Farewell to Duncan Hunter. Farewell to a fine man.

As the polls closed, longshot Republican presidential candidate California Rep. Duncan Hunter, after a disappointing finish in the Nevada caucuses, and not expected to place well in S.C., decided to drop out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination, campaign manager Roy Tyler tells ABC News’ Teddy Davis.

God Bless Duncan Hunter and the fence he’s builiding with his bare hands. From the San Diego Tribune:

WASHINGTON — Duncan Hunter’s campaign spokesman said on Wednesday that the Alpine Republican may soldier on until the Republican convention late this summer despite having received only about 1.3 percent of the GOP vote in the first four contests for the presidential nomination.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t go right down to the convention. He is not a quitter,” said Roy Tyler in a telephone interview one day after former Massachusetts Gov Mitt Romney breathed new life into his once-faltering presidential campaign with a victory in the Michigan GOP primary.

From Michelle Malkin:

Just in from the Hunter campaign. News coming at 2:00pm Eastern:

For Immediate Release: January 7, 2007
Contact: Bob Bevill, (978) 339-3198, (603) 913-1770

Presidential Candidate and California Congressman Duncan Hunter will be making a major announcement today at 2:00 p.m. (EST), regarding the future of his Presidential bid. All media are encouraged to attend or contact Bob Bevill, National Media Coordinator, to arrange alternate interviews.

DUNCAN HUNTER ANNOUNCEMENT
Radisson Hotel Lobby
700 Elm Street
Manchester, New Hampshire
2:00 p.m. (EST)

***

Rep. Hunter has been a stalwart advocate for strict immigration enforcement, border security, and a strong national defense. If he withdraws, which seems likely, his presence will be greatly missed by grass-roots conservatives. I’ve never been able to answer questions from readers about why his campaign never caught fire given his excellent credentials and expertise (compared to, say, Mike Huckabee’s). Politics is weird and inexplicable like that.

Question: Will Hunter throw his support to one of the other candidates? Which one?

Any Guesses?

Mexicans fear Huckabee
By Jeremy Schwartz | Monday, January 7, 2008, 10:58 AM

A week ago, most Mexicans had never heard of Mike Huckabee. After the former Baptist minister’s victory in Iowa, many here now view Huckabee as a danger. Huckabee is generally seen as the most conservative of the Republican candidates and as such, the toughest on immigration (Mitt Romney might have something to say about that characterization).Here’s how this morning’s Reforma newspaper analyzed Huckabee’s victory:”The triumph of Mike Huckabee in the Iowa caucus is not good news for Mexico. It happens that the ex-governor of Arkansas … is winning supporters in great part through his plan to seal the border with Mexico with a wall and more Border Patrol. He also has the support of such “wonderful” people as James Gilchrist, founder of the anti-immigrant Minuteman movement and the actor Chuck Norris, who played the role of a violent Texas Ranger.”

In the Milenio newspaper, columnist Diego Petersen Farah writes, “Huckabee’s position on immigration is absolutely radical…Without a doubt, for Mexico and Latin America in general, Barack Obama would be a much more empathetic president, although not free of problems.”

He wrote this piece a little earlier about the wider view of the GOP candidates:

McCain gets love south of the border
By Jeremy Schwartz | Monday, January 7, 2008, 09:54 AM

Republican has almost become a four letter word here in Mexico, which largely sees the GOP as xenophobic and rabidly anti-immigrant. Republican candidates are seen as stepping all over themselves in an attempt to flash their tough on immigration credentials. The great Republican hope though is Sen. John McCain, who defied his party last year by co-sponsoring a broad immigration reform bill.

Analysts here are putting a lot of stock in McCain’s performance tomorrow night in the New Hampshire primary. Ricardo Raphael, a columnist for the El Universal newspaper, writes today that a McCain win would show that “the xenophobia in our neighboring country has lost a fundamental battle …On the other hand, if Romney or Giuliani recover their political vigor and manage to get past McCain or Huckabee (the winner of the Iowa primaries), the anti-immigration flag will continue to fly and the very soon it will be the Democratic candidates…that will have to define themselves before the issue.”

It seems that McCain is feared the least out of all the current candidates - This has some interesting ramifications going into the big show - McCain is trying to build himself up into the GOP hopeful, but with such a huge percentage opposing compassion of any kind to illegal immigrants, this could stop him dead in his tracks.

In a campaign that for the last month had been reduced to floating crosses, haircuts, quick quips, and questions like “What would Jesus do,” it is sad that it takes a tragic event of international proportions to remind voters and pundits alike of the one issue that hovers over the entire presidency- the fact that we are at war. It says a great deal about the sorry state of affairs and attention spans that the next Commander in Chief will have to inherit an unholy mess in the Middle East, while for the last few months, the voting public and pundits have not paid attention to it.

