Thread: The anti-Communist candidates.

I realize this is a little old, but I just ran across it today while surfing the web.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

I am sticking with Duncan Hunter

After fretting for months about the possibility that the 2008 Presidential election would have no anti-Communist candidates, I am faced with an unexpected dilemma - not one anti-Communist in the race, but two - now that Tom Tancredo has thrown his hat into the ring (Denver Post). This means all of us in the anti-Communist community have to choose between Messrs. Hunter and Tancredo.

I supported Duncan Hunter when he first entered this race, and I will continue to do so.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, Hunter and Tancredo are each head and shoulders above the rest of the 2008 field - Republican and Democrat. Either, if they were running alone, would be a lock for the anti-Communist vote. However, the fact that both are running leaves us not choice but to compare - and Mr. Hunter is the better choice.

Firstly, Congressman Hunter has the longer and more impressive resume. Not only has he served in Congress longer than Tancredo (27 years to Tancredo's 9), he has also been Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and has been a leader on the anti-Communist issue for a longer period of time. In addition to the history I listed here, Congressman Hunter was the leading force behind the effort to block Communist China's attempt to infiltrate the Long Beach, California port.
Secondly, Mr. Hunter does not have the general election negatives Mr. Tancredo has. For the most part, this is not Tancredo's fault, MSM has excoriated him on the illegal immigration issue, while Hunter, despite a near-identical record on the subject, has been largely spared. However, Tancredo has, from time to time, brought the maelstrom upon himself needlessly, particularly with his assertion that the United States should at some point close its borders not only to economic refugees, but also to political refugees (speech) - an absolute political (and policy) no-no.

Finally, while Tancredo has an excellent anti-Communist record, his campaign platform is clearly the illegal immigration issue alone. On the political side, it risks him becoming a Johnny one-note, which is practically a death knell at the presidential level. Hunter, by contrast, is clearly more well-rounded in his agenda.

On the policy side, it appears Tancredo considers illegal immigration as a threat to America to be handled at the deprioritization of all others, which is troubling to say the least. It is the only way I can explain Tancredo's assertion that no one in the campaign shares his concern over illegal immigration (Washington Post), all but ignoring Hunter's record. Is Tancredo implying one cannot be serious about illegal immigration and talk about other dangers to America, such as Communist China? Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time?

Again, compared to anyone else in the field, Tancredo's faults could be considered minimal. However, he is not the only anti-Communist in the race; he is not the first anti-Communist in the race; and unfortunately for him, he is not the best anti-Communist in the race.

I mention all of this now because as it dawns on more Republicans and pundits that the GOP presidential nomination is growing more wide open, the opportunity for an anti-Communist to win the nomination continues to grow. However, it will only happen with one anti-Communist in the race, not two dividing the vote, and making it easier for a conservative without good anti-Communist credentials (Gingrich, Romney, Brownback, etc.) to advance at their - and our - expense.

Therefore, it is imperative that the American electorate see only one anti-Communist, and I would humbly submit we should make sure is the best. The best anti-Communist in the race remains Duncan Hunter. As such, I remain his man.

http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/2007/ ... unter.html

Let me make this clear, I didn't post this to drive a wedge between the Hunter and Tancredo supporters on ALIPAC. My intention was to show that both candidates are anti-Communist (that's a very good thing). Actually, I'm betting some of us probably haven't even considered who is and isn't anti-Communist among the presidential candidates! Bush certainly isn't anti-Communist. The man has no qualms about allowing communist China to take us for a ride on the trade issue, and he doesn't care that the cheap goods being dumped on Americans are built in sweatshops. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to be very concerned in regards to the fact that our money is busy building the most powerful military machine in Asia (probably the world). IMO, Hunter's experiences gives him the nod over Tancredo in dealing with countries like China, Iran, and North Korea. Thoughts

MW I think it is a good point you bring up. Ron Paul would now be a third.

I think that being anti-Socialist is more to the point.

Agreed crocket....anti-socialist / anti-globalist. No Marxist bent

Originally Posted by AlturaCt

Agreed crocket....anti-socialist / anti-globalist. No Marxist bent

Who's more anti-globalist, Tancredo or Hunter, (or Paul)?

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by AlturaCt

Agreed crocket....anti-socialist / anti-globalist. No Marxist bent

Who's more anti-globalist, Tancredo or Hunter, (or Paul)?

I would say that Ron Paul is. If he had his way, all these extraconstitutional treaty organizations and trade agreements would be dumped.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

I would say that Ron Paul is. If he had his way, all these extraconstitutional treaty organizations and trade agreements would be dumped.

Yeah, I saw him speaking in Congress and he sounded right on the money. He talked about all of the money we are spending in Iraq, the devaluation of American currency, and the owning of security bonds by the Chinese. Scary stuff.

I agree with crocket. Ron Paul would be a truly refreshing change in DC. But you certainly wouldn't call either Tancredo or Hunter globalist. I don't pretend to know thier position intimately. They are all against the NAU and trade pacts like NAFTA. Ensuring that our trade deals actually benefit us. No push to one world government or anything that infringes on our sovereignty or liberty. Some people label Hunter and I would guess the others as well as "trade restrictionist" but I totally disagree with that characterization. Big difference between being a restrictionist and making sure the deal is good for us and our economy. That our workers and businesses are not held to slave standards.

Originally Posted by AlturaCt

I agree with crocket. Ron Paul would be a truly refreshing change in DC. But you certainly wouldn't call either Tancredo or Hunter globalist. I don't pretend to know thier position intimately. They are all against the NAU and trade pacts like NAFTA. Ensuring that our trade deals actually benefit us. No push to one world government or anything that infringes on our sovereignty or liberty. Some people label Hunter and I would guess the others as well as "trade restrictionist" but I totally disagree with that characterization. Big difference between being a restrictionist and making sure the deal is good for us and our economy. That our workers and businesses are not held to slave standards.

Agreed. I have checked out Tancredo's voting record in congress, because he is the one I have been most interested in. He voted against CAFTA, for withdrawal from the WTO, and against permanent normalized trade with China and several other countries.

I as well hate when people claim we are "isolationists" and the like. We LOVE trade!!! That's why we actually want to EXPORT American products We want mutual, reciprocal, balenced trade. We support REAL trade!! Not the shell of trade that the globalists have sold our nation into....

That pretty much sums up how I feel.

I don't agree with bloated government under any circumstances, which is why I despise ethanol subsidies, farm price supports, bailing out failing corporations like General Motors, Ford-the aviation industry-and the government indemnifying the awful pension and business decisions of corporate behemoths, e.g. the car manufacturers, the aviation industry, etc...

But something I despise even more is mindless internationalism when it takes the form of unaccountable global institutions, e.g. the UN, WTO, etc., which strip us of our sovereignity and freedom.

A free marketplace presupposes freedom, which to all intents and purposes does not exist in nations like the PRC, Vietnam, Cuba, etc...