Posts on Duncan Hunter

Mike Huckabee, the second-tier candidate many at the Values Voter Summit hope will become their champion, brought down the house when he said that he appeared “not as one who comes to you, but as one who comes from you.” In an endorsement of Dobson’s threat to bolt the Republican Party, the former pastor and governor of Arkansas came back time and again to the idea that some issues are “non-negotiable”: namely, opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion.

Given the radical right’s longstanding obsession with denying legal recognition or protections to LGBT Americans, it’s not surprising that several questions at the "Values Voter Debate" were about protecting America from the gays. Also not surprisingly, these candidates lined up to oppose equality.

The first question of the night, from the American Family Association’s Buddy Smith, was about “protecting” marriage.  Every candidate except libertarian Ron Paul pledged to push for a federal marriage amendment.  Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee touted his record of pushing a marriage amendment in his state and promised to lead an effort to have a constitutional amendment that would affirm marriage as “one man, one woman, for life.”  Rep. Tom Tancredo pledged to do everything possible to pass a federal constitutional amendment, warning that Americans are just “one kooky judge” away from having homosexual marriage forced on them.  Sen. Brownback bragged of his efforts in the Senate to pass the FMA and complained that President Bush had not done more to pass it.  Alan Keyes, who had just tossed his hat in the ring, took a shot at the absent Mitt Romney, calling him “single-handedly responsible” for gays getting married in Massachusetts (not, shall we say, a view widely shared among marriage equality activists).

Paul Weyrich, a founder of the modern Religious Right political movement, closed the first section of the program by asking what candidates would do to counteract “the homosexual agenda.”  Most candidates went back to the need for a marriage amendment to prevent, in Keyes’ typically tempered words, the “destruction of traditional marriage.” Brownback and Rep. Duncan Hunter talked about keeping gays from serving openly in the military.  Libertarian Ron Paul, while saying he is opposed to legislating morality, called for eradicating hate crime laws. Brownback also attacked hate crimes laws as criminalizing thought and moving into an agenda of not allowing people to speak their beliefs.  Businessman John Cox talked about common sense but spouted nonsense, talking about opening floodgates to bestiality and polygamy and warning darkly of “transvestite” teachers in public schools as a reason to support “school choice” and homeschooling.

During the “yes or no” segment of the program, Stephen Bennett, self-proclaimed “former homosexual,” argued that homosexual behavior is immoral and dangerous, and asked whether, as president, candidates would support legislation ensuring that schools would forfeit federal funding if they expose children to “homosexual propaganda” that puts them at risk. All the candidates clicked their green lights to answer “yes.”   A later question asking whether they would pledge to veto ENDA also won unanimous support.  

During a segment in which questions were directed at a single candidate, anti-gay zealot Peter LaBarbera asked the absent Mitt Romney why voters should trust him when he spent so much of  his career promoting “anti-life” and “pro-homosexual” policies and not challenging Marriott’s providing pornography in its hotels as a member of its board.  But perhaps the most memorable anti-gay question came from Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver, who cited Abraham Lincoln in criticizing Fred Thompson’s “federalist” approach to marriage, essentially making marriage equality the moral equivalent of slavery:

While you were senator you opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, but recently you stated that you would support a marriage amendment that would prevent judges from imposing same-sex marriage, so long as it would not prohibit state legislatures from adopting same-sex marriage. This reasoning is like saying that you favor a constitutional amendment that prohibits judges from imposing slavery, so long as the state legislatures were free to do so. Does not your position fundamentally misunderstand the universal importance of marriage in the same way my latter example about slavery indicates a misunderstanding of human dignity?

During last evening’s Values Voter Presidential Debate, debate organizer Janet Folger displayed an ultrasound image to the candidates and asked the candidates what they would do, if elected, to “restore legal protection and the full rights of personhood to every American waiting to be born.” 

The candidates quickly tried to outdo one another, with Sam Brownback proclaiming that he wanted to opportunity to nominate the Supreme Court judge who would overturn Roe v. Wade and Tom Tancredo explicitly pledged to have a specific abortion litmus test for choosing judges, while Duncan Hunter went so far as pledge to show a sonogram to any potential judicial candidate and only appoint those who see a “viable human life.” 

Alan Keyes, for his part, promised to issue an executive order committing the entire Executive Branch to protecting “life in the womb,” while Mike Huckabee talked mostly about his pro-life credentials and made some odd comparison to trying to save “six coal miners in the womb of a coal mine in Huntington, Utah.” 

Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter, Paul, Romney, Tancredo have signed "pledge."

Traditionally, Republican presidents and right-wing supporters have claimed not to have any sort of anti-abortion “litmus test” for the judges they intended to nominate to the Supreme Court.  For instance, that is exactly what President Bush claimed before he nominated John Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.   

In place of the anti-abortion “litmus test,” Republicans and their right-wing allies have hewn to language about nominating judges “in the mold of Scalia and Thomas” – which is basically the same thing.  So ingrained has this rhetorical trick become that it is currently being used by the all of the GOP presidential candidates. 

Well, at least the frontrunners. 

Months ago, Rep. Duncan Hunter stated that “If any judicial candidate comes before me and can look at a sonogram … and not see valuable life, then I will not appoint him.”  Now, Sen. Sam Brownback who, like Hunter, is still trying to establish himself as a viable candidate, has apparently decided to follow Hunter’s lead in eschewing the standard “in the mold of Scalia and Thomas” language in favor of openly admitting that he would apply a pretty basic litmus test for his nominees:  

Sen. Sam Brownback was one of three Republican presidential candidates to address the National Right to Life convention Friday at a forum for those seeking the GOP nomination. He said that, as president, he would like to nominate the next Supreme Court justice who could provide the fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“We're one vote shy on the Supreme Court. I want to be the president to appoint that justice,“ the GOP contender said.

Brownback’s not going to get the chance to appoint that justice, but at least some of the Republican candidates are willing to be honest about the very obvious “litmus test” they have, and always have had, for Supreme Court nominees.  

The National Right to Life Committee is holding its annual convention in Kansas City this weekend, and it’s drawn some prominent Republicans: President Bush saluted the gathered activists, saying in a taped message, “You have been a fearless shepherd of the innocent and unborn. … Together we've compiled an unprecedented record in the defense of the unborn and our work continues.”

Several GOP presidential candidates made the journey to greet the activists in person. Mitt Romney told conference-goers that their activism made him an anti-abortion “convert”; while he received a standing ovation, a video recently released by the McCain campaign shows him reiterating his pro-choice position as governor in 2005, emphasizing that he still has a long way to go to convince activists such as these of his sincerity. Sam Brownback was “cheered wildly,” according to Reuters, as he told the crowd, “We are winning the fight for life. We are going to win the fight for life.” Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul also spoke at the conference.

Fred Thompson, still yet to officially declare his candidacy for president, submitted a video message, featuring pictures of his wife and children. An archive video of Thompson as a candidate has also recently surfaced, showing him apparently supporting abortion rights. But unlike Romney, Thompson’s message today was not that of a convert:

In 1994, I made my first run for the U.S. Senate. I was proud to receive the National Right to Life endorsement. I’ve been with you ever since. You’ve been with me ever since. On abortion related votes I’ve been 100 percent.

These high-profile guests come at a crucial time for National Right to Life. The group has been at the center of an internecine conflict in the anti-abortion movement over long-term strategy. Its former Colorado state affiliate, Colorado Right to Life, joined a few other small groups to denounce religious-right heavyweight James Dobson, demanding that he “repent” for supporting the “Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.” National Right to Life defended Dobson, and Colorado Right to Life President Brian Rohrbough fired back, accusing its parent group of becoming “a wing of the Republican Party.” Since the ban only prevents one procedure, abortions will continue, according to the dissidents:

"The broader movement is claiming that we're saving lives, and we're not," said Brian Rohrbough, one of the dissident activists. "It can't get any worse than that." …

"We've been promised for almost 40 years that the strategy of electing Republicans would get us a Republican Supreme Court that would end abortion, and that has not happened," Rohrbough said. "If we raise money to do the same thing over and over again we will never, ever establish personhood for all [unborn] children."

The partial-birth ruling "gives us the most powerful example we've ever had of how morally bankrupt this strategy is," added the Rev. Bob Enyart, pastor of Denver Bible Church.

Meanwhile, incrementalists – including Dobson and most other national groups – see the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ban as a major victory, and they plan to continue chipping away at Roe v. Wade by pushing more and more restrictions. Activist Jill Stanek accused her erstwhile “purist” allies of “fanatical thinking.” Meanwhile, Colorado Right to Life and the others took out another ad, this time in Human Events, again calling the ruling “More Wicked than Roe.”

So it wasn’t surprising that the day before National Right to Life’s big convention, it cut its state affiliate loose, naming “Colorado Citizens for Life/Protecting Life Now” in its stead.

Last Thursday, the American Enterprise Institute hosted a debate on “Darwinism and Conservatism” in which Discovery Institute fellows John West and George Gilder sought to persuade conservatives that the scientific theory of evolution is incompatible with their political ideology, no doubt by attempting to link evolution to eugenics and abortion. That same night, the idea was tested in a more practical theater: the Republican presidential debate. John McCain was asked whether he believes in evolution – his answer, after a pause, was yes. Then the co-moderater asked for a show of hands:

Last month, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention declared Rudy Giuliani’s campaign for president doomed, citing the former New York mayor’s reputation as a supporter of gay rights and a woman’s right to choose. He told The Hill that “If [Giuliani] wins, he’ll do so without social conservatives” – a result Land considered impossible. But less than two weeks later, Giuliani garnered a warm reception at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where he side-stepped social wedge issues and emphasized his supposedly Reagan-like leadership qualities in the context of 9/11. Conservative columnist Bob Novak declared Giuliani “the big winner here,” and he came in second to Mitt Romney in the CPAC straw poll. Unlike Romney, noted Novak, “Giuliani had not stacked the crowd with supporters,” a strategy that casts doubt on Romney’s first-place showing. And Giuliani continues to top polls of primary voters.

According to Novak, “Some activists expressed dismay that so many conservatives would cheer Giuliani without even making him offer anything for the Right” – apparently flying in the face of what every other Republican candidate has been doing for the past few months. But it’s still early in the campaign. Giuliani is scheduled to speak at Pat Robertson’s Regent University next month, and the televangelist himself has declared that the former mayor “did a super job running the city of New York and I think he'd make a good president.” Last year, he helped raise money for Ralph Reed, an unsuccessful candidate for Georgia lieutenant governor who is better known as the former head of the Christian Coalition and one of the seminal organizers of the Religious Right in the late 80s and 90s.

And recently, he has been making promises to the far Right on an issue that could be seen as a calculated revision of his abortion position: judges. “On the federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am,” he announced in South Carolina. And he offered specific praise for right-wing members of the Supreme Court: “I think those are the kinds of justices I would appoint -- Scalia, Alito and Roberts.” Such statements fall short of the ham-handed pandering of long-shot candidate Rep. Duncan Hunter (“If any judicial candidate comes before me and can look at a sonogram … and not see valuable life, then I will not appoint him,” said Hunter to applause at CPAC), but they do echo almost exactly the words President George W. Bush deployed when he was campaigning for the office.

Much has been written of the unseasonably early 2008 presidential campaign, but one unanticipated side effect is that the Conservative Political Action Conference agenda is larded with ambitious politicians hoping to surprise – or at least appease – what all of them have apparently decided is their best hope, the far-right base. No less than eight Republican contenders (if you count Newt Gingrich, who appears to be looking for the side entrance to the White House) are scheduled; the only major candidate missing is John McCain.

And so the activist crowd, compared to last year’s conference, is more enthused with people than with causes. Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, a relatively unknown candidate, managed to fill a good portion of the large hall first thing in the morning. By 10 this morning, Mike Huckabee had people standing in the back, and at noon, CPAC staff closed off the wing as Rudy Giuliani had filled it up. At that point, a line began forming for those who wanted to see Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, and Mitt Romney, and by the time Giuliani finished his hour-long speech, the hundreds in line stretched back to the exhibit hall in the next wing. Of course, that may not have reflected any popularity on the part of the candidates themselves so much as the crowd wanting to get their money’s worth at the three-day event.

Duncan Hunter attempts to use legislation to pardon agents involved in shooting.

On abortion, stem cells. Meanwhile: Long-shot Hunter signs Norquist’s no-tax pledge.

For Supreme Court nominees.