Politics Update

Wow, what a month. I have seen the disappointment of losing an excellent candidate. I am contemplating running for office myself (not POTUS!). I have decided to leave the Republican Party. What else? I've decided to endorse yet another long shot candidate. So let's get started:

BIG REASON TO LEAVE
Regarding running for an office, right now, all I will mention is that I am at a loss for a party. I have decided to leave the Republican Party after learning of the link between George Soros (MoveOn.org financier, as well as a number of other less visible but more harmful causes) and McCain. I have waited for the denouncement of McCain by the GOP as it is a most shameful thing to be allied and financed by a person intent on destroying America as we know it. So I have decided that I can not abide a party that tolerates corrupted (or Trojan) individuals at this kind of level.

TRYING TO FIND A HOME
I have looked at a lot of parties, and many of them basically seem to have given up the ghost and jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon (RPB). That pretty much brings me to question their views on foreign policy. This is true, even of the two parties that I like the best of the minor parties: Constitution Party and the America First Party. Ultimately, I see the RPB views as idealistic and not thought out. I can understand (and appreciate) ideological purity, but they are the right-wing or liberterian equivalent of the elite liberals (a.k.a the ivory tower) that has no basis in reality. Well, here is my quick and dirty summary of two failings of the RPB in matters of foreign policy:

1) I think support for Israel is critical. (I've read Chuck Baldwin's defense of Ron Paul on this issue and found it wanting -- I may write a blog post sometime about why). The RPB effectively say**: we must stop supporting Israel, and once we leave Iraq there will be no reason to attack us and then we will be safe. In Numbers, God repeats His promise of blessing those who bless the people of Israel, and cursing those who curse Israel. Given that we have over 40 million abortion in this land, I see this is as primary reason good has not judged us as we deserved. To abandon Israel would be destructive for our nation.

2) While I am sympathetic to the fact that we didn't properly declare war, the view of "just get out" is very naive. We need to win, or the latter state will be worse than the first. If we leave quickly, we encourage a number of things: a) Instability in the region. Syria, Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden will try to get control of the region. The instability itself will make more enemies (and put us under yet another blood guilt, just as the first Bush did with the first Iraq War) because we abandoned people to chaos and power struggles. b) Terrorists would be confirmed in their view that the US is a big sissy and will give up if resisted enough. c) Terrorists hate us because of our support for Israel, and have thus chosen (from a spiritual view) the wrong side. d) Radical Muslims will hate the US for additional reasons, consider that the state of Iran years back announced its concern of the young people being taught witchcraft by Harry Potter films. They will see us a corrupting influence and hate us for that or any other number of reasons they seek to concoct. If you are going to start the appeasement route, you better get busy because there will be a lot of appeasing to do.

**RPB folks will adjust their message based on their audience. For pro-Islam groups, they will talk about how the US will not be supporting Israel under a RP administration. For pro-Israel groups, they say: Israel will be stronger, and their neighboring countries won't get so much money.

I am grieved for my children

I couldn't get back to sleep after playing a support role in a diaper change. Yesterday, the best man (Duncan Hunter) in the race dropped out. So, to my sorrow, I look at the Republican playing field with dismay.

If you are in a state that hasn't voted yet and are dissatisfied with the choices, I'm with you! Keyes and Thompson are the next best thing to Hunter, and next best in this case is mediocre :-( In any case, if either candidate is palpable to you, I encourage you to vote for them. If they are not, I encourage you to write Duncan Hunter's name in.

I may do that in the General Election. Although, I will support ANY candidate with Duncan Hunter as the VP running mate, even Hillary. Well, I guess the remaining Republicans Candidates are not quite as bad as her, but they aren't anything to brag about either. Given the tier 1 candidates but Thompson are liars about themselves and the other candidates (check out www.factcheck.org), all tier 1 candidates have hidden liberal agendas (I've listed that in other posts).

And our nation is under a curse. We have but to take our support for Israel away, and I believe that the protecting hand on our nation will be taken away. For God said (Numbers 24:9) that those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed. Even if we are indifferent to Israel we are no better off than cursing Israel for our nation deserves punishment. Consider, that well over 40 million children have been aborted in 35 years since Roe v Wade (if you don't think this is a big deal consider 2Ki21:16 and 2Ki24:2-4). Consider that we have turned many things that God has said an abomination or hated by God into good and honorable thing!!: lying, perjury, unfair measures, homosexuality, and divorce.

And consider, that the curses of God have indeed begun. Consider Deut 28:43-44 "The alien who is among you shall rise above you higher and higher, but you will go down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, but you will not lend to him; (AV)he shall be the head, and you will be the tail. " Now consider the issue of illegal immigrants (II) in the US. Consider that the II population is growing a larger rate than the general populace, that crime is increasing, that the wealth they earn here is sent home (for the large part), and consider that for inexplicable reasons our Government doesn't care about intrustions into our border by the Mexican military. Consider also news articles about the foreign purchasing of America. We are being taken over as a nation. We are moving to a socialist state as a nation (many of the Deut 28 curses could easily be fulfilled by a socialist philosophy). We are borrowing and not lending (except to nations in even far worse state than us!) Right now I am not hopeful.

Why, then, did I have hope of Duncan Hunter resolving the problems? Partially, because I could see him as a leader like King Josiah of old. Because he would execute the office with integrity. Because he is articulate, and thus may persuade a nation that is sitting on the fence to choose righteousness and not wickedness. Because he also sees the impending dangers and will have an urgency about doing what needs to be done. Because he has been faithful with little, and would likely be faithful with much.

And now, I am grieved for my children.

P.S. Any Ron Paul endorsement comments will not be accepted. I am aware of the online dynamics of that campaign, and won't allow it here.

Yes, Indeed! Another Endorsement for Duncan Hunter

Media Advisory
HUNTER WINS NEVADA REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLY ENDORSEMENT


For Immediate Release:

Reno , NV
Contact: Gary Becks (619)334-1655

The Nevada Republican Assembly held a Presidential Endorsing Convention on Sunday Jan 6, 2008, choosing Congressman Duncan Hunter with their endorsement. The endorsement by NVRA by over 2/3 majority is a significant statement about the character and principles of a living and practicing conservative Republican. Duncan Hunter 's record as a 26 year member of Congress places him squarely at the lead of all the GOP contenders, as the standard bearer of conservative Republican example.

On Saturday Jan 5, at 1:00 PM Candidate Duncan Hunter addressed an enthusiastic crowd of convention attendees, by phone conference.

The President of the NVRA, Michael Kressler and the members of the NVRA are proud to endorse Duncan Hunter for President for his stand on the values of the sanctity of life, support of our constitution, 2 nd Amendment rights, security of our borders, limited government, love of God, parental rights, Fair Trade, Fair Tax, educational excellence, state sovereignty, controlled spending and protection of private property.

