Redstate

I did listen to the interview... Looking for more, any suggestions?

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

...this? It's his official site.

I know his "official position", from his website etc, I was hoping for more information from bloggers (true sense of the candidate), rather than official sites which in the long run, mean very little. Oh well, I give up...

I thought that RedState would at least have a group of bloggers who would have inside information regarding Duncan... Maybe just a hope.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Here's the thing -- I think he'd be an awesome candidate, but I think history is against him.

On abortion, he is arguably the most conservative, having once introduced legislation to recognize a fetus as a child.

On immigration, he is very much for a secure border.

On taxes, he wants them cut and reformed.

On spending, however, he has been into earmarks, along with most of the establishment GOP. He voted for the medicare prescription drug bill.

Hunter is, first and foremost, a defense guy -- he's extremely strong on national security. He recognizes the growing threats coming out of Asia and South America. He's right on social issues, but when it comes to fiscal discipline, he's not as tight as I'd like.

Putting him in the pantheon of current candidates, I actually think Hunter is the most conservative, with a long history of being conservative.

Thank you very much Erick for taking the time to reply. Just what I wanted to hear without scouring the internet for sources.
Thanks very much...Sounds like my man.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

for the fiscal discipline part...actually, that worries me...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Earmarks don't increase federal spending.

Run like Reagan!

. . . leading to spending going through the roof including a new entitlement program while we’re told “suck it up, it’s for the War,” fiscal conservatism IMO is the issue that’s going to distinguish the presidential candidates.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

...I was scouring the web just like you. On Hunter, I have no more info than anybody else.

I apologize for the snarky tone, though. Caught me in a drugged-up state. Cool?

From his site:

“American workers are the most productive and innovative labor force in the world. Unfortunately, they are asked to compete in an unfair environment against other workers who make only a fraction of a living wage and are employed by companies that face few, if any, responsibilities to the environment or the long-term prospects of their employees. Our domestic manufacturers are forced to compete against foreign companies that benefit from their country’s currency and regulatory regimes. Ominously, China is cheating on trade and using billions of American trade dollars to build ships, planes and missiles at an alarming rate while, at the same time, taking millions of American jobs. I will reverse this “one-way street” with a new policy of fair trade for the American worker.”

Other than the “China arming itself angle” (which I’m somewhat sympathetic to), it sounds a lot like the usual “American workers shouldn’t have to compete against cheap foreign labor in countries with fewer regulatory burdens” line that we often hear from organized labor or other groups seeking protectionist policies. Hunter also supported the $170 Billion tax increase on American consumers known as the 2002 Farm Bill, opposed NAFTA, opposed GATT, and tried to water dowan a previous Defense appropriations bill with a silly “Buy American” amendment which would make the bidding for Pentagon contracts even less competitive by trying to scare people with the (shudder) thought that an American serviceman might be wearing a beret made in China.

The preponderance of this suggests that Hunter is running a Tancredo-style nativist campaign but using the War more than the threat of illegal immigration as his hook. Just and Brownback and Huckabee ought to be unacceptable to fiscal conservatives for their “compassionate conservatism” as an excuse for profligate spending and the further erosion of federalism, we ought to be just as wary of the Hunter-type candidates who, much like Hugh Hewitt, have used “the War” as their universal justification for the further encroachment on our economic liberties.

IMO we’ve had about six years of both coming from the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans, I am not willing to repeat that mistake again in 2008.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

You rightly resist a "further encroachment on our economic liberties," but that encroachment stems from the actual policies of some of our foreign trading partners, particularly China, who undercut the economic liberty of American capitalists and American workers. Both entrepreneurs and workers bear the brunt of competing on an unfair playing field, one that is established through the practices of currency manipulation, tarriffs, and government subsidies of Chinese exporters that compete with American firms.

Why should our government stand idly by as our firms (and ultimately the American people--our domestic companies' stakeholders) shoulder the cost of China's economic growth? I would say that Rep Hunter has chosen the conservative position: defending the prosperity of Americans against a foreign regime that wishes to appropriate American wealth to its own purposes.
____________________________
"Our job is to bash the president"
Newsweek's Evan Thomas, on the role of the MSM

Continued "free trade" amounts to unilateral disarmament in a trade war.

Sure, there's a lot we can do, independent of protectionism, to make American businesses and workers more competitive:

-- lower the costs imposed by taxation
-- lower the costs imposed by excessive regulation
-- reform federal law to lessen union leverage and induce the unions to be more reasonable, i.e., to work WITH management when possible rather than trying to pick a fight and always demand "more" despite the consequences to profit and market share.

Having said that, however, even a free-market America couldn't compete on the uphill playing field presented.

Even if we eliminated the fed and state corporate income taxes entirely, reduced regulatory costs, and obtained union cooperation with management, it will still be IMPOSSIBLE for American workers to compete with people who work for a dollar an hour. It's heartless and unrealistic to demand that they do so.

China is definitely engaged in war against us through "trade." If we don't acknowledge that we're in a war, we're guaranteed to lose.

The economic & social consequences of destroying America's manufacturing base are bad enough. But the most frightening thought is this: in a war with China, how and where will we manufacture the equipment needed to win?

We won't be able to say, "um, China, yeah, could you guys hold up on attacking for a few years so we can build some factories and educate and train some people to work in them? or how about using all your factories to make us some planes, missiles, satellites, body armor, and subs? thanks"

This looks like comment spam, scattered across numerous threads. I've disabled your account. Hit the contact form if you think my decision was in error.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

or a very, very low-wattage IQ troll.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller