“Beating Hilary Clinton 101 or The Confessions of a Hunterite”

by S.K. Johnson           10-19-07

In less than a month, I will be 18 years old. That day, November 2nd, 2007, is a day that I have been looking forward to and dreading for a long time. On that day, I will put behind me one of the most important parts of my life, childhood, and take my first big step into the world as an adult. Within a few days of turning 18, I will do something I have been looking forward to doing for many years. I will register to vote.

I grew up in a politically involved family, and have grown up with other politically involved and aware friends. I have been raised to understand the importance of our privilege, our responsibility, to vote. It is a responsibility that I do not plan to take lightly, and it is that determination that has inspired my renewed obsession with politics and my interest in the upcoming 2008 election. I want my first vote to count, I want to take hold of the responsibility that I have and become a greater part of this great country. I want to honor those who have died fighting for everything that this country is, everything that I am because of her, the men who died to give me the right to cast this vote.

Realizing the importance of the responsibility I would soon gain, I began researching the upcoming election with keen interest and determination; I was virtually obsessed for many weeks. I wanted my first vote to go towards someone and something that I believed in. I must say that I was not particularly enthusiastic about any of the candidates or potential candidates that I saw running, especially the front-runners who were the first ones I researched. Around that time, rumors began circulating that Fred Thompson was going to announce that he was running for President.

I am from Tennessee, where Fred Thompson once served as a senator. My parents knew a little bit about him, and I started reading his columns and downloading his podcasts. I have to say, I loved what I heard. I was electrified. Here was a conservative who stood for what I believed in, he was a hero. A good friend of mine who has spent much of her life politically active in a nearby state was at a Republican convention and brought me back some bumper stickers and yard signs for Fred Thompson. I was about to set them up the signs and put the stickers on my car when something held me back. I wasn’t quite sure what it was, but I just felt unsure of my choice of candidate. I determined that after all, I hadn’t thoroughly investigated some of the lower-tier candidates and decided they would at least be worth a look.

Suffice it to say, a few weeks later I was running a website, www.dhgrassrevolt.wordpress.com attempting to raise support for Congressman Duncan Hunter by providing news, my own articles, and helpful tips on how to raise support for Hunter and prepare informed grassroot supporters. What caused me to switch from the ‘conservative hero,’ ‘the next Ronald Reagan,’ ‘the articulate,’ the behemoth, Fred D. Thompson?

The question of why I switched candidates did not begin with a growing hate or disenchantment towards Fred Thompson, but a new excitement that I received from watching Duncan Hunter at one of the debates that had already taken place. I was astonished at his obvious passion, conviction, intelligence, and his confidence. Unlike with most other candidates, the more I researched Duncan Hunter, the more excited I was about him. He had spent 25 years in congress standing up for things I believed in, instead of 25 years just trying to get reelected or pandering to the party line. He was a hero for the pro-life movement with his ‘Life at conception’ bill which had over 100 co-sponsors. He was a hero of religious freedom when he stuck his neck out to save a war memorial that the ACLU wanted to take down because it had a cross on it. He was a hero of national security by standing up for missile defense programs when others were apathetic about them. He was a hero of jobs when he spoke out against our bad trade deals with China and predicted the current problems we have. He was a hero of immigration when he stood up to Ronald Reagan (although he was Ronald Reagan’s congressional go-for for many years) against amnesty (which Ronald himself regretted in later years) and has done the same ever since, as well as fighting to build the border fence. He is my hero.

I continued to look into Fred Thompson as a possible back up. I fell into a light case of the syndrome many others have been suffering from called the ‘Duncan Hunter’ can’t win syndrome. I believed in him, and I hoped I could help make a difference so he could win… but I didn’t think I could. Yet, the more I looked at Fred Thompson, the more I respected and became excited about Duncan Hunter. While Fred Thompson was voting for amnesty, against worker verification, against penalties for companies that hire illegals, Duncan Hunter was building the new border fence in his district and fighting for it to be built across the rest of the country. While Fred Thompson was voting for increased free trade with China, Hunter was accurately predicting the loss of jobs and trade deficit it would create. While Fred Thompson was voting for minimum wage increases, affirmative action, and campaign finance reform, Duncan Hunter was standing up for Reaganomics. Less taxes, less spending, more revenue and more prosperity for everyone. While Fred Thompson was sitting smoking cigars while talking about Michael Moore, Duncan Hunter was shaking hands in Iowa and getting out his message of secure borders, strong national defense, and high paying manufacturing jobs for our country. Duncan Hunter is my hero.

I have had discussions with many people about the differences between Fred and Duncan and usually come up with the same result. People normally won’t deny the facts that I present, they will not deny some blemishes in Fred’s voting record and they don’t deny how many great things there are about Duncan Hunter. Yet, they always say that this is all about beating Hilary Clinton and that ‘electability’ is more important than who’s the most conservative, the most consistent, and the one with the most integrity. To but it bluntly, I believe that’s wrong. Sort of.

Hilary Clinton will be a disaster to our country, and I am with you in wanting to do everything I can to stop her. Her socialized medicine program could put my family into desperate times because of medical situations that we have. It could do the same to close friends of mine who have other difficulties. Her foreign policies could invite an attack. Her economic policies will merely shrink the middle class and force them all into the lower class. I join with you in wanting to defeat Hilary Clinton. And since defeating Hilary is obviously so important to us, we should be extra careful in the primaries where we have a chance to pick a candidate that can truly beat her, and if possible, someone who will not only beat her but also stand up for what we believe in. Isn’t it worth some intelligent thought to determine what candidate truly could beat Hilary Clinton? Is it name recognition, charisma, and ‘electability’, or is it something else? Is Fred the most conservative winner that we have?

The mainstream media has been feeding us lies for the past 8 years. The media talks constantly about ‘a nation divided’ and will bring up the electoral college map from the last election and show how close the vote was and suggest that we are almost evenly split between conservative and liberal. As a result, many people have determined that the most moderate candidate will win. This is false. The reason the election was so close was because George W. Bush did not come across as conservative as he needed to be, especially after his first term. The more conservative the candidate is, the better they do. Look at the results of some elections over the past few years:

In 1976–Ford (a moderate) lost.
In 1980–Reagan (“too conservative for America”) won a landslide.
In 1984–Reagan won another landslide.
In 1988–Bush (41) won because America thought he was Reagan, Jr.
In 1992–Bush lost after he violated his pledge on taxes and America knew he
was a moderate.
In 1996–Dole (a moderate) lost.
In 2000–Bush (43) ran as a pro-life conservative and won.
In 2004–Bush won again.

The one who will win this election is the one who will appear the most conservative, or the one the most like Ronald Reagan in policy. When moderates run, conservatives vote for third party candidates because of their conviction, determination, and integrity. I wouldn’t want them to do anything different.

In an earlier article on my website (The Duncan Hunter Grass Revolt) I quoted parts of a study that indicated that conservatism is still the vast majority in this country. In fact, according to the study, if the Republican party garnered every single conservative vote they would win by a landslide unprecedented in American history. The article can be found here: http://dhgrassrevolt.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/read-this-to-anyone-who-thinks-we-should-elect-a-moderate/

A candidate that can rally the libertarian vote is also very important, the libertarian vote could easily be the swing vote. Anti-war sentiments are popular among many libertarians, but their hatred for Hilary Clinton will likely be greater because of her economic policies and her obvious flip-flops on the war in the first place. If the Republican candidate is not conservative enough for them, they will vote third party. If the candidate nominated by the Republicans is able to garner at least some libertarian support, that will help them a lot.
Furthermore, what helped Ronald Reagan was his focus on the middle class and fair trade deals which won him the support of ‘Reagan Democrats’ (conservative democrats).
A candidate that can rally conservatives, libertarians, and Reagan democrats will win.

So, can’t Fred Thompson fulfill that role?

I contend that he can’t.

1. The democrats and the mainstream media know the statistics and know the popularity of conservatism. Every moderate blemish on Fred’s record will come back to bite him, including his failures at border security (his ratings on border security are similar to John McCain), his support of minimum wage hikes, affirmative action, and campaign finance reform. The most consistent conservative will win. If you look at Duncan Hunter’s record, he has stood the most firmly on conservative issues of everyone in the race. He has perfect ratings from every important conservative grassroot group. Alexander J. Madison has written a series of articles about Duncan Hunter’s voting record as well as the records of other candidates; something he has spent countless hours researching. His articles can be read at my website, but are more easily accessed at www.newswhichcannotlose.blogspot.com

2. The same reasons cited above will hurt Fred’s chances with libertarians. Duncan Hunter, on the other hand, has had moderate to good support from libertarians. These were the results of a recent straw poll of mostly libertarian voters at a recent conservative convention in Nevada (the CLC)

1. Ron Paul 32.80%
2. Mitt Romney 16.13%
3. Duncan Hunter 14.52%
4. Undecided 11.29%
5. Fred Thompson 7.53%
6. Rudy Giuliani 6.45%
7. Alan Keyes 3.76%
8. Mike Huckabee 3.23%
9. Tom Tancredo 1.61%
10. John McCain 1.08%
11. Other 1.08%
12. Sam Brownback 0.54%

(This was not an entirely libertarian outfit, which accounts for Mitt Romney’s showing)

3. Duncan Hunter has been rallying support in the midwest, and is currently in 4th place in Michigan according to a state-wide poll. This is because of his message about standing up for jobs that are being sent to China, about fair trade deals instead of unfair trade deals. When Fred Thompson was challenged by Duncan by his earlier support of our current trade deals with China all Fred could say was that ‘free trade has been good for this country’ Hunter will gain the votes of the Reagan conservatives.

Beyond this, Hunter has the Iraq plan that people support. Several polls have been taken about what Iraq strategy most people would support and a vast majority (I believe around 69%) supported Mr. Hunter’s Iraq policy of standing up the Iraqi military so that we can leave soon, but leave in victory.

Michael Reagan (son of Ronald Reagan) has already said Fred Thompson is not like his father, and that Duncan Hunter is the candidate most like his father.

My friends, ‘electability’ IS an important factor. But the facts don’t lie. The facts are that ELECTABILITY AND CONSERVATIVE CONVICTION go hand in hand. They are nearly synonymous.

I hope you will join me in standing up for a conservative hero, not just because it’s the right thing to do based upon our common convictions, but because it will be the best way we can beat Hilary Clinton or any other liberal democrat.

In the places that this article is posted, I know I will still receive the same message that Hunter doesn’t have the name recognition, and that he just still can’t win. In every conversation I have had about Duncan Hunter I have always heard, ‘but he just can’t win!’

I want to pull the curtain back very briefly. There is one person that is to blame for Duncan Hunter’s current standing in the polls, and I believe with all my heart that there is only ONE thing holding Hunter back from tracking ahead in this race. Only one thing. This may come as a shock to many of you, but I have kept to myself the secret of this one thing for quite a while and I hope this revelation will help you come to a clear decision and help break down this low-poll problem that Hunter is suffering. The person to blame is YOU.

Saying that Duncan Hunter can not win is a self fulfilling prophecy, entirely, with little exception. If I had a penny for everyone I have heard say, ‘Duncan is the best candidate but he just can’t win’ I could buy hours of television spots for Duncan Hunter. I make no apologies and I will not handle this diplomatically, everyone who says that Hunter can’t win is the person to blame for this problem. I blame them.

Of course, the fact that Duncan Hunter is not a governor or an actor is a factor, but it is a factor that could have been easily remedied by breaking down the lies that Hunter can not win. Just like people such as Howard Dean, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton who had extremely low name recognition until weeks before the election, name recognition is a fixable problem. Will you help me fix it?

Will you vote for the only candidate that can really win? Or will you not? Will you join me by standing on principle, or face Hilary Clinton for president? Will you continue to be part of the problem instead of the solution, or will you not?

The choice is yours.