Congressman Hunter was elated to receive word from NV campaign personnel just moments following the prestigious and important NVRA Nevada Republican Assembly endorsement. For more information or to arrange for interview, please contact Gary Becks (619)334-1655 or dlhunter08@yahoo.com

To speak with a state representative contact Kristie Parker at (775)313-7206 or kristie.parker@gohunter2008.org or Tim Shepard at (775)997-5918 or tim.shepard@gohunter2008.org

###

Hunter for President, Inc.
9340 Fuerte Drive
La Mesa, California 91941
United States

Out of the Mouths of Babes

Well, obviously the political season has wound down a bit in Iowa. And that is ok. I've been writing less blog entries, and been working for the last week before baby #3 comes with gathering info for the Hunter campaign. But the work was tedious, so I decided to write a program (am still working out the kinks) to automate the gathering of contact information for a group of people.

Well, as a good Duncan Hunter supporter, I've told my kids that Duncan Hunter is the best man for our country, but not really able to explain it deeply to a 3 and 5 year old. Patrick (our 5 year old) says: Duncan Hunter is the best one for our state. And that has been humorous. States and USA are the same in his mind, I think.

But I heard about something funny with Caleb (our 3 year old). Today at the local Target store, he stepped up on a stool that was in an aisle, and said: "I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this message." Think there have been too many political ads on TV! Patrick can ask: What about Hillary Clinton? What about Barack Obama? And he's curious -- in the sense that he sees it like a sport or a race with winners and losers.

My planned speech for Hunter at the Precinct Caucus

Special thanks to SK Johnson who wrote a chunk of it, and inspired a large chunk of what's left.

Why are we here? Or to be more precise, why are we caucusing as Republicans? The cynical might say because we want power. And perhaps there is some truth to that, as there is a power vacuum that encourages the Presidential race to be more contentious. However, I believe what sets our party apart from the Democrats is that we have believed in principles that have worked through the ages. In general, we believe our rights are given by God and not by man (just as the Declaration of Independence states). We believe that we have responsibilities and duties that come with those rights. We believe that our government should protect us, our rights, and not impose a heavy burden on the people. We believe in Reagan's principle of "Trust but verify." We believe that if you reward bad behavior, you get more of it.

Indeed these principles are important -- and our party and our nation has suffered when we have abandoned them. When we have adhered to these principles, our nation prospered. And now there is a new discussion, are the principles of conservatism really relevant in a modern age. Of course our neighbors as the other caucus would say no -- but I believe them to be in error. Understanding the principles of conservatism helps us to understand the way people and governments interact. It allows us to not be naive as Chamberlain was with Hitler, saying "We have peace in our time" by a policy of appeasement. It allows us to look at policies and see whether they encourage laziness or apathy, or are actually beneficial. These principles, while rooted in ages past give us vision into the future, and so are very important.

In 1980, a revolutionary conservative was elected president and along with him a slew of conservative congressmen. One of them was Duncan Hunter, from San Diego California. For the 8 years of the Reagan presidency, Duncan Hunter led the charge to support his policies. If Ronal Reagan wanted it done, more than likely Duncan Hunter would be pushing for it. Small government, strong national defense, and the protection of the family.

However, that didn't mean they always agreed. In 1986, Duncan Hunter stood in opposition of the amnesty for illegal immigrants which both Republicans and Democrats supported, for he saw clearly through the eyes of the principle that if you reward bad or illegal behavior, you will get more of it.

This continuous practice of conservative principles manifested in many ways. Duncan Hunter supported securing the borders long before it was in vogue, and the success of the border fence he got built to the south of San Diego cut human and drug trafficking by 90% and overall crime by 50%. He has worked tirelessly to make sure that the US has such a fence throughout the rest of its border.

Duncan Hunter is pro-life, and not a recent convert to the cause. He has supported a constitutional ban for his entire 26 year career in the congress.

Duncan Hunter supports leveling the playing field on trade so that we can bring back manufacturing jobs. He is in favor of fighting against unfair trade deals, and willing to not turn a blind eye to transgressions of governments like China to undercut the sale of our goods.

Duncan Hunter is a co-sponsor for the original bill to try and implement the fair tax.

There is a chance that you haven't heard of Duncan Hunter before today. There are different reasons for that. The main one is that Duncan Hunter is a congressman from a small part of the country,
which makes it hard to get his name out. But one important reason is that Duncan Hunter maintains his responsibilities as a congressman and has had to leave the campaign trail to fight for important issues. During the campaign, and even in the days leading up to the Iowa straw polls, He wrote a bill to stop the NAFTA highway from being built. He wrote a bill for a congressional pardon of Ramos and Compean, the two border guards imprisoned for injuring a drug smuggler trying to cross the border.

Some have said that Duncan Hunter is a single issue voter, but that is only true if you look at it this way: Duncan Hunter's single issue is the success and prosperity of the United States of America. This is why you don't have to worry about a candidate who is seeking to satisfy a personal ambition. Not only that, but he believes in and has supported many of the issues that have bound Republicans together over the last 26 years. He knows the details, the underlying causes, he has not wasted his time as a representative of the people.

In this way, he is uniquely qualified as the Republican Nominee for President. He will be able to draw in Reagan Democrats with his fair trade policies, he will be able to draw in independents with his ability to articulate issues and speak from conviction (and not based on marketing data!). You can count on him to be clear of scandal because of his integrity and refusal to lie about himself as well as others. He has the fire in the belly to fight the tough battles, and he has done so many times over the last 26 years, and you can count on him as President to not let a divided congress stall his Supreme Court Justice nominations. You can count on him as President to not let a divided congress to harm our position overseas, or to stall the border fence.

The race is just beginning, and Duncan Hunter is far from planning on dropping out. I hope you will give him your vote, and will join him in his dream which he stated in an interview a few months ago: He said, "I would like to see a country where the day I walk out of the White House, after a couple of terms, the American people are more independent of government than the day that I walked in." And if that dream is anything like yours, I believe he deserves your vote.

Wisdom in Decision 2008: Advancing America instead of Encouraging Retreat or the Status Quo

The lay of the political presidential landscape is looking pretty strange these days. One prominent Republican candidate is essentially advocating that too much drive is a bad thing, so vote for him! Others have incredible drive, but would use it to take the country down questionable paths of populism or personal ambition. Some of the candidates possess excellent leadership skills, but would lead us down dark paths of dependency upon government or paths of social experimentation.

You might say: I know who is for the Status Quo, for they have no fire in the belly; but why is that a bad thing? That is a good question. Consider that the Status Quo is really only desirable when all the following conditions are met : 1) Your nation is in a position of strength, 2) Your governments are not burdensome to the people, 3) Your people are mostly moral well-informed good citizens, and 4) Your enemies are weak. Note that the first condition is met, albeit less with each passing year as we ship our financial and industrial strength to other nations (and even more recently our military secrets: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/01/business/transfer.php). Note that the second condition is not met, consider of the IRS, property taxes, DHS, etc... . Condition three is certainly not met (consider that the US has at least 40 million abortions to reckon with; also, the education and critical reasoning of the general populace is declining as the NEA increases in power). Condition four is questionable, especially as our weaker enemies (such as China) have become stronger through our naivete. Consider then, that there is need for our nation to move forward, and next ask yourself if a person who does not have a strong drive will accomplish much in a divided Congress. What happens if Congress stymies the improvements of this president? What will he do? Will he say that he tried and give up? Or will he pursue it, perhaps taking it to the American people? A person without sufficient fire in the belly will not be able to advance his case in a divided congress. He won't be able to do it with Supreme Court justices, and he won't be able to do it with Immigration, or National Security, Tax Cuts, or Tax Reform.

You might say: Very well, I know who is for the Status Quo, for they have no fire in the belly; but how am I to know the one who will make America better and not worse? That is a good question as well. First, you should know that the principles of conservatism have been successful in moving this country forward when no amount of government spending for liberal and populist ideas has succeeded. Consider that because our rights are God-given, it is not possible for Government (the liberal's new god) to take them away. The foundation of a belief in God is critical to having a just, moral and FREE society (or if you prefer FREE REPUBLIC). Consider that because Ronald Reagan was prudent with the Soviet Union when the previous presidents were naive, that we did not succumb to their attempts to use negotiation to undermine our national defense ("Star Wars") efforts. Even Gorbachev agreed that such a stance was useful for the Soviet Union to understand the United States priorities and encouraged the peace process. (I guess it was good that Reagan was a so-called warmonger.) Consider that as the NEA gets more funding that education is demonstrably declining (in Iowa, we've gone from being 2nd in the nation to 9th as the NEA has increased in power and education funding has increased).

Principle Zero may be thus derived: A candidate who cares deeply about conservative issues is to be preferred to one who does not.
Principle One may be thus derived: A candidate who has shown leadership in advancing conservative issues is to be preferred to one who has not.

You might say: That is well and good, but how then am I to know the true conservatives from the phonies? That is a difficult question to answer perfectly, however some principles can effectively guide you to a solution.

Many of the candidates want you to believe their rhetoric, even though their public (or private) lives have not shown that they actually have lived their rhetoric. But we must not hold grudges, they say, and encourage us to forget the Biblical principle that those who are faithful with little will be faithful with much, which to the astute tells us to be wary of those who claim a mantle that they have not worn for many years. This is not a new phenomenon, for example, there have been many pro-Life democrats, who upon consideration of a presidential run "see the light" and become pro-Choice. Or vice-versa. Note that any "convert" in the political realm who cannot fully explain their "conversion" as well as provide a well-reasoned support fo the issue (which can be anything of import from life to immigration) should be treated with skepticism.

Principle Two may be thus derived: A true conservative candidate will have a history that supports his platform. (Or... see Principle Three)
Principle Three may be thus derived: A recent "convert" on an issue should be able to a) articulate his reason for the change, and b) effectively articulate the rational basis for supporting the issue.

Another indicator of a potential phony is how honorable and honest the candidate is. Why is being honest and honorable important? First, it indicates whether they have a healthy fear of the Lord. If they see themselves as accountable to God, they are a) more likely to be a solid conservative, and b) more likely to respect God-given rights. Second, it indicates whether they believe that their actions reflect on the people they represent and support. Third, a person who has shown a pattern of honesty in his life is less likely to lie now and be a phony. Here are some questions to gauge the candidates: Does the candidate feel free to twist the truth to attack other candidates? Does the candidate feel free to twist the truth to bolster his own record? Does the candidate attack the questioner or seek to undermine the questioner's integrity? Does the candidate no longer back an issue because it has become unpopular? Websites like http://www.factcheck.org are useful for answering these questions.

Principle Four may be thus derived: A true conservative candidate will be honorable and honest.

Now, armed with these principles, let us apply them to the candidates. Be wary of those without integrity first of all. An excellent leader who says he is a conservative but has no integrity cannot be trusted to advance conservative issues. Now, does their conservative rhetoric match their lives? This candidate is a true conservative. He is honorable and worthy of consideration. Next ask: does he have the drive to advance conservative issues? If you answered yes, then that is indeed the candidate who will advance America.

With these principles, I find that I am left with a strong candidate for President of the United States. Duncan Hunter (http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=1) is a man of integrity, resisting pressure and standing on the principles of what is good for America (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/leadership-knows-rep.-duncan-hunters-arm-doesnt-twist-2006-04-05.html), with a record that matches his rhetoric, as well as the leadership to succeed at contested but critical issues (like the border fence: http://www.house.gov/hunter/border1.html).

An Open Letter to Iowa GOP -- Choose Wisely, Choose Hunter

Open Letter to the Iowa GOP – Choose Wisely, Choose Hunter



Guest Editorial
Alexander J. Madison - December 31, 2007

Dear Iowegians,

Every presidential election season, your state has the opportunity to help shape the election going forward. Unfortunately, too many times, you have selected a dud during the Iowa Caucuses. In 1976, you picked Gerald Ford, proponent of the ERA and abortion rights, over a very conservative Ronald Reagan. In 1980, you chose a very moderate Bush over Reagan. And twice you picked a milquetoast named Bob Dole. Granted, the choices are sometimes between dud and duddier, but this year is different. This year you have a chance to select a rock-ribbed conservative Reaganite to make up for not choosing the original Reaganite when you had the chance. The name is Duncan Hunter.

Congressman Duncan Hunter is a representative from California's 52nd legislative district. Mr. Hunter put his college career on hold to volunteer with the 173rd Airborne Rangers to fight the communists in Vietnam. Like Reagan, Hunter believes that war was not only very winnable, but was indeed a "noble cause". And the killing fields that followed our departure from that conflict are a bold testament to their vision over the head-in-the-sand lack of vision (which continues to this day) from the defeatist democrats and RINOs.

Duncan Hunter also entered office with Reagan in 1981, at the ripe old age of 32. He immediately was able to join the Armed Services Committee in Congress, where he has remained to this day, as former Chairmen, and current Ranking Republican. It was in large part due to Mr. Hunter's efforts, teaming with folks like Jack Kemp and Henry Hyde, that Reagan was able to ramrod our historic military buildup through Congress in the 80s, which revitalized every branch of our Armed Services. Jack Kemp even credits Hunter with being the go-to guy for strong-arming the very controversial 'Star Wars' Strategic Defense Initiative through the House. The results of that persistence and vision is paying off in spades, despite the howls of leftists worldwide, as we today have working missile defense systems either in field, or soon to be fielded; including laser based systems for which Reagan was mercilessly ridiculed by the ignorant 'academics' and the press. Hunter was and is perhaps the staunchest anti-communist to sit in Congress. He was the leader most responsible, aside from Reagan, for stemming the commie-creep in Central America during the 1980s, and his disdain for communism has never ebbed.

Duncan Hunter is the ONLY candidate that realizes what China is up to, both militarily with its rapid armament increases, and economically, with its long term strategy to undermine the United States' industrial base. Hunter is dead set against the 'one-way', idiotic trade deal we have with the Chinese, will put a quick end to further technology transfers to the communist nation, and will build up our own military to the point that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be nothing short of a quick suicide mission for communism. All the other candidates tip toe around the issue of China. Hunter plans to step on their throat.
When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, the 10th Amendment, lowering taxes, fighting the ACLU and political correctness, standing firm against the gay agenda, and sweeping out useless bureaucrats and bureaucracies from the federal government, Duncan Hunter is the only choice.

