WHO WAS THE REAL CONSERVATIVE? by Tim Siggia

WHO WAS THE REAL CONSERVATIVE?

By Tim Siggia

January 12, 2008

On Thursday, January 10, the Republican candidates for president debated on the Fox News Channel. Many of the usual themes resonated, such as limited government, lower taxes, decreased spending, and so on. Immigration and the war in Iraq were touched on. With the sole exception of Ron Paul, all the candidates sounded pretty much the same. All, predictably enough, claimed the mantle of conservatism and invoked the name of Ronald Reagan. So who was the real conservative?

Was it Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who appears to have had a sort of conservative epiphany since leaving office in that state? No, Romney insists, he did not flip-flop on the abortion issue. He has always been pro-life, but was hamstrung by the Massachusetts state constitution which permits abortion. Fair enough. However, although having admirable stands on taxation, immigration, and his newly-proclaimed pro-life position, there's still the irritating matter of universal health care, a.k.a. socialized medicine. Romney enacted that in Massachusetts, in a form which mandated insurance coverage for all state residence. Now who is it who advocates practically the exact same thing? Hillary who?

Certainly it wasn't Ron Paul, the constitutional purist who claims to be the only true conservative running. Paul is right on target when it comes to domestic issues, but loses it on foreign policy with his advocacy of surrender in Iraq and his head-in-the-sand stance on Iran. In fact, when it comes to national defense, Paul seems to be of the opinion that our armed forces exist only for the purposes of parades and ceremonies, that they should never actually be used for waging war. On the issue of national defense, he echoes the Democrats. He also proved himself a less than stellar debater when he obviously misunderstood a question concerning the Navy's passive response to provocation by Iran, and gave an answer having nothing to do with the question asked -- even after the question had been repeated and clarified. None of the other candidates had any trouble with that question; only Paul did.

Perhaps it was John McCain, Arizona senator, retired Navy captain, and former prisoner-of-war in Vietnam. He too sounded all the usual conservative buzzwords. But what about immigration? McCain understands the problem, he insists, coming from a border state himself. Though he insists he's the candidate most qualified to deal with this, his positions on border control and illegal immigration seem ambiguous, to say the least. Also, his penchant of being just a little too ready to make deals with the Democrats, demonstrated most notably in the past by his co-authorship of the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold Act, tends to cause conservatives to look askance at McCain. McCain doesn't just reach across party lines, he dives across them.

Rudy Giuliani? Oh yes, he's a conservative too, at least by his own assertion. For experience he cites not only his service as mayor of New York, but also his tenure as a federal prosecutor. Giuliani would be tough on foreign policy, and would work to bring down taxes. But what about social issues? Interestingly, those were never addressed, though Giuliani's stances on abortion, gay rights, and other such topics are well-known and well-documented.

Then we have Mike Dukakis -- er, excuse me, I mean Huckabee. He who lowered taxes in Arkansas, and also raised them. Interesting. In Huckabee it seems we have the flip-side of Giuliani: conservative on social issues, and wildly liberal on fiscal ones. Huckabee, it seems, is for open borders, though that aspect of his candidacy was played down during the debate, and would also issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Doesn't sound all that conservative to me.

If anyone really shone, it was Fred Thompson, who directly challenged Huckabee and came on with a fire not previously seen since his late announcement of candidacy. Anyone who had not known of Thompson's previous votes as senator from Tennessee would certainly have been convinced. Thompson's credentials as a debater were certainly established. However, based on things like his support of McCain-Feingold and his vote to acquit Bill Clinton of his impeachment charges, Thompson also seems to have his flaws.

No, the Real Conservative is the one candidate who was not allowed to speak: California representative Duncan Hunter, who was dropped from the Republican debate as were Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson from the Democratic debate, all based on poor showing at the Iowa Caucuses. Of all Republicans running, only Hunter is conservative on both fiscal and social issues. His stance on illegal immigration is unquestioned. Funds for the building of a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border have been appropriated, but only Hunter has actually used those funds. A former Army Ranger who served as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and has two sons who have served in Iraq, he is knowledgeable and in tune with military matters. The only two qualities he lacks seem to be those that are most important: a fat bankroll and celebrity status. He has been a guest on the Sean Hannity Show and "The Savage Nation" with Michael Savage. He has endorsements from Ann Coulter and former New Hampshire senator Bob Smith. Rush Limbaugh, for the most part, has ignored him.

Hunter, however, is still in the race. He has not yet gone the way of Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, and now, most recently, Bill Richardson. If anyone's looking for the Real Conservative, he was not in the Fox News debate. Hopefully, he will still be on the ballots on Super Tuesday.