Thread: Duncan Hunter has shared his Christian testimony

GOD VOTER.ORG

Electing God's Choice In 2008

Home About Questions Candidates Answers News Comments Support Email

Republican Presidential Candidate

Congressman Duncan Hunter's

Answers 1-10 Answers 11-20 Answers 21-30 Our Rating


Current Status: Congressman Duncan Hunter has shared his Christian testimony.

While we don't agree with all of his opinions, we were impressed with the majority of them and particularly impressed with his candor and courage (e.g., see his answer to question 9).

We knew very little about this Congressman from California until receiving his answers, which made us take another look. Frankly, we liked what we found, including the following:

He walks his talk. His pro-life, anti-embryonic stem cell research, anti-pornography, anti-illegal immigration and pro-strong defense positions are backed by the bills he authored, the border fence he built, his service as an Army Ranger in Vietnam and his own son having served in Iraq and Afghanistan as a US Marine.

Congressman Hunter, who has been married to one wife, is a Christian who testifies about the Lord when asked, has been re-elected six times, has gravitas, and his tenure as the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee should be useful to leading a nation fighting two wars.

Why isn't Congressman Hunter doing better in the polls?

The main reason may be most people knowing as little about him as we knew prior to receiving his answers, simplistically as the "border guy" from a border area. We think the problem is exposure, not quality. In terms of the latter, he is the strongest Christian candidate.

Congressman Hunter, we thank you for your Christ-honoring testimony and strongly encourage you and your staff to remain in the race to the end. We want you to win the Presidency. But even if you don't, we think the Lord will be pleased with a candidate who ran the race focused on Him instead of the poll numbers.

Our rating for Congressman Hunter as the next President of the United States is an A.

Please click here or on Congressman Hunter's photo above to visit his campaign website.


Answers 1-10 Answers 11-20 Answers 21-30 Our Rating

http://www.godvoter.org/Duncan-Hunter-rating.html

Please follow the link and read his individual responses to the questions.

Duncan Hunter is the only candidate that I trust. He is the ONLY one who can put this country back on its feet. He walks and talks like a United States President. He is of that caliber. It's really a shame that once in a great while a great man comes to us to fulfill his destiny as President, but becuase of the MSM (and the Democratic and Repulican Debates Commisson) and their refusal to give all candidates equal time, this man will probably not become what he was meant to become. Some jerk will become something he was not meant to be. This will prove to be devastating to America.

FCC rules and guidelines should include fair and equal time for all candidates, not just the ones favored by the lying, traitorous villans who own the media and the multi-national corporations.

I will vote for Dunan Hunter in the Georgia primary.

DUNCAN IS THE MAN!!

Below is a link to the The Appleseed Citizens' Task Force On Presidential Debates: A Blueprint for Fair and Open Presidential Debates:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/politica...ce_report.html

I. Introduction

The Appleseed Citizens' Task Force on Fair Debates is a project of the Appleseed Electoral Reform Project at American University Washington College of Law. The Appleseed Project addresses the rising dominance of private wealth and corporate soft money in our elections and the corresponding decline in the quantity and quality of political participation by citizens. The Project engages in advocacy and scholarship on a broad range of electoral reform issues. Launched in 1999 by the Appleseed Foundation, a national non-profit public interest law organization, the Task Force is an independent and non-partisan group of distinguished citizens that has assembled to challenge the artificial constriction of American electoral discourse through undemocratic manipulation of our presidential debates.


II. Summary
The Task Force commends the private Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) for helping to foster a continuing debate ethic in presidential campaigns, and for creating a political climate in which general election presidential debates are considered an essential part of the political process. However, the CPD's January 6 (2000) announcement that it will require presidential candidates to post a level of support of at least 15 percent in national public opinion polls before they may join the debates is deeply problematic. For the following reasons, we object to the CPD's participation criteria:

* The CPD places the cart before the horse by basing the exclusion of outsider candidates on the preferences of a public that has not yet seen or heard from these candidates in a debate. At the time of the debates many Americans remain uncommitted to a single candidate.

* The 15 percent rule is both arbitrary and too high. There is no basis in law for the 15 percent threshold.

* The American people do not agree with the CPD. A recent poll revealed that a majority of Americans believe that the CPD's 15 percent threshold is inappropriate.

* Polls often underestimate the role of Independents. Polling firms regularly base their opinion surveys on "likely voters" as determined by past voting practice. Such determinations ignore the possibility that the debate may, in fact, create new likely voters.

The CPD bases its decision on the belief that the purpose of the general election debates is to contrast for the voters the two candidates who stand the best chance of winning the presidency. We believe formal debates serve greater purposes. When done well, formal debates can advance and crystallize the ideas and issues that are important to the American public. They can provide meaningful political discourse, and can force the candidates to address the issues about which Americans care most deeply.

Particularly in this era where access to money drives access to voters and media coverage, the debates should be an opportunity for voters to see debates among the candidates from whom they wish to hear, and about issues they care to hear discussed.

Therefore, the Task Force calls upon the CPD to change its criteria to permit all constitutionally eligible and mathematically electable presidential candidates to participate in the debates if they:

1. register at 5 percent in national public opinion polls; OR 2. Register a majority (50 percent or more) in national public opinion polls asking eligible voters which candidates they would like to see included in the presidential debates.ii

The Task Force has concluded that these criteria best reflect the democratic principles on which this country was founded. The most significant advantages of the proposed criteria are:

* Voters will have an opportunity to hear candidates before they decide whom they will support.

* The public will get the benefit of a candidate's views that are important to the political dialogue even if that candidate does not have enough support to win the presidency.

* The 5 percent level of support is based in federal election law, mirroring the 5 percent level of support required for eligibility for federal campaign funding. While the Task Force believes that past electoral performance should not be a sole criterion guaranteeing debate participation, we believe that deference is due to the only national legislative standard regarding candidate seriousness.

* Our criteria respect the opinion of the entire electorate. The 50 percent qualification is based on the opinions of all eligible voters, not just those deemed by a pollster to be likely to vote. This allows for voices representing all potential voters to be heard, recognizing the possibility that the debates can have an important impact on who chooses to go to the polls in November.

Adoption of these criteria would lead to debates that better address the ideas and issues of interest to the American people. If the CPD declines to alter its criteria, then the legitimacy of American presidential elections will be undermined and new approaches for fair and meaningful candidate dialogue must be sought for the 2000 election or any election for that matter!

Please check this site out!

If he is nominated, I would vote for him - based on his immigration stance only.

There are many disagreements I have with him, but getting immigration fixed is something we need to do right now.

Good site MW.

Last September I met Rep. Duncan Hunter in Ft. Worth, TX, and he IS COMPLETELY Christian and ALL-American!

Gogo wrote:

Good site MW.

Yeah, I think so too.