Unlike John McCain and Mitt Romney, Hunter won't find anything in the Constitution to justify supporting a ban on 'assault weapons' or 'cheap handguns'. Hunter has a perfect lifetime record with the NRA and the Gun Owners of America. Both Mitt and McCain are liberals in this arena.

Unlike Fred Thompson, Hunter won't have to lie about previous pro-choice sympathies. Unlike Fred, Hunter has a perfectly consistent record on the life of the unborn, and has sponsored legislation for many, many years to give full constitutional protection to the unborn – legislation that Fred does not support.

Unlike McCain and Thompson, Hunter certainly will not run roughshod over the 1st Amendment for the sake of 'campaign finance reform'. And Hunter will work to ditch the last vestiges of McCain-Feingold-Thompson, if the courts don't do it first.

Unlike Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, Hunter did not and does not buy into the global warming nonsense in any way, shape or form. The only guarantee we have of avoiding a binding, sovereignty usurping, international treaty on global warming is to place a President in power who does not believe the GW alarmism and does not believe in sovereignty usurping international treaties.

Unlike Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, Hunter does not have some convoluted explanation for why the socialized medicine experiments in Massachusetts (RomneyCare) and Arkansas (ARKids) are a good thing that deserves replication nationally. Indeed, Hunter wants to get government out of the way and reduce the regulations on health insurance by killing off mandates and regulations.

Unlike Mike Huckabee, Hunter will not be contemplating how to mandate and enforce a nationwide ban on smoking in public places, nor will he be scheming to introduce more arts and music and healthy snacks into the nation's public schools. The NEA, who apparently like Mr. Huckabee, despise Congressman Hunter – a genuine supporter of school choice.

Unlike Rudy Giuliani, Hunter does not have to pretend he is a conservative. A man who sued 26 firearms manufacturers to essentially put them out of business has no business seeking the office of the Presidency on the GOP ticket, unless gun control, abortion rights, gay 'rights', and eminent domain abuse are now part of the GOP platform.

Unlike Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, Hunter does not have to lie through his teeth when it comes to his record on illegal immigration. While it is hilarious to see these guys try to 'Out –Tancredo Tancredo' on the issue, only one guy truly does out-Tancredo the Colorado Congressman. While Duncan Hunter has sponsored or cosponsored 85 bills and amendments to stop illegal immigration in this country dead in its tracks, not one of these others lifted a finger during their careers, and range from bad to worse on the issue. While 'The Road to Des Moines' and last springs citizen revolt led these supposed conservatives to finally see the light – at least in rhetoric, Hunter has been fighting the RINOS and dems on this for 27 years. Hunter wrote the border fence bill (recently defanged by the RINOS), and Hunter is the ONLY one who has vowed to actively deport those currently squatting here illegally.

And finally, Duncan Hunter is the most experienced in warfare, defense systems, foreign policy and the security of our nation. If we are intent on defeating the islamists ASAP- without worrying about offending anyone, keeping terrorists out of our country, and rising to meet the future threats posed by the China-Russia-Iran-Venezuela axis, then we better elect a Reaganite this time around.

If not, we may have to put up with an idiot who thinks we need to close Gitmo and end waterboarding because the world disapproves (Huckabee, McCain), or someone who thinks we just need to be more humble and accommodating on the world stage (Huckabee), or someone who can't figure out that enriching China is a fools errand (Fred, Mitt, McCain), or someone who has no clue about our military needs and capabilities and would not know an IED from an IUD (Rudy, Huckabee, Mitt).

The choice is clearer than it has been since 1980. Don't let history pass you by….again.


Most Sincerely,

Alexander J. Madison


As always, thanks for your support!

Hunter for President!


Hunter for President, Inc.
9340 Fuerte Drive
La Mesa, California 91941
United States

Excellent descriptions of the qualifications of Duncan Hunter

Why conservatives need to support Duncan Hunter

Duncan Hunter has vision

An Open Letter to My Friends

Hi,

This is Sean (in case you didn't know the Torial address), and I wanted to encourage each of you to vote in the Caucus for a principled candidate. Some of you may have received material from Duncan Hunter's campaign, and that was likely from me. I wanted to hilight this most excellent candidate, and ask you to take a second look at him while you are considering voting. Often the biggest critism I hear is that Hunter's campaign doesn't have any traction and so won't succeed, and there is certainly truth to that. However, my way of looking at it is the following:

1) I know that Duncan Hunter is the most consistent of all the candidates running. His platform (http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=1, http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=4) is borne out in his record over the last 27 years in Congress and he has received many excellent ratings from various conservative groups (see below). Most of the other candidates (Keyes is the only exclusion from this list) have platforms that their pre-presidential campaign lives never backed up. For some candidates, the inconsistency is abortion (like Romney), for others, it is the problem of Illegal Immigration (Huckabee, Romney, Guiliani, Thompson), handling the China situation (Huckabee, Thompson), Free Trade (Huckabee), or taxes (Huckabee, Guiliani).
2) I know that Duncan Hunter can articulate the conservative positions well, I've heard him do it. If you want a transcript or YouTube video link on a particular topic, let me know.
3) Many of the candidates are hiding things, but Duncan Hunter is not. Consider Huckabee's distorting his fiscal record (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/huckabees_fiscal_record.html ), Thompson neglecting to mention his MFN votes for China, Romney's recent support for gay rights (as publically recent as Dec 2005, as well as his stated support of a non-discrimination law for all states, the same one that took a 100 year old Catholic adoption agency out of business because it wouldn't let gays adopt the children, or from the gay perspective: http://www.queerty.com/mitts-gay-support-taking-its-toll-20071228/), or that Guiliani marched in GLBT parades dressed as a drag queen. I could list many more (and if anyone wants links, let me know).
4) Many of the candidates are willing to lie about the other candidates, but Duncan Hunter is not. Consider Mitt Romney's attacks on Huckabee (http://www.factcheck.org/more_mitt_malarkey.html , http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/romney_on_huckabee_ii.html, http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/romney_on_huckabee.html).
5) Duncan Hunter has lead the charge on many issues, making sure that the troops had adequate provisions, that southern california would have a wall to prevent illiegal immigration and drug trafficking (according to the FBI crime index, San Diego crime dropped almost 50% between 1989 and 2000).
6) Duncan Hunter is gaining traction among strong conservative groups. He recently received an endorsement from Joseph Farah, editor of WorldNetDaily: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59399, as well as a former New Hampshire senator famous for his pro-Life stance (Bob Smith), and recently the endorsement of GodVoter.Org which I include below.
7) I look at the excellent character AND track record of Duncan Hunter and I have decided that he is the most principled, experienced, and capable man for the job and I have decided I will support him irrespective of whether the polls indicate he will win.

