Duncan Hunter for President?

Duncan Hunter is an old friend of mine and, as many of you know, is running for President. He's not taken seriously by most and he seems to be playing the role of reminding the other major candidates what Conservatives should believe.

I believe Hunter, who has a son who is serving in the military in Iraq and running for Congress himself, is the strongest and most credible candidate when it comes to nationl security issues. A Vietnam veteran himself who has his own sone on the front lines, his message is very powerful and he cannot be accused of hyprocisy. Unfortunately, popular support for the war is in continued decline and in message in support of it falls on deaf ears.

Other key issues that he stands on is a staunch position against illegal immigration and opposition to free trade. I agree, illegals need to be brought out of the darkenss in order to protect our citizens. However, I also believe this economy needs the help of these immigrants. They make our economy grow. Furthermore, free trade has been fundamental cornerstone of Republican economic philosophy. Herbert Hoover, the last Republican candidate to support protectionism, propelled the into the Depression with such policies. Protectionism makes domestic companies soft, forces consumers to pay higher prices, leads to tensions between countries (as Fredric Bastiat like to say, "if goods are not crossing borders, troops are"), and is funamentally bad policy.

On Monday's Houston Business Hour (August 27, 2007 at 7 AM) Duncan Hunter will be on my program to discuss these and other issues. I believe it will be a very interesting program.

In the Clever Marketing Department

Yesterday, I received an email from Duncan Hunter's campaign for President and, I must admit, it is really clever. The email, exclusively for those working in the media, stated in the subject line that "A US Congressman wants to talk to you" and had the following message:

"United States Congressman Trent Franks (photo) of Phoenix wants to discuss politics with the media. He is so inspired by the candidacy of fellow Congressman Duncan Hunter that he is offering his personal cell phone number (202) ###-#### to the media. It is another sign of the growing traction the Hunter for President Campaign is getting as it travels through the early primary states. Franks has been an ardent supporter of Hunter since his campaign began. He is offering media interviews to analyze the recent South Carolina debate where Hunter scored very high, as declared by political strategists. 'I vision Duncan Hunter in the White House in 2009 and I want to visit with the media representatives to explain why.' Franks describes Hunter as, 'One part Ronald Reagan and one part John Wayne. 'Franks said he believes Hunter possesses the strength of character and the leadership qualities Americans want. He added, 'Duncan Hunter is the right man at the right time for the right reasons.'"

In the old days I use to do campaign consulting, so I find this idea interesting and if its objective was to get me to call, it worked. Sure enough, the very friendly Congressman answered the phone and we visited for several minutes as he walked to cast a vote. He is very passionate in his support and sincerely believes in Hunter and (to listen to him), his chances of winning.

Hunter is fortunate to have such a passionate ally and an excellent "guerrilla marketing" staff. Furthermore, Trent Franks is a winner himself in this program, because many in the media who are not familiar with him will likely remember him because of his involvement in this innovative project. This week, I have to give the Hunter campaign an A+ for effort.

See How They Run: Observations on the First 08 Republican Debate

The first debate is over and the political season is only beginning. I found Thursday's debate interesting on a couple of levels and walked away with numerous opinions. Here are a few of them:

* The minor candidates really need more forums such as this. It allows them to project an image of equality and most of them are as well informed and articulate as the major contenders.

* Two of the major candidates -- Giuliani and McCain -- were harmed by this debate. They were surprisingly rough around the edges, not the person whom you want on a platform with world leaders representing our interests, and simply did not come across as presidential.

* One of the major candidates, Mitt Romney, definitely benefited. He was articulate, smooth, and poised. If anything he was "too much" of those things. But I believe most were impressed.

* I believe the concept of "who won" is largely contingent on who you wanted to win. I really didn't care. Although I know some of the candidates and am old friends with Duncan Hunter (R-CA), I wanted to see who would win. After the debate I notice I had an article open on one candidate on the Internet and another window on his web page. His answers were the only ones I remembered. That was former Secretary of Health and Human Services and former Governor, Tommy Thompson (photo). He was one of the only candidates who was extremely specific on the issues, offered innovative (even memorable) reforms, and seemed to be more interested in policy than politics.

Thompson reminded me of a candidate I supported in 1988, Pete du Pont (the former Republican Governor of Delaware), who offered "damn right solutions" to the problems America faced. I believe he was right then and if we had listened to him then, we would be in a much better situation today. Unfortunately, most people are interested in politics than policy. Personality more than leadership. I don't think Thompson will catch on any more than duPont, 20 years ago.

So who won Thursday's debate? I believe the answer to that is in the eyes of the beholder. I know who I liked, how about you? I would love your comments.

See How They Run: Reagan Impersonators?

The first debate of the Republican candidates for President will be on hallowed ground -- the Reagan Library (image) in California. Ronald Reagan is an icon that was larger than life when living and he casts a huge shadow in death. For 20 years, Republican candidates have tried desperately (and unsuccessfully) to fill those shoes. Tonight, they meet at the Reagan library to debate and I assure you his name will be mentioned early and often.

I have known many of the candidates for years and many are excellent at what they do, but few are even Presidential timber, let alone worthy of being spoken in the same breath as Reagan. The list of candidates include Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Jim Gilmore (former Republican Governor of Virginia), and Congressman Duncan Hunter of California. There are a few others that you may have never heard of before. Seriously though, it is a huge list of unheard of candidates and the "big three" (McCain, Giuliani, and Romney) appear to be on a roller coaster ride and are having difficulty getting traction.

One of the most popular Republican candidate, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, hasn't even declared he is running and will not be participating in the debate tonight. Described as "Southern Fried Reagan," he has many of the characteristics necessary to win the election. A solid (but reasonable) conservative, Southern (a virtual prerequisite it seems), and high visual and name ID (because of his movie and TV career), many Republicans are waiting for him to jump in.

There is no Ronald Reagan in the lot, even with the entrance of a Fred Thompson. I'm not sure if we will ever see anyone of that stature again. But if the Republican Party is going to be taken seriously, someone like Thompson is going to have to get in this race.

See How They Run: Why Are They Running So Early?

This is the earliest time in US history for candidates to declare they are running for President. The question many are asking, is why? I think this can be attributed to several reasons:

* Some candidates have never stopped running. John McCain (R-AZ) has been running since 2000 when he challenged George Bush. He has continuously raised money and organized and has been biting at the bit for years. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has been running for President since 1992 and many argue that she served many of the years her husband was in office. In order to appease their supporters and to try to deter potential competitors (this obviously didn't work), these candidates had to jump in early. Them jumping in early forced others to do the exact same thing.

* Others on the lower end of the electability scale jumped in early to build support and even an identity. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) (see photo, above), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Mike Gravel (D-AK), and Ron Paul (R-TX), are just a few of the candidates that fill that bill. This group has different objectives. I'm sure all would love to be President, but they are also interested in merely seeing their perspectives out there, to push their opponents in their ideological direction, or to even run for a high level post once the election is over. For example, many believe Joe Biden (D-DE) is actually running for Secretary of State in a new administration or even the US Supreme Court. Others honestly believe that the big name people will actually fall on their face, creating opportunities for these lessor known candidates.

* Some have major name ID, but lack national experience. This includes Rudy Guiliani (R-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL), both of whom are major players, neither of whom have been tested on the national scene. Many are arguing that Obama is actually running for 2012 and is building momentum and working through his mistakes now. If he is lucky, he will have the same success as Bill Clinton who many said he was doing the same thing in 1992.

* Speaking of working out mistakes, all of the candidates would like to have as much time as possible, in order to be judged in the most favorable way.

The question I have is, will all this early running help improve or hurt the electoral process? Will it excite more people or bore them to tears? My guess is that most Americans are going to be so sick of the elections, they will simply want them over with by November 2008. On the other hand, I believe candidates will increasingly early in elections to come. In fact, don't be surprised if someone announces for 2012 (keep your eye on YouTube) any day now.