
Thanks for letting me know. I guess I need to join up with the cult, buy some beads and get my hair cut a certain way instead of staying in my home office and running my business day in and day out, and taking care of my four children as well. Do you happen to know where the cult is today so I can go join?
Thanks to open registration, the comment section will now be spammed by PaulBots. Shouldn’t you guys be out skateboarding or something?
So in addition to joining a cult, cutting my hair etc., now I have to go and buy a skateboard too? Do I have to buy that cool skater clothing, and put black mascara on too?
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to get over to my “factory” and start processing the 5 orders that are on my desk for today. Fortunately it’s a light day and I should be able to do most of it by about 5, come home and make dinner for the kids, then go back and finish the orders and get them ready for shipment tomorrow. Then I’ll get up at 5:02 AM tomorrow, and start all over.
I love the way you guys deal in generalities. And you accuse RP supporters of being nuts. Will wonders never cease?
RWLA on January 7, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Glenn Beck was probably right when he said Thompson/Romney would be the winningest ticket, but since it looks like its going to be Rudy, McCain or Romney, then it complicates things.
If Hunter would endorse Mitt, that would be great. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that if he doesnt go fo McCain, he’s going to throw in with Freds dieing effort.
If Mitt got Hunters O.K., he would have 2 of the 3 genuine conservatives trusting him (since Fred will endorse McCain when he leaves – IF he leaves voluntarily)
Richard Bushnell on January 7, 2008 at 2:27 PM
.
Where did I state that Ron Paul is an anarchist ? You are being dishonest here. And attacking my education (I have two college degrees FYI) is a pathetic attempt to defend Der leader Paul with ad hominien attacks.
Ron Paul is very alien conservatively in foreign policy. He is more concern about not upset enemies of the US than protecting the US people. He is a better friend to AL Qaeda than the US needs right now
William Amos on January 7, 2008 at 2:27 PM
The in-state scholarship reward is exactly the kind of thing that atrracts more illegals! That’s where Huck’s heart is.
Huck brags that he “ordered” his state law enforcement agencies to get 287(g) training and cooperate with ICE. WRONG! He signed a bill pushed through by Conservative legislators, but then never sent a letter to ICE to start the process!! For 20 months he didn’t have time to write that letter. His Dem. successor wrote the letter in his first year in office. Huck gets NO CREDIT for what he is bragging about – just like Clinton gets no credit for welfare reform – he vetoed it twice before signing it the 3rd time, then BRAGGED about it at the ‘96 Dem. convention.
Same tactic as Huck is using.
fred5678 on January 7, 2008 at 2:28 PM
At present, the Times of London just ran a piece about whistleblower Sibel Edmonds that may show without a doubt that our “intelligence” has been less than concerned with the well-being and safety of Americans. Or did you miss that story?
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Check it, Fredheads and haters alike! The long awaited meeting is here. Fred to appear on The O’Reilly Factor tonight.
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Paulbots are Skaters!!! LOL!! Thats good!
Big Orange on January 7, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Its on the internet spaming sites and trying to make Ron Paul seem more popular than the 3% of people who back him.
William Amos on January 7, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Wow! How do you possibly find time to spam the internet polls with that massive workload?
Gregor on January 7, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Paul is a disciple of Murray Rothbard’s anarchist libertarianism. Rothbard beleived the Cold war was a hoax to expand big govt. and parted with the sane: Buckley among others. Paul and Rockwell types, as ignorant about the world and history as they are, are applying this to modern times.
jp on January 7, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Saddens me too, MacLeod, but it says more about our process and our values than it does about Hunter’s judgment. This country is crying out for leadership, and desperately scrounging for it among the candidates we have. I get a little queasy when I see all those old stiffs vying for the right to lead our nation. My problem is that I can’t get that old adage out of my head: insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.
Ah well…I’m a square peg in a round hole – a revolutionary playing at politics.
Redhead Infidel on January 7, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Without a doubt because one person says so ? Again that is Paulspeak you want to believe it so it must be true.
Again dont believe everything you see on the internet and a news article isnt proof positive of anything
William Amos on January 7, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Thank you Iowa and New Hampshire.
For a conservative to have a shot, it is best he skip these contests.