Please take the time to look at all the candidates and pick the most principled candidate out of the bunch. I have spent over 100 hours (ask Linnea!!) in the last few months researching the issues and the candidates and I believe that the best and most principled candidate is Duncan Hunter ( www.gohunter08.com) but perhaps you disagree with me and that is OK. But please take the time to reexamine the candidates and research if their record matches their rhetoric. The risks of having a candidate who is not an honest and consistent conservative is too great to just take for granted. Below are Duncan Hunter's ratings, and what GodVoter.org had to say about Duncan Hunter.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sean McKay



Duncan Hunter's Ratings by various organizations:
ACLU: 7% (indicates very conservative)
American Conservative Union: 92%
Americans for Better Immigration: A+
Americans for Tax Reform: 88.5%
Campaign for Working Families: 100%
Christian Coalition: 100%
Concerned Women for America: 100%
Eagle Forum: 100%
Family Research Council: 100%
Federation for American Immigration Reform: 100%
** GodVoters.org: A ** NEW RATING (the ONLY A)
Gun Owners of America: A
NARAL: 0% (indicates a pro-life record)
National Federation of Independent Business: 100%
National Rifle Association: A+
National Right to Life Committee: 100%
National Tax Limitation Committee: A
National Taxpayers Union: B

God Voter.org Endorsement

Subject: DUNCAN HUNTER ACCEPTS GODVOTER.ORG ENDORSEMENT
Importance: High
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Duncan Hunter Accepts GodVoter.org Endorsement
December 29, 2007
Electing the most qualified candidate as leader is the aspiration of all
democratic societies and political systems. Trusting that America will
not prove to be an exception, GodVoter.org is pleased to endorse Duncan
Hunter for President, for five compelling reasons.
Firstly, a nation at war needs a war-time President. To protect our
national interest, America must win in Iraq, Afghanistan and against the
rise of Islamic terrorism and Iran. While John McCain's 5= years as a
POW in Hanoi proves his valor, Duncan Hunter's 26 years on the House
Armed Services Committee, which he chaired, is more directly applicable
to leading a nation engaged in a complex, multi-front war.
Secondly, the Hunter candidacy isn't a creation of political
strategists. Most of the candidates leading in the polls have
discrepancies between their present claims and past record. Some say
they changed their minds recently. Others claim lapses in memory. All
are stretching their persona and platforms to broaden their appeal, as
advised. Duncan Hunter has neither political handlers nor such
discrepancies, and is a refreshingly genuine exception to the norm.
Thirdly, Duncan Hunter is a man of action. He wanted secure borders, so
he built a double fence along the Mexican border. He wanted to protect
life and marriage, so he authored multiple bills to protect them. He
wanted to protect the country, so he fought in Vietnam, returned with a
Bronze Star, and sent his son to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Actions
speak louder than words, and Duncan Hunter's actions speak the loudest.
Fourthly, Duncan Hunter is the most dependable person to protect the
Judeo-Christian foundation of America. While the other conservative
candidates' Supreme Court Justice nominations may be open to speculation
and doubts, Duncan Hunter's uncompromised conservative social values
record precludes the need for such speculation.
Fifthly, Congressman Hunter's low poll ratings can be reversed fairly
quickly. Little can be done about low poll numbers caused by a weak
candidacy, which isn't the case with Hunter. Most conservative political
commentators rave about Hunter's presidential qualifications yet remain
reluctant to support his candidacy, citing the lack of momentum behind
it. A stampeding herd can be redirected by a few at the front stepping
out with conviction, and the sudden rise of the Huckabee candidacy has
shown how quickly the conservative vote can be redirected. That vote is
still largely uncommitted.
Duncan Hunter isn't as suave, funny, telegenic or rich as some of the
other candidates. But based on the qualities becoming a President,
Duncan Hunter is the most qualified person to lead America for at least
the next four years.
In accepting our endorsement, Congressman Hunter highlighted, "Thank you
for your endorsement of my campaign based on my qualifications and
conservative positions of providing a strong national defense and secure
borders. As president I will work to restore opportunity for the
American worker. I will bring high paying jobs back to this country by
stopping China from cheating on trade. By restoring economic opportunity
for the next generation we re-gain the majority position in U.S.
politics. Recent world events point to the need for conservatives to
choose a nominee who is ready on day one to lead. I am grateful that you
have chosen me as that candidate."
For details about GodVoter.org and our ratings on all 15 candidates,
which range from A to F, please visit www.GodVoter.org.

GodVoter.org
www.GodVoter.org

An Easy Test to Determine if Your Candidate is encouraging a Personality Cult

Answer Yes or No for the following questions:
1. Does the candidate attack those who bring up failings?
2. Does the candidate answer the questions dishonestly of those who critique him, or even sidestep them?
3. Does the candidate talk about his experience as part of a social group (religion, gender, ethnicity, race, cause) as guiding his experience?
4. If yes to 3, does the candidate often reference this social group in ads, or statements?
5. Do other supporters know of any of the candidates failings?
6. If yes to 5, is it ok to talk about the candiates failings and what he needs to do to improve?
7. Does the candidate try to redefine terms to suit his needs?
8. Is the candidate vague about how his experience allows his proposed plans to succeed?
9. Does the candidates experience contradict his proposed plans?
10. Does a member of the media claim to have received death threats from supporters of the candidate.


Each yes gets the candidate 1 point, except for #3 and #5, which yield 1/2 point.

Interpreting the results:
Run for cover if you answer higher than a 3, because your candidate is likely encouraging a Personality Cult.

Notable Endorsements of Hunter for President

From December

WorldNetDaily Editor Joseph Farah endorses Duncan Hunter.
WorldNetDaily has at least 20 million page hits per month.


Former New Hampshire Sen. Bob Smith Endorses Republican Candidate Duncan Hunter
Concord, NH (LifeNews.com) -- Bob Smith was a New Hampshire Republican senator who drew praise from the pro-life community for helping to lead the fight to ban partial-birth abortions. Now, the lawmaker is weighing in on the Republican presidential battle and has thrown his support to Rep. Duncan Hunter, a pro-life congressman thought to have little chance of capturing the nomination. Describing him has an “inspirational leader” and the one best qualified to carry the “Reagan Torch,” Senator Smith sent a letter to his fellow conservatives throughout New Hampshire making them aware of his support. “Congressman Duncan Hunter for 25 years has stood up for the rights of the unborn,” Smith said in the letter the Hunter campaign provided to LifeNews.com. “If you really want to see change, then I urge you to vote for him. He is what American needs now more than ever.” Hunter responded to the endorsement, saying, “I am honored and privileged today to receive the endorsement of my good friend Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire,” stated Hunter. “For many years, we have worked together to bring conservative values to Washington D.C. On several issues, including … the sanctity of human life … Senator Smith has led with conviction and principle. It means a great deal to have the confidence of a leader who has done so much for our nation.”


