Brownback (left) and Hunter
Sen. Sam Brownback. and Congressman Duncan Hunter are running for president, and if the primary were today, my vote would go to one of the two.
What's really depressing is that the system is such that these guys will never be able to raise the cash needed to sit at the "big table" of aspirants along with McCain (whom I detest), Guliani (whom I distrust), Clinton, Obama, and maybe Edwards and Romney.
Both of these guys have plenty of governing experience, and both appear to be untouchable regarding their conservative legitimacy. Their voting records are solid, and both to this point, are scandal free.
A lot can change in a political year, but if I had my choice, Sam Brownback would be our next president, and I'm not so cautious to make such a declarative statement about such an unforeseeable event basically because I've been saying this for the last year. However, I must also say that the more I read about Duncan Hunter, the more legitimate he seems.
cheers
Zeius
5 comments:
Dr. Zeius,
My regards...
Sir, if this country hopes to survive these perilous times when enemies from without (islamic fascists) and within (marxists) inexaustibly struggle for the blood and minds of the American people, we must have true conservatives. Giuliani nor McCain subscribe to the conservative ideology of a Goldwater or Reagan. God help us if either the radical Femarxist Clinton or Obama the Manchurian candidate obtain the office.
thoughts:
1. my first inclination is to say that it is way too early to have an informed opinion about these things. as we know from history, most candidacies flame out early and often. yet, the few that make it to the debates, can have a dramatic effect. which leads me to...
2. subtextual effect candidates. these are the people that have no chance of winning the nomination, much less a general election, but have an underlying, yet substantive, impact on the tone, direction, and dialogue of a campaign. on the right, gingrich would be this guy. he's yet to decide on running, but if he does, he'll move everything to the right...forcing mccain and giuliani to answer tough questions. brownback and hunter could fill this role, but it is unlikely that they'll make it that far. on the left, kucinich is definitely trying to be this guy, but will probably give way to vilsak and richardson as the conversational rudders, so to speak.
3. finally, there is a benefit to compromise. giuliani is my guy right now. not the perfect fit for me, but he has something. it is true that on many social issues, ol' rudy and i might differ, but this can easily be overcome. he spent years in the reagan justice dept....serving with the likes of alito and roberts...even suggesting last year that they are his ideal type for the bench. as my main problem with modern social issues is a hyperactive and excessively political judiciary, were rg to appoint judges that allowed public discourse to solve these conflicts, rather than an unelected branch of government, i would support his presidency confidently and totally. he, in my opinion, understands better than any other viable candidate, the intense and imminent danger we face in radical Islam and its facile appeasement by Europe. if he were to remove the judiciary as an active agent for social reconstitution, that would be a compromise worth making.
Vox –
I couldn’t agree more that a return to true conservative principles is the dire need of the hour. However, my point wasn’t to discredit McCain and Guliani’s claims to conservatism but to promote Brownback’s. My saying I detest one and distrust the other is more a comment on their personal character than their political ties. It goes without saying that either of them would be better than anyone on the left. Rather, my goal in this post was to highlight two men that, in the discussion of strong conservative candidates, are being overlooked. By your response you either misunderstood and defended McCain and Guliani as being truly conservative candidates or precisely understood and defended them as the only true conservative candidates. On the chance that it’s the latter…
I’ll break down Sen. Brownback’s voting record (I know very little about Hunter) thanks to “ontheissues.org.”. I’ll only hit the majors.
ON BUDGET AND ECONOMY:
• Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
• Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
• Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
• Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)
I have no problem with any of this.
ON CIVIL RIGHTS:
• Robustly religious public square better than naked square. (Jan 2006)
• Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
• Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
• Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
• Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
• Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
• Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
• Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
• Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
The only ones I have a problem with here are his voting for the Flag desecration amendment and the same-sex marriage amendment. I detest flag burners and think they should be punished by society and not by the government. I agree that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman but on the state level, not the federal level.
ON EDUCATION:
• Stare decisis would have upheld separate-but-equal. (Jan 2006)
• Voted NO on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
• Voted NO on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
• Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
• Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
• Voted NO on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
• Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
• Voted YES on Educational Savings Accounts. (Mar 2000)
• Voted YES on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. (Mar 1999)
• Voted YES on education savings accounts. (Jun 1998)
• Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
• Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
I think the last statement says it all. I have no problem here.
ON ENERGY:
• Voted NO on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's AMWR. (Nov 2005)
• Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
• Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
• Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
• Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
• Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
• Voted NO on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
• Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
• Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
• Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
• Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
• Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
• Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
More or less a party-line guy here.
ON FOREIGN POLICY:
• Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (May 2002)
• Voted YES on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons. (Sep 2000)
• Voted YES on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
• Voted NO on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions. (Jul 1998)
• Voted NO on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech. (Apr 1998)
• Voted YES on $17.9 billion to IMF. (Mar 1998)
• Monitor human rights in Uganada-Sudan crisis. (Aug 2004)
No real problem here. Not a huge fan of NATO, but not a huge detractor either.
ON GOVERNMENT REFORM:
• Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
• Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
• Voted NO on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
• Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
• Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
• Voted NO on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
• Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
His rejection of McCain-Feingold and his vote to require photo ID at voter registration are huge for me. Yes I said it, McCain-Feingold was ridiculous.
ON HEALTH CARE:
• Voted NO on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
• Voted NO on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
• Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
• Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
• Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
• Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
• Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
• Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
• Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
• Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
• Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
• Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
He's anything but a federalized health care guy. Love this.
ON HOMELAND SECURITY:
• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
• Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
• Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
• Voted NO on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)
• Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
• Voted NO on allowing another round of military base closures. (May 1999)
• Voted YES on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May 1999)
• Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (Mar 1999)
• Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999)
• Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex basic training. (Jun 1998)
• Voted YES on favoring 36 vetoed military projects. (Oct 1997)
• Voted NO on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)
• Federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)
• Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record. (Dec 2003)
I think the last statement sums this up.
ON IMMIGRATION:
• Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
• Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
• Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)
This is the only major area where he and I part ways a little. In my opinion, he’s a little soft on immigration, but he also is a huge supporter on mandatory id checks for voter registration which would curb illegal voting leaving only the economic and cultural effects of unchecked immigration which are important to me as well. As I said, I’d like him tougher in this issue, and I realize it’s a big issue, but I definitely don’t McCain carrying the torch here. He’s too much of an opportunist to be a hard-liner here no matter what he says. Guliani, however, may be strong in this area. I’m not sure where he falls on this.
ON LABOR ECONOMICS:
• Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
• Voted YES on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
• Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
• Voted YES on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time. (May 1997)
• Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
You can’t argue with this, unless, of course you’re a fiscal liberal (read: socialist).
ON SOCIAL SECURITY:
• Voted YES on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)
• Voted YES on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. (May 1998)
• Voted YES on allowing personal retirement accounts. (Apr 1998)
• Rated 0% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
I know, I know…Lockbox. Still, I have read elsewhere of his support for privatization which I tend to agree with.
ON TAX REFORM:
• Voted YES on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
• Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
• Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)
• Voted YES on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
• Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
• Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
• Voted YES on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
• Voted YES on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
• Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)
• Rated 72% by NTU, indicating "Satisfactory" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
Solid here.
ON WAR AND PEACE:
• Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
• Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
• Voted NO on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005)
• Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
• Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
• Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)
• Voted NO on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
• Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
He’s held the line on Iraq, and however that makes one feel, he’s been consistent. He’s caught some flack here lately for voicing skepticism on the surge, but who isn’t at least skeptical. I’m pretty sure he supports it.
All in all, he’s as solid as anyone.
Herodotus –
I don’t doubt that Guliani would be solid in his judicial appointments, but, here again, I never said he wouldn’t. I simply wanted to highlight Brownback who vehemently opposes the liberal social agenda and would appoint judges who do as well. Whether or not he would have the wisdom to appoint those who would kill the judiciary’s current activist tendency or not, I don’t know, but he was all about Alito and Roberts.
Also, great points about lower tier candidates driving the dialogue. I really hope Brownback at least makes it far enough to do so.
All in all, I have to stand by MY statement. This guy is going to have to give me a reason to not vote for him, and it’s early so he still could, but, to me, he’s the most suitable of all in the field right now. Notice, I said in the field right now…If Gingrich jumps in, I’ll have some thinking to do.
cheers.
V.I. –
My apologies, upon re-reading your comment I realize now you said, “Guliani NOR McCain subscribe to the conservative ideology of Goldwater or Reagan”; whereas, I somehow read, “Guliani OR McCain subscribe…”.
I couldn’t agree more.
cheers
No offense taken...I will accept as penence the imensely useful information you gathered.
vox ad inferus!,
VI
Post a Comment