Hunter supports abortion which appeals to his pro-life constituency but also attempts to get the pro-choice voters by implying that he will however support the abortion in the case that, “when the life of the woman is endangered”. 7 This is a good example of political manipulation at its best; Hunter knows that to get reelected for office that he cannot solely on his own party but by appeasing both sides with an issue he has a far better chance. Although these are not major issues they are still an intricate part for his campaigning but the most publicity comes from his stance on his major issues.
Hunter’s main argument for stronger immigration laws is that immigration is cutting down available jobs for Americans. The problem with this is that many of the jobs taken up by the illegal immigration work force is field work, which is underpaid and the jobs nearly resemble slavery. These statements were made in April of two-thousand one (2001). Now Hunter’s vote has shifted from migrant workers and leaning more towards keeping out illegal immigrants from Latin America and the Middle East. It appears now that his immigration policy may involve aspects of his defense policy.
The reason being is that because of “September Eleventh” the attention of migrant workers from the Mexico-United States border changed to the problem of keeping terrorist out of the country. But Hunter still managed to involve the military more with border control and urged for a construction of a new border wall. This leads into Hunter’s second important issue, which is the military defense program. Hunter has been involved in this issue since he arrived in the Capital. Hunter has worked to achieve much of the legislation for the drastic changes to the military.
As he himself is a veteran he also proposed new legislation to help those who have served or and are veterans. Hunter’s argument about the military is that improvements need to be made to different aspects of the force. Hunter points out that the structure of the military force is the first step in renovating it. Hunter had troubles with improving the military during the Clinton administration because Clinton was down sizing the military and cutting down on military spending. Hunter referred to the down sizing as the, “Clinton budget axe”,8 this however is not the only time Hunter has spoken against the decisions of a president.
A recent event in the Bush administration over a bill that would propose that a large amount of the funding that is allocated to the defense budget be managed by a new position leader; this would be the National Intelligence Director. The problem Hunter states about the bill is that, “it shifts too much control over intelligence operations and budgets from the military”. 9 This would not work is that provisions in the bill would be unfavorable for soldiers in the battle field to receive information through a complex chain of command.
Although this was Hunter’s argument, the logical explanation for him not to support this bill is that it would tremendously affect his power over the defense department and its allocation of money. The funding that goes towards the defense budget is the main power source that Hunter derives from. Taking that away would abstract the influence he has on the House Armed Services Committee. For this reason Hunter is wrong for opposing the bill under his circumstances but it does not necessarily indicate that his general opposition is without a cause.
It is difficult to understand why Hunter does not oppose the intelligence reform on the same grounds as House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, who also opposes the bill but under the condition that immigration laws will be reinforced with stricter regulations. This is logical for the reason that Hunter has been involved with immigration policies throughout his political career. Then it also can be argued that Hunter again is playing political games and trying to build up enough support behind Sensenbrenner and himself.
Their opposition of the bill would be less troublesome to counteract if they both opposed it with one sole argument, so coming out opposing the reform with different avenues is a good tactic on their behalf. Hunter being a chairman of the House Armed Services Committee gives him a certain right to stand on an issue such as this one, even if it means going against the President, which is a whole other issue on its own. Opposing the president is logical for Hunter for the reason that, it would greatly benefit him to do so.
However, this is not the case all the time; Hunter has recently made publicly his support for President Bush and his decisions with the Iraqi governmental situation. Hunter stated that, “the U. S. role will be to provide a “shield” under which a democracy can take root in Iraq”,10 which indicates that Hunter supports President Bush’s foreign policy on how the transition from United States control of the interim government in Iraq is going to be handled. So as Hunter continues his endeavors in Congress with recent publicity on a national basis it can help or hurt his career.
His position in Congress does have a major role in where he can end up in a few years. Although Hunter has certain narrow views on issues he has the ability to comprehend what he needs to do to appease those outside his constituency. This is the factor which makes him influential but also a major player in politics. This does not go to say that Hunter made it to Capital Hill by being a good honest man throughout his career. This would not clearly depict a person of his caliber from Congress for the reason that it is a cut-throat business participating in politics especially on a federal level.
At this level is where attention to all aspects of issues has to be taken into consideration. So to say that, “Hunter is in the mix of Washington” it can clearly represent what everyday life for a Congressman would be because of all the different occurrences that go on in Washington.
1 http://www. house. gov/hunter/bio. html, sub-category: About Duncan 2 Ibid. [here Ibid. refers to http://www. house. gov/hunter/bio. html, sub-category: About Duncan] 3 Ibid. [here Ibid. refers to http://www. house. gov/hunter/bio. html, sub-category: About Duncan].
4 Ibid. [here Ibid. refers to http://www. house. gov/hunter/bio. html, sub-category: About Duncan] 5 Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus-press release (April 4,2001) [page not known] 6 http://www. vote-smart. org/npat. php? can_id=H0581103#6 7 Ibid. [here Ibid. refers http://www. vote-smart. org/npat. php? can_id=H0581103#0] 8 Wall Street Journal, March 5, 2003 (page not known) 9 http://www. cnn. com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/23/congress. intelligence/index. html 10 http://www. cnn. com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/23/bush. iraq/index. html.