From November

Missouri Republican Assembly Endorses Duncan Hunter

San Diego, CA- - - Congressman Duncan Hunter's presidential campaign continues to gain momentum as he received another endorsement, this time from the Missouri Republican Assembly (MRA) at their quarterly membership meeting. A member of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, the MRA voted to endorse Hunter's campaign for President in the upcoming Missouri Republican primary as he represents a strong conservative choice among the other candidates seeking the Republican nomination.
"Congressman Hunter is a true social conservative and honestly represents the Republican Wing of the Republican Party," stated Chris Brown, MRA state President. "When you add together Duncan Hunter's commitment to the military, American jobs, and fighting for family and life issues, there is no better choice for President. America needs Hunter's integrity, courage and proven leadership.
The MRA works to unite conservatives, both economic and social, whose interests range from tax cuts and reform to national defense, from pro-life to education concerns, from Second Amendment to national sovereignty, and for the advancement of traditional Republican values.
While other candidates are seeking ways to appeal to conservative voters within the party, Hunter's principles, values and consistent 27-year voting record in Congress on Republican issues clearly shows that he represents the conservative choice for the party.
I thank the Missouri Republican Assembly for their trust and I appreciate their endorsement, stated Hunter. As I travel across our great country, I am finding more and more that my message of a strong national defense, enforcement of the border, the protection of American jobs, lower taxes and the sanctity of life is what Americans want in a candidate. The Missouri Republican Assembly is looking for someone that will have the same priorities they have in the Oval Office and I am happy to work with them on these important issues.



Notable, but earlier:
Gen. Chuck Yeager's endorsement of Hunter
From the desk of
Gen. Chuck
Yeager:
November 20, 2006

To my Fellow
Americans,

Congressman Duncan Hunter is the best candidate for President of the United States of America that I know - he has integrity, tenacity, courage, and diplomacy. He is intelligent and thoughtful, does his research, and acts on it.

I have known Congressman Duncan Hunter for over 35 years. Duncan served his country in the Army and is a Vietnam vet. In Vietnam, he served in one of the most dangerous outfits - the 173rd Airborne Brigade and the 75th Army Rangers.

Duncan Hunter is the former and very effective Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and I am proud to be the Honorary Chair of the Congressman Duncan Hunter for President Committee.

Chuck Yeager

Alan Keyes Update

I have since listened to a radio interview of Alan Keyes, and also researched Fred Thompson more. I will create a separate post on Thompson, as it warrants a more in depth focus.

Regarding Alan Keye's position on Immigration, I can now vouch for him being a consistent and strong supporter of the Immigration policy. I'm going to write a more complete view of Alan Keyes than I intended. And it will sound harsh at the end, but honestly, this is my assessment of him, and I have followed him a long time.

Response to Reader Comments on Alan Keyes

I stand by my statement on why Hunter stands above the others in regards to China, I found only a minor reference to China at Keyes campaign website. An article from 2001 is impressive in terms of foresight, but I would like to see some evidence of Keyes having a concrete plan of dealing with the problem of China before adjusting my analysis.

The NAFTA comment I will not adjust until I have something concrete about Keyes and NAFTA. I couldn't find a position in text (sorry, can't watch videos right now) regarding NAFTA. I'm sorry, I don't like to read between the lines when it comes to making definite assertions about what a candidate truly stands for policy discussions. (Reading between the lines is useful for providing avenues for additional research for discrepancies. Like "Candidate X said Y in such a way it makes me think he is covering up something in area Z." So then I research area Z and see what I find.)

I referred to "Fair Tax" in the very specific sense, and my understanding is that only Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter have signed a sheet saying they support it. I agree that Alan Keyes supports a national sales tax, but the "Fair Tax" is a specific / particular instance of a national sales tax plan. Logically, it would be like me saying Mike H and Duncan H like Granny Smith Apples, and Alan Keyes likes Apples. The contention of the commenter is that therefore I must include Alan Keyes as liking Granny Smith Apples. Please note that I do not have an opinion on the "Fair Tax" instance of the national sales tax plan (except that calling it a 23% sales tax is misleading, it is really a 30% sales tax in any standard consumer's eyes) and therefore it didn't affect my ranking.

In conclusion
Alan Keyes is a decent candidate, the only other candidate besides Duncan Hunter** with large amounts of integrity. He is right on a number of issues (especially pro-life), but he has a BIG Achilles heel: He is (or appears) ungracious and proud.

In the interview today, he stated that he is the only principled candidate that has run on issues and been consistent on them, and that is why he ran. When he made the decision to run, Tancredo was still in the race, and of course Duncan Hunter was. In the interview today, by Jan Mickelson, he was given the opportunity to clarify his statements about all the candidates being phonies and running on agendas they have no history on, and he did not. For tier 1, I certainly can see that, but not if you include Duncan Hunter in the list.

Likewise, I saw the failing in his 2004 run against Barack Obama, where he started making weird statements, like Blacks (or African Americans[AA] if you prefer) that are ancestors of those who were brought as slaves should be exempt from the Income Tax , but not Blacks(or AA) whose ancestors were not slaves (e.g. Barack Obama). He also came across as having a disdain for liberals to such an extent that he seemed to lose self-control. In my opinion he lost against Barack not because Barack was better, but because Barack played up his calm demeanor, and the media hilighted the lack of demeanor for Keyes. Unfortunately, Barack was able to push his buttons.

This Achilles heel is not enough to rule him out as a valid candidate (and indeed, as a revolutionary, he'd be amazing!!), after all, he is eloquent and can explain the conservative thinking in a great number of issues [as long as his emotions don't get the better of him], and certainly conservatives have learned that it is important since having someone like Bush who can't articulate pro-life / pro-marriage issues if his life dependend on it. Keyes does not have the fatal flaw of being dishonest. But his fatal flaw is a big hazard, especially for someone who seems proud and therefore not likely to learn to overcome the weakness in national debates. Still, if Duncan Hunter excels in the areas that Keyes does and does not exhibit that fatal flaw, all the better reason to pick Duncan Hunter!!

Alan Keyes updated ranking:

Candidate\Criteria	Pro-Life	Honesty	Safety	Taxes	Work w/ Others	Comm	Immigration	Social Programs
Keyes	A+	A+	B	B	D-	B	A	A

Updated GPA for Keyes: 3.29, which puts him in 2nd place, after Duncan Hunter at 3.79

**Ron Paul had his lack of integrity shown in a recent Meet the Press interview, Russert cleaned his clock by showing that he has a double standard on pork for his district versus a lean and "constitutional" government for the US. Given that this is the key area he is running on, this is pretty fundamental. I've learned about Fred Thompson over the last week and no longer can cite him as honest, and must agree with Keyes that Thompson is a phony.

Letter to a former neighbor

Ed note: This was a letter from a week ago. I've since researched Thompson more, and know Keyes positions better, and will post an update on what I've learned.

Dear Jane,

I'm so sorry about not getting back to you sooner, I lost your email address and couldn't find your phone number. In particular, you asked me to tell you when I decided on a candidate to support, and I have, so I will give you the details on that, as well as on which candidates are ok second choices and why. If you want to talk w/ me directly, my cell phone number is ----, and our home phone number is ----. My email is -----, and I have a blog (that talks about politics -- and will probably have excerpts of this letter!) at http://torial.blogspot.com .

I write this as two major endorsements have come about, Tancredo has dropped out and supported Romney, and Republican Representative Steve King endorsed Thompson. Also in the news is that Romney has been outright lying to Katie Couric about his interview with Radio Talk Show Host Jan Mickelson ( http://www.mickelson.libsyn.com/). Jan Mickelson is a phenomenal pro-life Christian Radio talk show host, and his name has been defamed by Romney because of the interview. Also in the news is Mike Huckabee rising to prominence in the polls.