Fred should have announced after New Hampshire.
I know this is not realistic.
Valiant on January 7, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Fred has never said that he would endorse McCain. In fact, when asked if a gun was put to his head Fred said he would endorse Mitt Romney. I really am not sure how Fred could endorse McCain. McCain is not a conservative. Mitt is the next closest conservative still running (since Hunter is out today).
kerrhome on January 7, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I won’t generalize. 90% of the Ron Paul supporters I see at local events come straight from the Berkeley campus, with Vegetarian/Libertarian homemade signs. Maybe all you hard-working supporters don’t have time for conventions, etc.
Unfortunately, you are known by the company you keep, and the VISIBLE RP supporters are unimpressive, at best.
fred5678 on January 7, 2008 at 2:33 PM
“No Homeland Security. No IRS.”
Gregor,
First of all, how any “conservative” could support the existence of the IRS is beyong me. That hideous agency is nothing more than an instrument of tyrany.
As for the Dept. of “Homeland Security,” they appear to me to be about as competent as the Keystone Cops.
You also seem to think the “War on Drugs.” is a good thing. When I think of the evils our government has committed in this so-called war, it makes me want to puke.
And libertarians aren not anarchists. They are probably the closest thing to true “conservatives” left in this country.
Perhaps you should study up a bit on early American history, as this great country was founded by people who were essentially libertarians, not nanny state advocates.
Dave R. on January 7, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Believe me, sir, when Ron Paul talks about dismantling the CIA it is music to my ears. I wish other candidates would propose this. It has been leakier than a sieve for a long time. The DIA and the service intelligence assets are run by men in uniform who take their oath of loyalty seriously and they should take charge.
His reasons for doing so are wrong, however, as national defense is most definetely the a role solely reserved for the federal government. Those reasons also lead him to silly proposals like disbanding the FBI.
Ron Paul is great on so many issues, but fatally flawed on national security.
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 2:35 PM
I think you are wrong on that. Both the national review (written by Mark Krikorian himself) and townhall stories that wrote about it when it first came out show him giving credit.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzI5MjhhNmQwZjhjMTNlOTgyNGQxN2NkNjQ3ZmIzNzM=
What are you saying? That no person of faith can be qualified for the presidency? I don’t think that there is an inherent bias of religious people towards illegals. He was faced with a tough problem when governor: the feds were doing nothing on the issue and he had these people living in his state that he had to deal with.
He said they have 120 to leave or face deportation-that seems clear to me. He was wishy washy though when asked if he would pull illegal immigrants out of school and boot them if they were known to the school.
irish_infidel on January 7, 2008 at 2:35 PM
OK, he’s staying in it. Guess he decided it was time to chew some media ass. Good for Hunter.
Redhead Infidel on January 7, 2008 at 2:36 PM
He is not out but he is pi$$ed off: via CampaignSpot
kerrhome on January 7, 2008 at 2:40 PM
MacLeod, I’m not the only one who thinks Hunter is impressive. Malkin posted some commentary from Ed Morrissey:
Redhead Infidel on January 7, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Point conceded. I searched the archives and found that the controversy I remembered was whether or not Mark had been consulted on the plan. He had not, but he wasn’t upset about it as he had hoped Presidential candidates would use his plan.
I still don’t believe Huckabee will aggressively pursue the interests of Americans on illegal immigration, but I was wrong to question his veracity in regards to the source of his plan.
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Substance and style are not mutually exclusive. Fred wants us to think it is.
csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Thompson/Hunter ‘08!
MadisonConservative on January 7, 2008 at 2:47 PM
But if one is more important than the other, it is substance. I wish Fred was more charismatic, but his substance is far too attractive for me to go with any other candidate. And I don’t think for one minute that Fred believes that substance and style are mutually exclusive. I think many of his supporters might talk that way though.
kerrhome on January 7, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Yes, they are. One is always dominant. The dominant one is what matters.
MadisonConservative on January 7, 2008 at 2:47 PM
More from inside:
AP, if you can post the clip, I’m sure many of us would appreciate seeing it and commenting on it. Anytime the media gets spanked is bound to be enjoyable.
