Hunter Endorsed Huckabee Because Of Romney’s Refusal To Rein In Bain Capital
January 31st, 2008 by joe
Duncan Hunter just held a teleconference in which one of the questions was why he endorsed the Huckster - when the Huckster’s continuation in the presidential race will likely result in John McCain as the Republican nominee. The questioner also seemed to imply he’d like to see Hunter reconsider.
Hunter explained that Mitt Romney’s refusal to work against his former company’s - Bain Capital’s - involvement with the Chinese company Huawei Technologies, or even to answer questions about the association, made Romney a “non-starter” for him. (Hunter had publicly called on Romney to terminate a deal by which Huawei was to purchase a large stake in the American company 3com.)
Hunter explained that Huawei had installed telecom equipment in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and in Afghanistan for the Taliban, work that eventually would be used against U.S. armed forces.
Though he did not say so, the implication was that Romney and Huckabee were the only two Hunter would have considered endorsing at the time he dropped out.
Of course, Hunter was under no obligation to endorse anyone. So why endorse a guy whose record on illegal immigration was so antithetical to Hunter’s own supposedly strongly- held positions? My guess is Hunter has such strong antipathy to Mitt Romney that he wanted to help ensure he would not get the GOP nomination: Endorsing Huckabee would help ensure the Huckster would continue to leech support from Romney.
Undoubtedly, Hunter would rather see McCain in the White House than Romney. Though I supported Hunter, I think this was short sighted in light of what is going to happen within the Republican party if McCain is the nominee. Hunter in effect is saying he would rather see a Democrat in the White House.
UPDATE: A couple of other comments by Duncan Hunter were illuminating and should be reported in the interest of full disclosure: He noted that during one of the debates, Romney did not get the opportunity to answer a question Hunter posed about Bain Capital because the moderator changed the subject. He also said, with reference to Romney’s reported change to a more conservative position on abortion, “I could never understand beating a guy up because he comes over to your way of thinking.”
I am not sure these comments ameliorate what Hunter surely seemed to try to do to Romney with the Huckabee endorsement, but the latter comment would possibly explain why Hunter could endorse a formerly avid open borders guy like the Huckster. Maybe Huckabee just convinced him he’d had a change of heart.
This entry was posted on Thursday, January 31st, 2008 at 10:48 pm and is filed under Campaign 2008, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:12 pm
That was a really dumb move on his part. I doubt he’ll win if voters have to choose between JM and either HC or BO. Its not contest their side will be more pumped coming out of the primary and flush with cash.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:17 am
Yeah, but that’s where Lou Dobbs and Bloomie come in
February 1st, 2008 at 7:58 am
I agree with Hunter’s stmt on Romney’s change on abortion. I heard McCain say he had always been pro-life in the debate the other night, trying to dis ROmney. McCain’s BF Lieberman changed his position in the opposite direction, from pro-life to pro-choice for political expediency, and McCain has said nothing.
Hunter’s endorsement was strange, it would have been netter to endorse no one.
Lou Dobbs and Blommie, huh? I still don’t see it.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:36 am
Lou Dobbs and Bloomie means two separate third-party candidates in November, splitting the vote four ways. Makes it anybody’s ballgame and takes away the Dems inherent advantage (especially if Hillary is the nominee). It’s my theory and I’m sticking with it.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:43 am
I can see that Hunter has an itch about foreign investments into our frontline technologies. When you think that our military aircraft are running on parts made overseas, it becomes blatently familiar that we have lost or given up our technological edge in some industries. The Chinese are NOT our friends and this is a grave detriment to our national security. Romney, like any good entrepenuer, will put his money were it will do him the most good. Fine. Do you believe that noone else in political power does this? Has the president or congress from the time of Nixon ever put the cabosh on this way of doing business? It just shows that big business and capitalism drive this country. What gets me is why there are no constraints on what kind of business we can do with foreign powers other than giving up state secrets. Big loophole in national security, don’t you think?
Hunter was wrong on this issue. Yes, Romney could have the fortitude to do what he believes would be in the best interest of his counrty and as a contender for the big seat I would believe he would (even Carter gave up is conflict-of-interest peanuts) divest himself from questionable practices. But why should he? Does anyone else? And is the damage done from this scenerio any worse than the lack of national security from open borders? Hunter is wrong. Huckleberry is wrong. And Romney is wrong. Hunter should have just thrown in with Osama-bama. Don’t see any difference from what he has done here.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I will wait for the Louie and Bloomie seperate tickets to emerge - Joe the prognosticator.
Refusing to work (speak) against a former company is much different then taking part in the involvement with the Chinese. I may be splitting hairs here, but the arguement sounds weak. I tend to agree with Activist, the lines in the Conflict of Interest scenario are blurred and bendable for the most part.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:40 am
[…] this, well, interesting political season, it is of some interest that the 3Com deal was part of the reason why Duncan Hunter refused to endorse Mitt […]