.
Now Viewing: All| All
home help

Search Blogs

archives

Latest Posts

Remember that letter I wrote and sent to our "leaders" In Washington DC and Austin? I sent it to nearly every US Senator, US Congressman, Texas State Senators and Congressman, the President, VP, and even our Governor as well as several other prominent Republicans and leaders. Since writing that letter I have looked long and hard for someone who could meet what I consider my list of requirements to be a candidate I will support. Well, I have found just that person - Duncan Hunter!

Why Duncan Hunter you ask? Let me go through the long list of reasons he is the most qualified candidate currently running for the Republican nomination and eventually the presidency. I'll star with a few statistics and then compare what I've found about Mr. Hunter with what I wrote in my original letter.

The following tables are from votematch.org - you can go there, answer questions and find out for yourself who you are most like on the issues.

Scores & Analysis

Candidate

 

Total

93%

 

 

Social

94%

 

Economic

92%

 

 

Duncan Hunter
Republican Representative (CA-52)

Comparing Social Answers between You and Duncan Hunter

Comparing Economic Answers between You and Duncan Hunter

As you can see from the answers above the only thing that keeps me from having a 100% matching score with Mr. Hunter is the differences on a couple of issues between support/strongly support and oppose/strongly oppose. These are but minor differences in my opinion.

So, let's go through some excerpt from my letter. I'll bold and indent what I wrote in the original letter.

The Republican Party needs a change of direction and a refocusing on its core values. Find new leadership for the Republican Party. ... We need leadership that is decidedly conservative...

I can find no other candidate with conservative credentials as solid as Mr. Hunters. The American Conservative Union gives Mr. Hunter a lifetime rating of 92 – and that’s over 26 years of service!

We can only move forward with a renewed commitment to our core values and principles. Republicans did not just lose the majority - we lost our way - we walked away from the limited government principles that highlighted the Republican Congress. We walked away from those principles in letting those among us violate the rules of ethics, common sense morals and God given laws.

A friend of Mr. Hunters (who has known him for almost 30 years) that I met just last week made an interesting comment to me that proved once again what I had already believed to be true about Mr. Hunter. She said, “Duncan has no skeletons in his closet”. That was wonderful news – albeit rare in these days. How many of us can make that statement about ourselves? Certainly not me….. It will be refreshing to have a candidate – and a President – who doesn’t have to explain past mistakes! The Family Research Council gives Mr. Hunter a 100% rating, indicating a very strong record of family values that include protecting marriage, the unborn, religious freedoms for Christians (not just non-Christians), and protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. The Eagle Forum gives Mr. Hunter a 92 rating and The Christian Coalition rates him at 100%.

We must remain dedicated to a balanced federal budget, entitlement reform and limited federal government. Balance the federal budget but not by increasing spending and raising taxes. Cut spending and reduce government. These are core Republican principles, and we must return to them.

From Mr. Hunters website he says “I support a balanced federal budget, with additional revenue provided by economic growth, not increased taxes” and “A balanced federal budget is a priority for our national economic health and long-term prosperity.”

We must work to overhaul the tax code.

Mr. Hunter says, “The current tax code unfairly imposes a penalty on married couples and I believe legislative action is needed immediately.” “I firmly support reform of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and believe it is the most pressing individual income tax issue facing Americans today.” “I believe our current tax code is full of antiquated policies that were installed for a specific reason and for a specific time, but never removed.” “Clearly, major tax reform is necessary. I have consistently supported efforts to reform the tax code, making it simpler, fairer, and more growth oriented. By replacing our current convoluted and fraud-ridden system with more simplified tax requirements, I believe we will be able to meet the dual goals of providing core government services and returning much needed income back to our families.” According to On the Issues website Mr. Hunter voted YES on all of the following: retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends, providing tax relief and simplification, making permanent an increase in the child tax credit, permanently eliminating the marriage penalty, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"), $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. Americans for Tax Reform give Mr. Hunter a lifetime rating of 88.5 and he has signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge . The National Tax Limitation Committee gave him an ‘A’ for the 109th Congress (05-06) and he even gains a ‘B’ from the National Taxpayers Union..

We must fix Social Security. The way things are right now there will likely not be funding to support me, my children and definitely not my grandchildren. Privatizing Social Security may be the solution; raising social security tax is not.

Mr. Hunter’s record indicates he believes we need to find ways to strengthen the Social Security program. He voted yes on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable, on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits and has stated that taxes on Social Security earnings should be reduced.

Determine a real direction for Iraq. Decide on a specific goal, make that happen and get our troops out. I fully support our troops and what we are doing in Iraq but at some point Iraq needs to step up and take responsibility for themselves. We aren’t going to solve all of their ethnic problems – they will need guidance and help – but they must learn to do that. While we are there we need to do everything in our power to better protect the lives of our troops first and foremost.

From the Core Principles section of his website Mr. Hunter states “The greatest protection of human rights in this decade has been the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Religious freedom is part and parcel of any free society the U.S. stands up. I also strongly support U.S. efforts to establish free societies in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Real immigration reform must take place and our borders have to be made secure. We must fix the problem of illegal immigration without amnesty. Those who are here illegally are criminals and must not be rewarded.

Mr. Hunter voted yes on building a fence along the Mexican border, on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project, on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment and has been rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. He states on his website “Protecting our homeland begins at our nation’s borders and it is imperative that our border enforcement agencies be provided with the necessary resources to ensure that we know both who and what are entering the country. I believe in providing Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement corps with sufficient strength to secure our borders and providing for interior enforcement throughout the country because it is imperative in our fight to protect Americans. … Building fences in strategic locations along our international borders is a proven method of keeping America safe and, despite recent attempts to undo the Congressional mandated funding provided for this effort, I am committed to this effort and confident the fence will be built.”

We must do everything within our power to confirm conservative judges – judges who will strictly interpret the Constitution and laws and not legislate from the bench.

Mr. Hunter’s view on judges? He says “I support people with good judgment, proven values, a belief in God, and a heart for the least of us, including the unborn. I believe it is important that those sitting on the bench understand that they have a responsibility to strictly interpret our nation’s laws and not legislate from the bench with their own political or social agenda.”

We must do everything in our power to protect the sanctity of innocent life. Protect the unborn at all stages – from embryo to delivery.

Mr. Hunter introduced the Right to Life Act which legally defines “personhood” at the moment of conception and which would grant all constitutional rights to the unborn. He opposes human cloning, embryonic stem-cell research, and federal funding of abortions. Mr. Hunter was also given (and this is my favorite rating) a 0% rating by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record and a 100% rating from the National Right to Life. He stated in May 2007 that it will be a “Good day for America when Roe v. Wade is repealed.”

We must remain committed to the sanctity of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.

Mr. Hunter cosponsored and voted for H.J. Resolution 88 which proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. He has stated “I firmly believe that children need the unique influence offered by both a father and a mother.”

We must remain strong in our belief in Second Amendment rights, if those rights are stripped from us we lose as a people and as a nation.

Mr. Hunter believes that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and that “It is about the right of you and me to be secure in our homes. We must vigorously defend against all attempts to chip away at the Second Amendment.” He has received an A+ rating from the NRA.

Posted by CptMG on Jul 25, 2007 2:36 PM

I thought I'd throw out my first blog as a response to the Dallas Morning News article regarding the recent budget meetings in Rowlett.

The article stated that "they (the majority of city council members) acknowledge will require staff cutbacks and reductions in city services."

Well of course it will, but those same council members do not want to cut priority resources or services - they want to focus on unnecessary expenditures - like middle management.  This is no different than what corporate American does regularly.  It's tough but necessary.  Besides, we elected this new city council on the premise of being fiscal conservatives - they are just proving that's what they are.

The article went on to say "Al Alberts and Dennis Alsup said in budget work sessions this week that they could not support reducing city services."

Surprise, surprise, surprise.  And those same two city council members have voted to increase our city taxes year after year.

Again the article says "The cuts he proposed included eliminating merit-based pay raises, cutting eight full-time and three part-time jobs, reducing library operations from 60 hours a week to 50, and reorganizing several departments to eliminate positions. One department head position – the economic development director's job – was also cut."

Many of the cuts proposed - and you'll see this if you read the proposal posted on the Rowlett city website - are cuts designed to make the city council look like the bad guys if they agree to them.  It seems no effort was put into really researching and finding appropriate areas to cut in.  Instead the proposed cuts are cuts that would be very obvious to the public and would likely cause public outcry.  Why would such cuts be proposed?  Because cuts hurt. But sometimes we all have to make cuts in our budgets.

"Council member Todd Gottel expressed reservations about some reductions, such as library hours."  

Hooray for Todd!  Besides, how can cutting 10 hours out of the library per week possibly cut the 2.5 employees (1 full time, 3 part time) that the proposal indicates it would?

"And several council members said they were concerned about eliminating the economic development director at a time when the city is trying to bring in more businesses." 

Instead of cutting the director, why not cut the two assistants.

"While the council did not present specific areas to cut further".

That is not the councils job.  The city staff should make appropriate budget cut proposals.

"Guiding principles" - "Restoring some merit raises, treating public works, police and fire departments as the highest priority. Management, nonessential staff and support staff, as well as nonpersonnel items such as equipment and travel, should be cut, but no "front-line workers" should be cut. Considering economic development, code enforcement and communications departments as second-tier priority departments, while keeping services "at a high level" but within overall budget constraints. Reviewing the remaining departments in the city to determine whether they need to be streamlined or eliminated. Dedicating surplus funds to emergencies or capital improvements."

Hooray for the Mayor and his guiding principles!

"Mr. Owens told council members that they'll have to make trade-offs if spending is to be cut – such as dealing with slower service in the planning department, relying on volunteers more at the animal shelter and offering fewer programs at the Community Centre."

Slower service?  Would that be slower than the current road construction?

"Mr. Owens said, however, that it's difficult to compare cities' tax rates."

No it's not. Ours is 74.72 cents.  Other cities are lower.  It's simple math!

"We don't have the sales tax base for our size; we don't have the commercial base for our size,". 

That's why we need to keep the Economic Budget Director....

"Mayor Pro Tem Cindy Rushing said that she does see inefficiencies – like having middle management where there's not necessarily a need. "There's a point where you need them, but I'm not sure we're there," Ms. Rushing said."

Yes, Yes, Yes!

"I don't think the 5 percent reduction will have a huge effect on services," he said. "If the citizens say, 'You're cutting too deeply,' we'll listen to them."

And that, Mr Mayor, is why we elected you (and Ms. Rushing, Mr. Gottel and Mr Mays).  Because you listen to us!  Thank you!

Posted by CptMG on Jul 15, 2007 1:16 AM

Most Recent Comments

Here is the remainder of my blog post: In addition to the issues I've highlighted above Mr....

Bloggers

Privacy | Terms of Service | Feedback | contact us | faq | about this site | advertising © 2009 The Dallas Morning News, Inc., subsidiary of A.H. Belo Corp. All Rights Reserved.