Redhead Infidel on January 7, 2008 at 2:50 PM
I noticed none of the Paul backers could answer my question. Again give me good reasons as to why Ron Paul shouldnt be president. Nobody is perfect not even Ron Paul.
William Amos on January 7, 2008 at 2:51 PM
I doubt anyone supports the IRS, but it’s just one of pretty much EVERY government agency Paul wants to eliminate.
As for the Dept. of “Homeland Security,” they appear to me to be about as competent as the Keystone Cops.
Yeah yeah yeah, I know. 9/11 was an inside job, right? Police state!!! Right?
Get a grip.
I rest my case.
Thanks for verifying my claims. Good job.
I’m sure in your mind they all sat around at the end of the day smoking weed.
Gregor on January 7, 2008 at 2:52 PM
It is when others (and as of late, not you) continue to harp on his style as if that is all there is. Even BKennedy said that it wasn’t about his substance.
All I was asking is how is the perception in the MSM of Fred one of laziness and lack of desire to be president? I’m not disputing the hard number facts, I’m curious about the analysis.
geckomon on January 7, 2008 at 2:52 PM
I don’t like what he did with the pardons either. The Dumond case in particular was awful but remember he was also facing alot of pressure at the time from conservatives to pardon him because his victim was Clinton’s cousin and it was believed he get a tougher sentence because of that. But pardoning is not circumventing the justice system, like it or not, it is a part of the justice system.
And I don’t like Romney’s attitude towards them either when he braggs that he never pardoned anyone- that just shows me that he is doing what is safe politically to advance his own career. I mean is there no one in the entire state of Massachusetts during the time he was govenor that deserved one?? I’d bet there was. Romney turned down an War Vet three times over a very minor assault charge from years ago and prevented him from getting a job as a police officer. Romney was just looking out for his own ass by not pardoning anyone.
irish_infidel on January 7, 2008 at 2:53 PM
I thought mitt had a judge who set free a killer that killed again. So its not like he is innocent on this issue completely
William Amos on January 7, 2008 at 2:54 PM
The following quote should have been blockquoted as being written by Dave R:
Just pointing it out before someone attacks me for writing it.
Gregor on January 7, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Hunter/Bolton ‘08! Because nobody can take on knucklheads like these guys.
And if they’re nice they might give Teh Fred! a position in the cabinet.
Editor on January 7, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Here is where I agree. It’s not that I don’t think the US should stop busybodying and policing the globe as much as it does. But, Ron Paul falls for the cult of individualism, which sees the world not as blocks of people gathered together and motivated by ideas of race, religion, nationality, etc., but rather as individuals who are motivated rationally. This simply is not the case. It’s especially not the case even in this country where millions of Christians believe that if a candidate happens to come down on the same side of the Bible as they do, this must make him God’s man for the position.
On the other hand, there is as much to denounce in the democracy worship that Bush and his mentors suffer from.
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Hunter’s not going down that lightly. Good on him.
CP on January 7, 2008 at 2:58 PM
This comment thread veered off topic some time ago, but I still have a question…
On what basis does Ron “Captain Constitution” Paul claim presidential power for getting rid of the IRS? The Internal Revenue Code is a duly passed and signed law. News to me the President can just ignore any old law he doesn’t like. Now that I think about it, isn’t that the chief complaint the Ronulans have about President Bush…..?
JohnTant on January 7, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Another point I agree with, and that is why I support Fred over Romney (though Romney has done very well in the last two debates and gained some respect from me). Fred’s record matches his rhetoric. He doesn’t care about image. This is what I have said I wanted for years, and unlike some, I meant it.
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Fixed it for ya.
William Amos on January 7, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Bias.
geckomon on January 7, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Smart move by Hunter.
Valiant on January 7, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Ron Paul shouldn’t be president because I think his Foreign Policy is flawed. I believe we should modernize our military and stay on the offensive against Al Qaeda.
Nevertheless, the greatest threat to this nation isn’t Al Qaeda. Not even close. It’s our inability to come to grips with our massively extravagant spending and big government stealing America’s future with its entitlement programs.
BlackCapitalist on January 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM
I think unfortunately conservatives have to be more rational at this point in time. A right-wing nut like Ron Paul would hardly carry a pair of states in a national election. Between his whiny arguments and his desire to severely decrease the military and pull troops out of other countries (which would cause not only an international uproar, but instability all around the world).. there’s a reason so many consider him to be a nutcase.. but there’s also a reason why the candidates this year are running further left than previous years.
henzou on January 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Good for him.
Hunter/Coulter!
Brat on January 7, 2008 at 3:06 PM
I’m a Fred supporter, but I’m glad Hunter is staying in. He should NOT be run out of town by the media.
In fact, I’m a Thompson-Hunter ‘08 person!
Oink on January 7, 2008 at 3:06 PM
FIRST look at Hunter?
Its funny all these people saying its so sad Hunter is leaving. (all the links to pundits on this post) yet he isnt leaving and he will go back to being in obscurity. Telling.
CaptainObvious on January 7, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Oh and I forgot to add another greater threat to our nation. The rising inflation and devaluation of the dollar.
The sun, earth, and moon do not revolve around islamic extremists no matter how many times Giuliani says 9/11.
BlackCapitalist on January 7, 2008 at 3:07 PM
I agree. I really used to hate Romney and I still think that he is a phoney and opprotunist. But he did impress me in the ABC debate when he talked about Jihad and Sayyid Qutb (Huckabee also did btw). Thompson is not bad I like him for the most part…can’t agree with you about his image though I hate that stupid red pickup truck of his. And I didn’t like his answer on taxes last night when he said it wanted to tax those earning under $100,000 at 10% and those over at 25%. What about people earning $105,000 a year? That plan punishes productivity and makes no sense to me. I much perfer Hucks fair tax and I think he is more electable.
irish_infidel on January 7, 2008 at 3:09 PM
I am criticising Huck on what he has DONE, not what he SAYS he is going to do. What he has done is to fervently push for in-state tuition for illegal aliens, delay for over 20 months the implementation of 287(g) training (and tried to mislead listeners about his actions), etc. Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson, both religious men, are very good on this issue – and Mitt, another religious man, is close behind. Apparently, Huck’s religious beliefs (or maybe secular beliefs?) put his sympathy toward illegal aliens, not strict enforcement of our laws. Many of the comments from Huck on this issue, especially when talking about in-state tuition, emphasize ‘compassion’, etc., seem to have a very religious tone, in contrast to others who emphasize enforcing the law.
You cannot reward law-breakers and expect the law-breaking to stop.
fred5678 on January 7, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Right. If Syria, Iran, Iraq, and every other radical Islamic country were free to obtain nukes from Russia and North Korea at will, it’s just not important when compared to the high price of gasoline. I get it.
That was sarcasm in case you didn’t notice.
Ron Paul believes we should completely ignore the rest of the world and that everything will suddently be peachy-keen.
Gregor on January 7, 2008 at 3:11 PM
The Dumond case is problematic all the way around. In addition to the Clinton/Democrat connection, Dumond was hog-tied and castrated before he ever went to trial. The sheriff, a friend of the accuser’s family, actually put Dumond’s testicles in a jar so he could show them off.
Huck made a mistake ever involving himself in the case, but it is somewhat understandable why he and others were troubled by the case.
Fred ‘08
flyfisher on January 7, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Can’t say I’m surprised.
I listened to him on Roger Hedgecock’s show from Iowa week before last, and he seemed determined to stay the course.
Auditioning for VP, maybe?
I doubt it. I think it’s just good ole fashioned steadfastness.
I salute you, Mr. Hunter.
Hawkins1701 on January 7, 2008 at 3:13 PM
So given the current situation, what are the odds of a brokered convention this fall? And with the likelyhood of Obama on the blue ticket rising, is it advantageous (inspite of common wisdom) for the Reps to select our nominee after the Dems?
Browncoatone on January 7, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Not quite, though you have helped make the case against Huckabee (and Bush in 2000). That is, we’re talking presidential politics here, not who’s best qualified to be America’s Chief Pastor. God, what a delight it would be if more candidates actually invoked (and took a look at the writings of) the Founders. Jeez, what a concept.
I mean, on what did Huck base his final in divinity school? The Federalist Papers? This is crazy.
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Bwahahaha…
reports of Dunc’s demise were a tad premature, I see.
Fine and dandy.
He’s still a longshot and needs to broaden his appeal, but have at it Dunc. Best of luck.