So, the available candidates are: Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, and Duncan Hunter.

Honesty:

At a high level, I can tell you the following candidates are not trustworthy (e.g. they are willing to lie about their history or use lies to their advantage): Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee. The best website for showing this willingness to lie is the impartial http://www.factcheck.org. For Mike Huckabee, he is also on record as saying he is the only candidate with a theology degree, and then it turns out he doesn't have a theology degree and majored in college in speech and communications.

In my opinion, Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Duncan Hunter, and Fred Thompson are the most honest candidates.

Pro-Life:

Alan Keyes, Duncan Hunter, and Mike Huckabee are the only candidates to consider when looking at things from a pure pro-life position. They are all excellent candidates and have had a consistent history in this regard.

Ron Paul and Fred Thompson have compromise positions on abortion -- they would return that to being a State's right issue, and not decided by the Federal Government. What this means is that it would be up to each state to decide if they had their way. Fred Thompson also looks at things very much through a lawyer, and not as a representative of the people, or as someone who is required to uphold the Constitution -- this can blur his decision making in other realms (such as he didn't vote to impeach Bill Clinton for perjury, but did vote to impeach him for obstruction of justice).

Rudy Guiliani is unabashedly pro-choice and pro-gay. Romney declares that he is pro-life, but he has been a very staunch supporter of pro-choice positions in the past, and made many commitments to planned parenthood and other such organizations to uphold Roe v Wade. Some may say he has changed, but everything about him strikes me as a phony, and willing to say what he needs to get elected. The fact that he isn't able to effectively articulate his "pro-life" stance indicates that he at least shouldn't be trusted for carrying the mantle of ending it.

Safety

Ron Paul probably has the most destructive view of safety out of all the Republicans -- this is largely due to his naivety of the threat of radical Islam and his extreme anti-war rhetoric. He would bring the troops home immediately and he would let Iran pursue a nuclear program. Mike Huckabee is probably the 2nd worst out of the bunch due to his somewhat simplistic view of interacting with other countries.

John McCain, Duncan Hunter, and Rudy Guiliani are probably the best of the bunch for the safety of the country. Both John McCain and Duncan Hunter served their country in the military, and have been strong supporters of reasonable treatment and support of our troops (even if it went against the Generals in power). Duncan Hunter is alone of all the candidates realizing the military threat of China (like that they routinely talk about attacking Los Angeles), and so stands above John McCain and Rudy Guiliani.

Economy/Taxes

Each candidate is in someways a decent candidate when it comes to the economy. All but Mike Huckabee can be reliably thought to lower taxes. Huckabee has shown a propensity to lie about his financial record (confirmed by Factcheck.org), and he has a strong record of raising taxes as Governor. The most extreme tax cuts would occur under Ron Paul, and he would most likely leave the govenment looking vastly different than what we've seen before. Whether that would be good for the economy as a whole I cannot say.

However, Mike Huckabee is strongly in favor of replacing the income tax with the "Fair Tax", which is a 30% sales tax (or euphemistically called 23% sales tax by playing w/ the numbers). Likewise Duncan Hunter is the only other candidate in favor of the "Fair Tax". I honestly don't know enough of the "Fair Tax" proposal to say whether it is a good program, but I can say that in general a sales tax is better than an income tax for the following reasons: 1) It gets the government out of the business of knowing how and where we make our money, and 2) It encourages savings (you can give yourself a tax cut by not spending money), 3) the standard tax payer would not have to fear audits any longer.

Guiliani, McCain, Romney, Paul, and Thompson are in favor of making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul are the only candidates that would be willing to get out of NAFTA.

Willingness to Work with others.

Alan Keyes and Ron Paul would be the worst in this range. Thompson and McCain would be the best.

Effectiveness / Communication Skills

This is obviously subjective. Thompson showed some skill in the last debate when he stood up against the dictator moderator. He was also pretty funny. Ron Paul Huckabee has been funny, and is quite articulate (and more interesting to listen to than Thompson). Duncan Hunter is excellent at explaining the rationale behind his positions, and seems to be the best at understanding the reason behind his position ( e.g. rather than spouting sound bites).



Immigration

The only candidate with a comprehensive immigration message is Duncan Hunter. He is the person that started building the border fence, and has fought to maintain the national sovereignty of the United States (like opposing the Law of the Sea Treaty, and the NAFTA super highway which would allow mexican semi drivers to drive in the US without any accountability).



Social Programs

Obviously the difference regarding social programs between conservatives and liberals is that liberals want the government to due what the church should be doing, and conservatives thing the church should be the one doing it. Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Guiliani are the most likely to government social programs, although Mike Huckabee is most likely the worst in this area. Huckabee was in favor of the SChip program which was nothing more than expanding socialized medicine -- even the more liberal front runners at the time opposed it.

Of the candidates left, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Alan Keyes are probably the best in this area. Thompson is in the 2nd tier.

Support for Israel

Every Republican candidate is on the record for supporting Israel at some level. Depending on who you talk to, Guiliani and McCain are horrible for Israel, or wonderful for Israel.

Tallying the Results (Somewhat subjective)

Candidate\Criteria	Pro-Life	Honesty	Safety	Taxes	Work w/ Others	Comm	Immigration	Social Programs
Guiliani	F	D	A	C	C	C	C	D
Romney	C	D	C	B	C	C	C	C
McCain	C	B	A	C	A	D	D	C
Paul	B	A	F	B-A	D	B	C	A
Huckabee	A	C	C	D	C	B	D	D
Thompson	B	B	B	B	A	B	C	B
Hunter	A+	A+	A+	B	B	B	A+	A
Keyes	A+	A+	C	C?	D	B	B	A

The best candidate, in my opinion is Duncan Hunter (GPA of 3.79). He is extremely strong in the issues that matter (for instance with respect to Pro-Life, he sponsored a bill that defines life to being at conception), but also not without his faults. The biggest complaint against him is that he is not polling well, or doesn't have enough money. However, I have chosen to stand on principle and fear God in this matter, rather than man. I believe that God wants me to support the best candidate for this country -- who will serve both Him and the country.

Other GPAs:

Thompson -- 3.00

Keyes -- 2.96

Paul -- 2.56 (Although F in Safety automatically rules him out in my opinion)

McCain -- 2.375

Huckabee -- 2.00

Romney -- 2.00 (If I had to pick between this tie, it would be Huckabee hands down. I trust him more, which isn't saying much).

Guiliani -- 1.75 (although his F in pro-life automatically rules him out for me)



If you find the reasoning sound, I encourage you to examine Duncan Hunter at http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=1 and also consider his historical records:

Organizational Ratings (in alphabetical order):
American Conservative Union: 92%
Americans for Better Immigration: A+
Americans for Tax Reform: 88.5%
Campaign for Working Families: 100%
Christian Coalition: 100%
Concerned Women for America: 100%
Citizens against Government Waste: 71%
Eagle Forum: 92%
Family Research Council: 100%
Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR): 100%
Gun Owners of America: A
National Federation of Independent Business: 100%
National Rifle Association: A+
National Right to Life Committee: 100%
National Tax Limitation Committee: 73%

I hope you have a most blessed and merry Christmas,

Sean

Videos of Duncan Hunter

This blog had two great videos of Duncan Hunter talking about how to handle foreign trade and national security. One point to hilight -- treat our trade agreements with other companies like business deals -- and do what we can to get rid of avoid the bad ones. This is refreshing compared to the mindless "Free-Trade" is always good line that a lot of ideological conservatives talk about.

Excellent summary of Duncan Hunter's positions

Duncan Hunters positions

Tancredo and Iowa Renewal Project

Interesting, I was just listening to Jan Mickelson and he was interviewing Tom Tancredo. He seems to be a funny guy :-) And actually more reasonable than his fear-inspiring commercials would have you believe. Interesting though was that Jan mentioned that he asked why only Huckabee spoke at the Iowa Renewal Project (a pastoral conference), and the reply was that everyone of the candidates were invited, but only Huckabee agreed to come, so Jan asked him if he was invited, and if so why he didn't come. Tom Tancredo said that he had not been invited. Jan insinuated that the Iowa Renewal Project is stealthfully endorsing Huckabee. Later in the broadcast Jan mentions that Tim Lehaye said that all the candidates were invited but only Huckabee came. However, Ron Paul's campaign says they weren't invited, Tancredo's compaign says they weren't invited, Romney's campaign says they weren't invited, McCain's campaign received no invite, and likewise Duncan Hunter's campaign. Seems that Tim Lehaye wasn't exactly honest... Any comments? Thoughts?

Additional info:

A photo of the itenary

MP3 of Jan Mickelson interviewing Tancredo

Updated Candidate Ranking

Candidate:	Party	In Agreement	Is Trustworthy	Would be Effective	Total (useful only for approx ranking)
Duncan	R	90%	90%	70%	250
Alan	R	90%	90%	60%	240
Fred	R	70%	70%	60%	200
Ron	R	70%	80%	50%	200
Tom Tan	R	70%	80%	50%	200
Mike Huck	R	70%	60%	60%	190
Bill Ri	D	40%	70%	70%	180
John Mc	R	50%	70%	50%	170
Mitt	R	80%	30%	60%	170
Rudy	R	50%	50%	70%	170
Barack	D	20%	60%	70%	150
Hillary	D	30%	40%	70%	140
Joe Bi	D	40%	40%	50%	130
John Ed	D	20%	20%	50%	90

Politics Redux, plus I've decided to endorse ...

I'm about to install Vista, so I thought I should put all my thoughts down quickly in case anything goes awry.

Wow... things have been pretty hectic in the political sphere.

Powerline Blog
Well, I've basically decided to not frequent that blog so much. They no longer seem impartial to the candidates and seem for better or worse to have decided on Romney without telling anyone. I do like some of their non-republican analysis, but anything else is decidedly biased. I was contemplating Ron Paul at one point, and found their flagrant dismissal of his platform to be somewhat unfair. Even a single point rebuttal for each of they items they complained about would have at least been an attempt as showing why they don't view Ron Paul as a good candidate.

Romney
I jumped into a blog commentary discussion of the group that was push polling anti-Mormon stuff to hurt Romney. My comments can be found at:
My thoughts on whether Romney's mormonism was important in analyzing him as a candidate
and
My response to the 17 points of a true church

Huckabee
Huckabee has been doing well in the polls here in Iowa, and from the people I talk to Huckabee has gained their interest and support. So the polls seem to reflect reality. In fact, one of my friends has supported (or endorsed him). And this has caused me to look a little closer at him. I actually like him a lot less now that I've looked into him. I've seen the statements he's made, plus heard him (just listened to a 2 day old interview by Jan Mickelson) and he makes blatantly unfactual statements about his record and his laws. Plus he's smooth -- on the Mickelson interview he says he doesn't attack other candidates, but only after making all sorts of insinuations without naming names -- but you know who he is talking about. He's too much of a political animal (in the worst sense) for me.

So who's left?
Thompson. But he has equivocated on clear issues too much for my taste. I like him more than Huckabee, but I'm really disappointed in him as a choice.

Tancredo isn't worth mentioning, he is using fear tactics to try to get attention.

Ron Paul -- I was thinking about backing him at the caucus as I like a limited gov't, and all that -- BUT his supporters were the last straw for me. I have heard of many a reporter or blogger inundated by Ron Paul supporter complaints. They are very active, and I give them that -- but they are a bit on the anarchic side of life for me (like this minor example of putting Ron Paul 08 bumper sticks on the back of street signs).

So that leaves me with Duncan Hunter. The person polling at 1% -- but clearly the most consistent conservative of the bunch. He is articulate about what he believes in (which is a big deal) without sounding shrill. He is experienced in many walks of life, including serving in the military (and his son is currently serving his 3rd tour in the middle east). None of the other candidates (that I know of) have served their country this way. Plus many more excellent things. And I asked myself, why not support Duncan? Well, the only reason is he isn't polling well, but I've decided I'm going to support the best candidate (Duncan Hunter)for the job and then we'll see what happens. This process was mirrored in an exhortation that I found only later.

In considering the candidates, take a look at Duncan Hunter. He may be just the candidate you are looking for in the President of the United States.

Politics and the talking heads

I was watching George Stephanopoulos' sunday morning show today and one of his panelists made a number of assumptions and conclusions that weren't based on any merit -- but the one I feel compelled to comment on is that Republican's aren't supporting Mitt Romney because he is Mormon. It is kind of a laughable statement -- certainly it doesn't reflect why I don't like or support him -- he just doesn't strike me as trustworthy, or having a moral base. It is no simpler than that.
To illustrate my general sense of the general political spectrum, I think you can sum it up in three major categories: 1) Do I agree with them, 2) Do I trust them, and 3) would they be effective.
Edit: Adjusted Guiliani rank to reflect various FactCheck.org articles
Candidate:	Party	In Agreement	Is Trustworthy	Would be Effective	Total (useful only for approx ranking)
Duncan	R	90%	90%	70%	250
Alan	R	90%	90%	60%	240
Mike Huck	R	80%	80%	60%	220
Fred	R	80%	80%	60%	220
Ron	R	80%	80%	50%	210
Tom Tan	R	70%	80%	50%	200
Sam	R	70%	50%	60%	180
Mitt	R	80%	30%	60%	170
Rudy	R	50%	50%	70%	170
John Mc	R	50%	70%	50%	170
Bill Ri	D	40%	60%	70%	170
Hillary	D	30%	40%	90%	160
Barack	D	20%	60%	60%	140
Joe Bi	D	40%	40%	50%	130
John Ed	D	20%	20%	50%	90

I think this pretty much captures my sense of the candidates. I think John Edwards would be the best Democratic nominee -- because it would be easiest to beat him (as he is so obviously fake). Bill Richardson strikes me as the best Democratic candidate for President (e.g. he would make the best President out of the bunch).


On the Republican side -- if the nominee isn't Alan Keyes, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, or Mike Huckabee, I'm probably going to vote 3rd party...