Pundits need to get over religion, hairdos, stupid questions from youtube debates, and any of the other garbage that generation Y has bestowed upon us, and wisen up. The safety of our country and our men and women in combat depend on it. We, as voters, owe them that much. Everything else becomes secondary when it comes to the matters of life and death. I’m not talking about the lives of the unborn here, for that is another debate for another time. We won’t be able to argue over pro-life credentials if we don’t have people to make babies. That might be an over exaggeration, but you get the point. All the other issues should still take a back seat when it comes to the safety of our nation and its citizens. This is one of the defining moments of the 21st century, and I hope the GOP nominee, whoever it may be, is ready to deal with that.

From the moment they take office, they will have to make decisions with the lives of our troops at stake. There won’t be time to ponder the decisions, wait for reports, dig through different suggestions; they must be able to come into the presidency with the ability to make choices of monumental consequences without second guessing, regrets, or time to change their mind.

That time is coming, and it is up to the voters, the pundits, and the nominees to ensure that whoever the candidate is, they are willing, able, and fully prepared to take that responsibility on their shoulders. This isn’t a criticism of any one candidate, but hopefully a wakeup call to those who need to get their priorities in order.

Hat tip to mornincoffee…

Fred Thompson’s tax plan, released this morning, seperated his position from some of the other contenders. Thompson is one of the few GOP hopefuls that offers the flat tax. The plan is a qualified endorsement of the Taxpayers Choice Act, or the “flat tax.” With this plan, which is outlined here, in pdf, Thompson has taken a pretty bold step, as he did with his social security plan.

From the AP:

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson proposed an income tax plan Sunday that would allow Americans to choose a simplified system with only two rates: 10 percent and 25 percent.
Thompson’s proposal, announced on “Fox News Sunday,” would allow filers to remain under the current, complex tax code or use the flat tax rates.
Asked whether the plan would cut too deeply into federal revenues, the former Tennessee senator and actor said experts “always overestimate the losses to the government” when taxes are cut.

“We’ve known for years any time we have lowered taxes and any time we’ve lowered tax rates, we’ve seen growth in the economy,” Thompson said.
Thompson added that money would be saved by his Social Security reform plan. He proposed that workers younger than 58 receive smaller monthly Social Security checks than they are now promised. Individuals could contribute 2 percent of their paycheck to a personal retirement account, an amount that would be matched by the Social Security trust fund.
The retirement plan “faces up to the fact that Social Security is going bankrupt and we’re going to have to do something about it,” he said.

The fact is that he has followed up on his promise of overhauling the current tax code. The plan has been supported by the Heritage Foundation, Steve Forbes, the Club for Growth, the CATO Institute, Chief Justice John Roberts, Sam Brownback, and Dick Armey, to name a few.

Among the other GOP contenders, John McCain has been supportive of it. Mike Huckabee favored the tax, but has now become an advocate of the FAIR Tax, which is not the same thing (see below). Tancredo and Ron Paul support it (he supports no tax). Rudy Giuliani’s position on the issue is not that clear, but I was late to the whole debate on his position. He seems to favor a more moderate form of revision, but does not endorse the tax. Romney also favors a simplification, but has criticized the flat tax as recently as April, and has said that he is opposed to it. Sam Brownback proposed a very similar plan to Thompson’s before he departed from the race.

However, according to CNBC, no major Republican candidate was, as of 10/9:

“currently running on a flat income tax,though Mike Huckabee is pushing a flat consumption (sales) tax to replace the income tax altogether “

Well, I guess we have one now.

The Flat Tax was originally authored by Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka in this book, published and assisted by the Hoover Institute.

In arguing for the proposal, Race42008 contributor DeRoy Murdocke, in April of this year, wrote that:

Americans deserve a voluntary flat tax. Those who love this gargantuan Tax Code, its multiple rates, and baroque intricacies, should be free to keep filing form after form, if that makes them happy. Meanwhile, those who prefer a flat rate with few if any deductions should be free to choose a postcard that would ask one’s name, address, and income, and a simple calculation for, say, 17 percent thereof.

Politically, a voluntary flat tax would let issue-starved Republicans and conservatives avoid a wrestling match with Democrats and liberals over keeping or scrapping the charitable or home-mortgage deductions. Instead, the Right can argue for giving Americans the freedom to select between two available systems. The sales slogan is simple: “It’s your tax. It’s your choice.” Let the Left argue against granting Americans that option. The Right can win that fight.

Next year, Utahans will choose between either a traditional, six-bracket tax (from 2.3 to 6.98 percent) with exemptions and write-offs, or a simple 5.35 percent flat tax without deductions. The Beehive State will join flat-taxing Estonia, Slovakia, and Ukraine, all of which have seen their economies energized by a single tax rate on income. Even Russia has jettisoned its three-bracket system and its 30 percent top rate on incomes above $5,000. Instead, it has embraced a 13 percent flat-rate tax.

“Before the flat tax, most salaries were paid as cash under the table. That almost has disappeared,” said Yuri Mamchur, director of the Real Russia Project at Seattle’s Discovery Institute. “It’s easier to pay 13 percent than to avoid it.” The former Muscovite added: “The flat tax contributed to economic growth, but more importantly, it sped Russia’s return to the rule of law.”

Hoover Institution economist Alvin Rabushka concurs. “The low flat rate contributed to the decline in capital flight [and] improved taxpayer compliance [in Russia],” he said. In fact, tax evasion in Russia has gone the way of the Gulag. Since the Kremlin adopted the flat tax on January 1, 2001, revenues have swelled 128 percent after inflation.

If the flat tax is good enough for the former Evil Empire, it’s good enough for America’s embattled taxpayers.

I don’t really agree with their results, or at least am not sure what criteria they were using, but Forbes has posted a new candidate analysis page rating the ideology of the candidates. I thought it was interesting and might start some debate, either way.

Each name is linked to the candidate’s analysis page at forbes.com’s candidate central:

Sam Brownback:

(more…)

I have leaned to Mitt Romney most of the past year. At times, I have come close to endorsing him or Duncan Hunter. Mitt can win. Duncan can’t. Both would be great for America.

I want to win, and I think that Rudy Giuliani would win in a landslide. He would also be a great choice.

But when a candidate who is as good as the above candidates on every issue; would also probably win; and, significantly, expresses a willingness to address three of the main things I have been looking for in a nominee, I have to re-consider my intention to remain uncommitted until November.

I speak of Fred Thompson’s

1) 1) Description of Iran as committing “acts of war” against the United States;

2) Willingness to consider ending “birthright citizenship” including his recognition that the claim that the 14th Amendment requires same is not settled law; and

3) Consideration of even the Florida Everglades as not necessarily off limits for oil exploration, so critical is it for national security that we not be dependent on Middle Eastern oil and that our purchases not fund terror sponsors.

I have written extensively for over a year that:

1) We need to acknowledge (and wage war in return) the ongoing war Iran has been waging against our troops in Iraq, not to mention the war since the 1979 Hostage taking thru the 1998 Khobar Towers bombing;

2) Birthright citizenship is a right that has been conferred by Congressional and executive bureaucratic action, and is not mandated by the 14th Amendment; and

3) It has been suicidal for us not to expand drilling areas for our own oil since 1978 and that any candidate that doesn’t advocate same FIRST before they mouth the “alternatives” dribble (see alchemy dream), makes my stomach turn.

Fred can win. Fred is right. Fred has a clear-eyed view of the world, a great presidential demeanor and articulately expresses his conservative principles and policies.

Plus, in less than a month, he has shown that he is willing to consider three of my favorite issues while I had been waiting in vain for the other candidates to echo this Rooster.

How can I not endorse this guy now?

He’s the Foghorn to this gamecock’s Leghorn!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
http://www.win-the-war.com/

Just recieved this in the mail. I don’t think these are very relevent, but this one has been somewhat publicized, yet unattended by the big names. Score one for the Dunc.

Texas State GOP Straw Poll Results
41.1% Duncan Hunter (534 votes)
20.5% Fred Thompson (266 votes)
16.17% Ron Paul (217 votes)
6.4% Mike Huckabee (83 votes)
6% Rudy Giuliani (78 votes)
4.7% Mitt Romney (61 votes)
2.2% Ray McKinney (28 votes)
.77% John Cox (10 votes)
.62% John McCain (8 votes)
.46% Sam Brownback (6 votes)
.46% Tom Tancredo (6 votes)
.23% Hugh Cort (3 votes)

Here is analysis from townhall’s Matt Lewis. Townhall.com was the primary sponsor for the event.

1. Texas Congressman Ron Paul, came in 3rd. Most of his supporters, apparently, were not eligible to vote in the TX Straw Poll (only Delegates to the state convention were eligible). Though Paul turned out lots of supporters, it didn’t translate to votes, leading me to ask: If Paul can’t come in 1st place here — where can he win (other than the internet)? Frankly, it is entirely possible that Paul’s aggressive (and non-traditional) supporters may have actually turned some party regulars (who could vote) against the candidate.

2. This morning (on the video that will be posted later), I predicted Fred Thompson would have a surprisingly strong finish. He did. I think there are two reasons: For one, Thompson’s southern appeal fits in well in Texas. The other reason is that his announcement on Friday (that he will announce for president after Labor Day), gave him a little buzz going into the weekend.

3. Duncan Hunter is obviously a big winner here. He deserved to win because he showed up — and really worked it. He shook hands with hundreds of folks, and signed lots of autographs (mostly on tee-shirts). I can’t help but believe many of the votes Hunter got were due to his merely showing up and campaigning hard. The question is: Would these votes have also propelled Mike Huckabee to a victory here? We won’t know if this was a huge missed opportunity for Huckabee to keep his momentum going. Hunter took advantage, and for that, I give him kudos …

I call for a big race42008 endorsement for Duncan D. Hunter to replace his father as the GOP nominee for congress in his district.

From the Evans-Novak Report published 8/22/07:

California-52: Rep. Duncan Hunter (R), unlike his fellow House colleagues running for President, has already declined to run for re-election in 2008. The retiring congressman hopes to replace himself with his son, Duncan D. Hunter (R).

The younger Hunter starts off with the advantages of the incumbent’s endorsement, an experienced political team (including campaign manager Dave Gilliard, who recently helped Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) win a special election), and sitting congressmen raising money for him. On the negative side, Hunter, a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps reserve, is currently on a nine-month deployment in Afghanistan, during which time he is prohibited from campaigning. His campaign team and his wife are picking up the slack.

Santee City Councilman Brian Jones (R) is also running. This district lies outside San Diego and is a real Republican stronghold, giving Bush 61% of its vote in 2004 and Hunter 65% in 2006. Likely Republican Retention.

No disrespect intended to Councilman Jones, but the majority of us have grown quite fond of Hunter here, and his son’s candidacy is a truly fascinating story. We may not end up with a Hunter as President in 2008, but we can at least give Jr. some words of encouragement.

We are just three days out from the Ames Straw Poll right now - here are the public strategies of each of the campaigns for this seminal moment in the Race 4 2008:

• Mitt Romney has sent out a direct mailer, set up an 800 number for people to call for free tickets, bus rides, and food, and has set up incentives (like being on the Romney Wall of Fame and getting a free t-shirt) for folks who bring 5 people, knock on 50 doors, make 100 phone calls, or recruit people to ride the Romney buses to Ames. Team Mitt has rented more than 99 air conditioned buses for the event - at least one for every county in Iowa - and the guests on those buses will be treated to free food and a recorded message from Romney. Once at the straw poll, Romney’s tent will be replete with more free food (local Iowa BBQ), local bands, and yes, inflatable bouncy things for the kids. And finally, the Romney campaign is airing this new commercial starting today until Saturday:

• Sam Brownback has at least 45 interns at his Iowa headquarters, most of them with only one job: man the phones. Interns make phone calls to Iowans twelve hours a day, six days a week to try and round up support for the Ames Straw Poll. And recently, they have a pretty unique way of doing it, too: they are calling Iowans who support John McCain and telling them, “McCain has chosen not to participate in the straw poll, and we’d like you to show your support for his values by voting for Brownback.” Officials in the Brownback campaign say their phone efforts have so far “exceeded our internal expectations.” Team Brownback also is recruiting people to be bus captains, that is, to sign up at least 50 people to ride a bus together to Ames on Saturday. They are using a military theme for the campaign, saying that volunteers are joining the “Brownback Army” and anyone interested in going to Ames should call their “Brownback Bus General”. Once at the site, Sam’s tent will be the site of what his campaign calls “An afternoon of prayer and celebration” (the mailer even has the Holy Spirit as a dove and some heavenly beams of light) - a direct appeal to religious conservatives. Norma McCorvey, the Roe of Roe v Wade, will be at Sam’s tent as well, explaining her conversion to the pro-life camp. (Bonus points for anyone who can spot the irony there.)
• Mike Huckabee doesn’t have any sort of transportation organization to get people to Ames, but he is offering free tickets like the other campaigns, and the week leading up to the straw poll he is spending touring dozens of cities in Iowa encouraging people to go there and vote for him. Mike has told reporters that several of Sam Brownback’s supporters have told him they now plan on supporting him at Ames instead because of the recent tussle Sam and Mike had about religious issues, and that he is aiming for a third place finish in the poll (although a 4th or 5th place finish “wouldn’t be a campaign ender” either). Once at Ames, Mike plans on attracting folks to his tent by offering the famous Hope watermelons from Arkansas. Hope watermelons are the largest in the world, and Huck will be displaying 150-pounders at his tent to attract attention.
• Tom Tancredo has 58 buses setup to go to Ames, and he also is offering free tickets and has been spending all his time recently in Iowa rounding up supporters for the straw poll. His campaign is also encouraging supporters to do “door to door literature drops” throughout Iowa leading up to Saturday, with literature, of course, provided by Tancredo’s Iowa office. He is also building what his campaign officially calls “The Army Against Amnesty” to support Tom at Ames.
• Tommy Thompson has buses and tickets available for free to his supporters, and has a non-800 phone number available for folks to call for more information. He is aiming for a first or second place finish at the straw poll; otherwise, he says, he will probably drop out of the race. He has been making his “Common Sense Solutions” tour across Iowa lately, and has really camped out in the state since the campaign began. I could not find any further details of his plans anywhere.
• Duncan Hunter has no organization that I could find anywhere, and is even making his supporters buy their own tickets to the straw poll.
• Ron Paul’s supporters are encouraging one another to promise support to Mitt Romney to secure free transportation to Ames, and then vote for Ron Paul once they get there. The Paul campaign has purchased 500 tickets that they are giving out to “eligible Iowa residents” for the straw poll.

Is it just me, or should this have been the headline story from this morning’s debate?

For background, Barack Obama said last week that invading Pakistan, one of our allies, unilaterally is an option to fight the war on terror. Of course, everyone from his primary opponents to Republicans all over the place decried his comments (and those regarding the use of tactical nukes) as naive, inexperienced, and proof that he wasn’t ready to assume the role of Commander-in-Chief.

Rudy Giuliani evidently agrees with Barack Obama:

Candidates had harsh words for Democratic rival Barack Obama, who threatened Pakistani leaders this week by saying the United States would intervene with force if they didn’t do a better job identifying terrorists that take refuge there.

“He’s gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week,” Romney said of Obama.

Romney continued: “I think Obama is confused as to who our friends and who our enemies are.”

The former Massachusetts governor also duked it out with Giuliani, who supports invading Pakistan as “an option that should remain open.”

“I would take that option if there was no other way to crush al Qaeda, no other way to crush the Taliban, no other way to catch bin Laden,” Giuliani said.

“We keep our options quiet. We don’t go out to say to a nation that’s working with us that we intend to go in there and bring on a unilateral attack,” said Romney. “The only people who can defeat radical jihadists are Muslims themselves.”

California Rep. Duncan Hunter echoed Romney’s sentiment.

“When you have a country that is cooperating, you don’t tell them you are going to unilaterally move against them,” Hunter said.

Scary words from the national frontrunner. I knew there was a reason Romney and Hunter are my #1 and #2 picks in this field of candidates… I’d love to see a Romney administration with Hunter at SecDef.

Sunday, August 5
6 days before the Ames Straw Poll
Des Moines, Iowa
ABC 7
9:00 EST — 8:00 CST

I’ll be live-blogging from the spin-room as the sparks will be flying and will get some good pics and coverage for R42008.

Rep. Hunter was kind enough to take a short break from his duties tonight in order to field some questions. He was working late to fight for his amendment to the transportation bill under debate which block the implementation of the NAFTA Superhighway. The proposed highway would form a corridor which would unite Mexico, the U.S. and Canada.

Here are some highlights:

Many thanks to Rep. Hunter and John Hawkins of Right Wing News for making this conference call happen tonight.

On Saturday the Iowa Christian Alliance and Iowans for Tax Relief joined forces to host a Presidential Forum. Attending the event was Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter.

With any debate or forum where candidates are competing for votes we always want to know who won and who lost. I think the clear winner was a candidate who didn’t utter a word in front of the crowd of nearly 800 social and fiscal conservatives because he wasn’t even invited.

Now I’m sure some of you might think I have to be talking about Fred Thompson. I’m sorry to disappoint, but I’m talking about Congressman Ron Paul. The organizers of the forum didn’t extend an invitation to Congressman Paul; apparently he didn’t me their criteria as a “viable” candidate. I don’t really buy that. I think it was just a snub. Invites were sent to Jim Gilmore and Duncan Hunter, both of whom have little or nothing going on in Iowa.

The Paul campaign capitalized on the snub and used it to motivate their activist. The campaign rented the hall just down the hall from the forum and staged its own rally. I’m told by a reliable source that Paul had about 800 or so people attend his rally. If that’s the case, Ron Paul had as many people at his rally as ICA and ITR had at their forum. I’m also pretty sure that Paul’s 800 person event would be the largest single Republican candidate presidential event of this cycle in Iowa. Ron Paul gained more by getting snubbed by ITR and ICA than if he would have been able to attend their forum. I think all of this makes Congressman Paul the clear winner.

While Ron Paul was the winner of the day, Congressman Tom Tancredo delivered the goods inside the forum. Tancredo’s speech was by far the best received, and is the only candidate who actually asks people to join his cause. “Charge into the breach with me, this is our country, fight for it; this is our flag, pick it up; and this is your country, take it back.” Tancredo was impressive, as was Mike Huckabee, but Tancredo was head a shoulders above everyone else that spoke. Here is how I’d rank the forum participants.

1. Tom Tancredo ? Fantastic Speech on conservatism, I’d love to have the transcript.
2. Mike Huckabee ? Great Speech, just lacked the passion of Tancredo’s masterpiece.
3. Duncan Hunter ? Refreshingly honest and sincere.
4. Tommy Thompson ? Not a fan of his style, but his response and knowledge of the stem cell question was the best I’ve heard from any candidate.
5. Mitt Romney ? Great style but lacked any substance. Romney said “I’m a democrat” before correcting himself. It was a bad crowd to have that slip up in front of.
6. Sam Brownback ? His flat tax or bust stance went over like a lead balloon.

On a different note, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani did not attend the forum. It was no surprise that Rudy would skip the event, but one of McCain’s main Iowa consultants organized this event. Rudy was campaigning in a different state, and John McCain was in Arizona.

McCain gave his campaign a vote of confidence last week after being nagged about his poor performing campaign. In sports if the owner or GM gives a vote of confidence the team’s manager is as good as gone; so is McCain’s campaign. McCain’s national and early primary numbers are in the tank, and he’s now known as the amnesty candidate. To make matters worse for McCain he has invested heavily into Iowa by hiring a bunch of Iowa consultants and field staff. McCain’s Iowa payroll is huge, probably more than Romney’s, if McCain can’t rebound there are going to be a lot of unemployed Iowa staffers and consultants that will be up for grabs very soon.

If you have questions about what’s going on in Iowa drop be an email at iowainsider@gmail.com. I’ll post the best questions and give my answers in my next post.

Another Campaign Ad…

If you build it, they won’t come…..

So all our candidates get some share of the publicity, I have decided to adopt a 2nd tier (I do hate that word) candidate to cover, along with Fred Thompson. Aron does a good job bringing us the Essential Reads on a on the hot topics of the day, I am going to bring you the Duncster Report, for your dose of straight talk, from the mouth of the Duncster, Congressman Duncan Hunter, himself. Heck, maybe some other contributers here will adopt a 2nd candidate too, so we can learn more about the personalities and ideas of all of our candidates, before they either disappear or keep on trucking because they feel they have something to offer our country.

So for this installment of the Duncster Report, I give you this press conference. Hunter is not only the ‘Bricklayer of the Border’ and the ‘Chairman of Chinaism,’ he also enjoys the finest cuisine, courtesy of Club Gitmo.

This guy is great!

I love this guy. Did you know he built the fence with his bare hands? Hunter, if anything, is tough on border security!

On the occasion of the recent summer solstice and John McCain’s precipitous fall in the polls, Gamecock recalls crowed warnings of the latter event as early as the 2006 autumnal equinox and just before this years’ vernal equinox.

As a then objective Democrat Party activist during the 2000 primary season and eye witness to the post-New Hampshire, pre-South Carolina primary, I know first-hand that McCain lost in S.C, due to his stands on issues and failings of character.

Contrary to the McCain-Hardball-Matthews-Fineman fiction that McCain lost in SC, after swamping the Establishment’s Bush in NH, due to Karl Rovian slanderous telephone push-polling plants in the SC boonies, I watched McCain self-destruct due to his own non-straight talk on abortion, the Confederate flag compromise and taxes.

He did not lose because a loner made slanderous statements about McCain during phone calls.

McCain was discovered (by the Late Rev. Jerry Falwell and CBN Founder and President, Pat Robertson) to have told California republicans?during the summer?before the SC primary that he would not support a Supreme Court justice that would overturn Roe.

McCain then slandered all conservative Christians when he got called out.

McCain equivocated on the flag issue as Bush decisively said the issue was for the state of SC to decide.

McCain was more concerned with future invitations to appear as a co-star on Sunday morning TV.

Finally, McCain voted against tax cuts, while Bush endorsed tax cuts.The slander against my state prompts me to right this “I told you so” column.
South Carolinians did not reject McCain because he has a non-Caucasian child.

That was a bigoted lie.

South Carolinians reject Roe v. Wade as bad law, favor tax cuts, honesty and decisiveness, and reject slander based on uninformed and dishonest characterizations of the black caucus endorsed Confederate flag controversy. Some contend that McCain’s stand on the immigration bill is “principled.”

It may be, but the manner in which he follows principle leaves much to be desired if it is.

Whether it’s cursing out colleagues who dare offer amendments to his back room deal, cursing in resignation at the prospect of building a fence, or stating that we won’t build a fence when his own bill says we will, we can do without that kind of principle.

Even the MSM is having a hard time trying to hide the fact that McCain’s polls are dropping due to immigration and not his consistent support for Iraq War, as they nearly always say that his downfall is due to his stands on both issues.

The facts show that McCain’s fall occurred only after the secret immigration, Grand Compromise was unveiled and his VP, Lindsey Graham compared border security conservative republicans to supporters of Jim Crow laws and “no Jews or Irish need apply” sign hangers.

This rooster crowed warnings that McCain’s SC support in earlier polls would not stand up, as they were attained due to relative name recognition, the lack of a Bush in the poll, and the inclusion of many democrats that can vote in an open primary.

One Rooster crowing confirmed. One to go.

I believe that Romney will finish no lower than second in the 2008 SC primary.

At present, I lean to Giuliani, ever so slightly, but am pleased with Romney, Thompson and Hunter. It’s the issues that drive conservatives, which is one of the main reasons I left the Democrat Party.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks venti coffee cups are dangerous, but
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report

??????? Procedurally, I thought MSNBC did an?fairly good?job of not getting bogged down among ten candidates debating. But I thought their questions were substantively mediocre, and the inability of the moderators to get the candidates to directly answer questions and stay on subject (and candidates should not be allowed to use their answer time for issues they want to bring up or in response to previous questions) wasted time and eroded focus.

Former White House advisor David Gergen hit it on the head, I think, in claiming that there was too much discussion of the past and not nearly enough about the future - and that is the fault of MSNBC, I think, and its debate moderators and contributors in questioning the Republican candidates.

Neither entitlement reform (especially Social Security and Medicare), the size and scope of government, judicial appointments, education, the future of the military, affirmative action, the Middle East peace process, nuclear proliferation, geopolitical strategic threats and allies, economic growth, trade, leadership, gun control (in the wake of the Virginia Tech incident), or the contrasts with Democrat approaches to public policy were the focus of questions, which is just irresponsible, it seems to me, in a 90-minute forum such as this. And many crucial topics - such as health care reform and race relations - were only directed to a few candidates for just a brief period of time.

Technology and public participation are terrific, but not when silly and simplistic questions result in them being utilized in such a forum and squeeze out more important and revealing lines of inquiry.

The Bill Clinton question was a complete and utter waste of everyone’s limited time (and I am wondering when we Republicans can move away from our Bill Clinton fixation), and gotcha questions to Mayor Giuliani (about the difference between Sunni Islam and Shiite Islam, which he nailed - good for him) and Governor Thompson (about the exact numbers of dead and wounded soliders resulting from the Iraq War, which he came close to as to the dead but vastly underestimated as to the wounded) were way out of line. I guess we were lucky that questions weren’t asked about the current prices for a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread.

My personal preference would be that more questions?are addressed by all candidates in order to measure differences.

As to the candidates, I thought it was pretty hard to stand out with so many of them on stage.

But the ones I would consider not inviting to the May 15 debate at the University of South Carolina if I was Fox News, in order to make their debate more manageable and substantive and?penetrating, would be Governor Gilmore, Congressman Hunter, Congressman Paul, Congressman Tancredo, and Governor Thompson. I just thought that these candidates failed to impress as presidential, often focusing on the same narrow issues in answering whatever questions were thrown their way, and their fundraising and poll standing simply do not argue well for their inclusion on May 15.

I thought Governor Huckabee and Senator Brownback helped themselves with confident, smooth, nuanced responses that made them look like they belonged in a presidential debate. For me, Governor Huckabee’s rapid, concise, and powerful response to the question about the jettisoning of Secretary Rumsfeld might have been the most impressive answer of the evening.

I thought the three front-runners stumbled at times and did not really separate themselves from each other or significantly help their causes.?Here is my?quick and specific take on them.

I think abortion obviously continues to hang up Mayor Giualini (and if he was pro-life this GOP nomination process might be a foregone conclusion), and his response to the Roe v. Wade question (while?the other nine?candidates enthusiastically agreed it would be terrific if the decision was overturned, the Mayor grimacingly said it would be okay if the decision was overturned or okay if the decision was upheld on stare decisis grounds) and admission that he is for and was a facilitator of?(as Mayor) public funding of abortion made him look defensive and certainly won’t help him with many mainstream conservatives. I agree with the commentators?who claim the Mayor was more subdued than might be expected for a candidate whose strengths are toughness and leadership. The brevity of time allowed in answering simply did not, I think,?help the Mayor flesh out his strengths?as the leader of the New York City?turnaround. And I think it was interesting that the Mayor was the least critical candidate when it came to the administration of President George W. Bush - a brave, risky, and perhaps not completely supportable position.

I agree with those who claim that the Senator McCain attempt to play the tough guy looked forced. His whole demeanor - squinting and tense and poised to pounce - did not make me comfortable. I do think that his focus on out-of-control government spending is effective, as well as his knowledge and understanding and gravitas when it comes to military and international matters. The Senator just looks a bit too old and a bit too desperate up there, to me.

Governor Romney started off rocky, I thought, though part of it was that some of the early?lines of approach?were barbs aimed directly at him (questioning his change of position on abortion and statement that he would not move heaven and earth to find Osama bin Laden) - which was probably unfair (you cannot have questions that only put one or two candidates on the spot). Like the Mayor, he struggles with abortion, though I thought that by the end of the evening he was making a very plausible and coherent case that he simply has changed from pro-choice to pro-life; the question is whether it is a principled or politically expedient change (which voters will have to judge for themselves). I thought the Governor came across at times like the young and eager beaver, which may not be as presidential as he wants to be, and was not able (under the constraints of the format) to emphasize his record of achievement as a public and private sector manager and leader as well as he needs to.

With a potentially smaller field, the candidates having one encounter under the belts (in order to calm the nerves and focus their approach), and the ability of Fox News to be able to learn from what MSNBC did, I am looking forward to the May 15 debate at the University of South Carolina. Oh, and of course we have the Senator Fred Thompson speech to the Orange County (CA) Lincoln Club tonight and whatever response Speaker Newt Gingrich has to all of this, as well.

In addition to the comments of Gergen, the one piece of post-debate analysis I found somewhat compelling was from Dean Barnett, who is usually just way too long-winded for my taste,?over at the Hugh Hewitt web site, as to what the expectations will be for Fred Thompson (although I strongly disagree with Barnett’s?conclusion that Thompson should wait to get in - because of the importance of fundraising in this endeavor, he cannot possibly afford to do that):

“Fred’s got an issue. When he enters, the expectations for him to run a perfect campaign will be impossibly high. At the first debate he participates in, if he does anything less than get all the other candidates to confess that Fred Thompson is the better man, the pundits will label his performance a disappointment.

In short, official candidate Thompson will get no honeymoon. All the other candidates have made a bunch of errors between the start of things and now. They’re learning, at least in theory. Fred’s margin of error will be extremely small.

I say that argues for him delaying his entry until at least Labor Day, maybe longer. Then he’ll have to go only a few months without making a mistake. The flip side of the coin is that he enters now and has setbacks and surges like all the other candidates and hopefully (from his perspective) winds up on top.

But being just another guy isn’t much fun. Just ask Rudy.”

Results from two of the three straw polls from South Carolina GOP County Conventions are in, and it’s more good news for Romney and a surprise victory for Duncan Hunter:

Anderson County
Hunter - 63 votes
Romney - 33
McCain - 9
Giuliani - 7
F Thompson - 5
Brownback - 4
Newt - 3
T Thompson - 3
Huckabee - 2
Cox - 2
Tancredo -0

Pickens County
Romney - 16 votes
Hunter - 14
Giuliani - 13
McCain - 10
F Thompson - 9
Brownback - 9

Word has it that one of Duncan Hunter’s major consultants, Robert Cahaly, is from Anderson County and made a lot of personal phone calls there and personally attended the convention to talk with the delegates, which helps explain his surprise victory there. Romney continues to look solid throughout the state.

The issue of adult and embryonic stem-cell research is an issue that is very important to many pro-lifers like myself. It surely is a controversial issue, and the passage of federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research led to President Bush’s first veto of his presidency. Once again, the Senate is debating the issue, under two bills. The first bill, S 5, named the “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007,” is much like the bill Pres. Bush vetoed, except that it takes some language from a previous Santorum bill in order to try and make it veto proof. The second bill, S. 30, the HOPE Act, would encourage federal funding of ethical research without harming human embryos.

The issue of federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research has also become a “litmus test” for pro-lifers to judge a politican’s commitment towards the pro-life movement. For instance, former Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was slammed by the pro-life community for supporting it, while Democrat Sen. Bob Casey Jr. was praised yesterday by the Family Research Council for once again committing his support against it.

This issue is very important to pro-lifers in regards to 2008. Legislation that would federally fund embryonic stem-cell research passed under a Republican majority in both houses, and will likely pass again under a Democratic majority. Luckily, President Bush had the courage to use his first veto against the legislation, and will likely veto it again. However, will we be so lucky with our next president?

So far, the candidates opposed to federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research are: Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter, Romney, and Tancredo.

Supporting federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research are: McCain and Giuliani.

I am not sure where Fred Thompson or Jim Gilmore stand on this issue.

Brownback has been a leading supporter of adult stem-cell research and a leading opponent of embryonic stem-cell research. Here is what he posted today at the Hill’s Congressional blog titled: “Where do we draw the line on stem cells?”

I look forward to highlighting the fact that adult stem cell research, which does not destroy young human lives, has yielded real treatments for patients in need. I welcome the opportunity for a full and open debate which raises a basic question: should we use taxpayer dollars to fund research that many people, including myself, consider unethical because it destroys young human lives? Or should we focus federal research funding on ethical alternatives that carry more clinical promise?

I agree with Brownback on this issue. The main thing I wonder is if the proponents of embryonic stem-cell research claim that it is so promising, then why is it not privately funded? Why aren’t research companies spending their own dollars on this research? Wouldn’t you love to be the first company to come up with the cure to all the diseases proponets claim this research would benefit?

Brownback also wrote an op-ed which USA Today ran yesterday:

Reject embryo bill
Washington should limit research funding to adult stem cells only.

By Sam Brownback

Last year I met a courageous young woman, Jacki Rabon of Illinois, who was paralyzed in a car accident at age 16. Today, thanks to an ethical adult stem cell treatment that she received in Portugal, Jacki is regaining feeling in her legs and can walk with the aid of braces and a walker.

This week, the Senate will debate a bill that would provide taxpayer funding for a different type of stem cell research from the type that is helping Jacki and scores of other patients. The Senate will vote on whether to fund embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of human embryos. We all started as an embryo, and biologically, the human embryo is no less human than you or I.

Two issues are at stake:

First, should we treat the young human as a person or as a piece of property? Will the federal government maintain high ethical standards in research, or will we sanction the destruction of young human lives to further speculative research that might or might not eventually help patients?

Second, should we fund the research that holds the most promise to bring treatments to patients soonest, or should we fund speculative and unethical research, the benefits of which are unclear and may never come?

For the sake of the patients, we should fund adult stem cell research to the exclusion of unethical embryonic stem cell research. Jacki should not have to travel to Portugal, at great personal expense, for a treatment with her own adult stem cells. And she is not the only patient who has had no choice but to travel around the world for an adult stem cell treatment.

We know of 72 peer-reviewed adult stem cell treatments and applications for a wide range of diseases and injuries. Yet embryonic stem cell research has not yielded any treatments or applications to date.

Patients should have the peace of mind that their treatment did not come at the expense of another’s destruction, and they should not have to travel around the world to seek help. I urge my Senate colleagues to reject the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and taxpayer funding for human embryonic stem cell research.

Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas and a candidate for president.

My main reasons for posting this is to inform readers on where the 2008 candidates stand on this is