Always Right on January 7, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Ouch. You’re right, though.
As Fred said, the Far Tax is a trap. We may very well end up with a consumption tax and an income tax the way the politicians would almost certainly try to implement it: instituting the consumption tax since that is easy and the basis would be there, then eliminating the income tax. It would take a lot of political acumen to pull it off, and I don’t think Huck has it.
Electability is a tricky thing to pin down. Huck is certainly an excellent speaker, a personable man, and a good debater. Many (like myself) see him as a populist, and that scares people on the right. Many conservatives may stay home if he is nominated.
It would be tough to lure people from the left while also talking tough on illegal immigration. In most presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial races Republicans generally don’t win by moving left, they win by sticking to conservative principles. George Bush is a notable exception, but I don’t want Bush 3.
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Probably Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker
Gregor on January 7, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Her man Mitt needs destabilization of those with substance in order to look as real as he isn’t but they are. It’s easy for her to be nice to someone without double-digit ratings, like compassionate faux conservatism. It is a sick obsession predicting the failure of others on cue, day before vote.
maverick muse on January 7, 2008 at 3:19 PM
He believes no such thing. He thinks we should stop policing the world with over 700 military bases (most of which were Cold War era), and other such things that do nothing toward the safety of Americans. He thinks we should stop intervening. And whadya wanna bet that most Republicans will think the same when President Obama decides we should enter Darfur.
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 3:19 PM
I believe just poorly stated. My understanding is that earnings would be taxed in brackets: everything under 100,000 at 10%, everything over 100,000 at 25%. I much prefer Milton Friedman and flat rate tax, with significant personal/family exemptions. That way, EVERY incremental dollar, of EVERYbody’s earnings, gets taxed at the same rate – 20% or so. The effective tax rate, of course, starts at zero and asymptotically approaches 20%.
Thus there is constant incentive to earn (and report!) more money, because there is no accelerating rate.
fred5678 on January 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM
So what? He lied then? That’s what he continues to state in the debates, that we should stay out of everyone else’s business. What do you think it means if we eliminate the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security? Let’s see if you can explain to us all how Ron Paul is going to prevent Syria and Iran from nuking Israel or the U.S. if we have no CIA, FBI, or Homeland Security?
Do you agree with Ron Paul that they only hate us because we’re “in their business?”
Gregor on January 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Hunter is great on the issue, by far the best. And I agree that Huckabee should not have pushed for that and should have implemented the police training…but Romney did the same thing! He authorized the program but never implemented it! And Romney employed illegals to mow the lawn on his mansion-he is part of the problem. There wouldn’t be any illegals in this country if it were not for people like Romney, whose big buisness background gives him a much greater bias infavor of illegal immigration that Huckabees religion. Romney’s big biz bias has included in the past selling weapons to China-something Hunter has previously brought up.
As for Thompson his plan is so short and so vague I do not even know what it means. “No amnesty”, “secure the border” and “enforce the law”. This is something McCain, Bush, and any proillegal advocate could support. It is meaningless. Huckabees plan however is strong and specific.
irish_infidel on January 7, 2008 at 3:25 PM
On it’s face, that is an issue with his tax plan, which is an attempt to simplify the tax code. Here is the full plan. You may like parts of it. I like that he was the first to talk about slashing the corporate tax. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, and that is why we lose so many American jobs to foreign countries.
The 25% rate is also a significant reduction from the 35% rate a lot of 6 figure earners end up seeing. Heh, I may be a long way from having that affect me right now, but I’d like to be there before Thompson’s second term is up ;)
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Huh? You obviously haven’t even bothered to read his plans. He’s gone further than any other candidate (by far) in outlining the details of what he stands for.
Did you just make that up off the top of your head?
Gregor on January 7, 2008 at 3:33 PM
He talks about not intervening militarily, which in ways I agree with, though in other ways I disagree. I think there are places where we should intervene even if our national security is not at risk.
But as for business, he is all for free market relations, travel, etc.
Drum on January 7, 2008 at 3:35 PM
It’s much worse than that. He believes we should “NEVER” intervene in any way unless Congress declares war.
You ignored the rest of my questions:
Gregor on January 7, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »