This interview is part of an ongoing 2010 series of conversations with former Congressman and conservative icon Duncan Lee Hunter. The intent is to keep this rock ribbed conservative’s ideas in the public square which will hopefully influence the direction of the Republican Party, as well as inspire the American people to embrace his Reaganesque views on American life and politics. With any luck, Hunter will seek the presidency again in 2012, but for now he is concentrating on helping the GOP wrestle control of the Congress from the radical Pelosi brigades.

AJM: There you are, you sound much better than on the cell?

DH: Hey, how you doing there?

AJM: Not too shabby. You’re not out doing a fundraiser tonight, it appears.

DH: Nope. Just writing away here.

AJM: Hey, how did the two fundraisers go last week?

DH: It went well. We raised a nice sum for Gunny Pop here at the house. Just had some folks over here. Not an organized thing, but just a very informal event to raise some money for him. He had another one as well. I don’t know how he did, but I presume pretty well. We’re going to start doing some television.

AJM: Oh, is that right?

DH: Yeah, you’ve got to do that stuff early. These things don’t happen by Immaculate Conception, so if you wait until October hoping that somehow people are going to discover you, you’re in trouble. You’ve got to go out early.

AJM: I assume he has been crisscrossing the district like a madman too.

DH: Oh yeah. He’s been out meeting a lot of people. But you absolutely have got to do a lot of stuff to win.

AJM: Yeah, it’s hard work, as you well know.

DH: Yeah. So he’s hard at it, and we’re helping him. So that’s good.

AJM: That’s fantastic. He’s a good one.

DH: So what are you up to?

AJM: I’ve been busier than the proverbial one-legged man lately and …

DH: Glad somebody is working.

AJM: Yes indeed. Got to take care of the clients, otherwise they can get snippy on me if I don’t.

But Sam Crump, the conservative out in Arizona. He had an announcement on his website some time ago, and I think I brought it up to you, that you were…..

DH: I went out there.

AJM: Oh, so you did go out there for him?

DH: Yeah.

AJM: OK. I just didn’t know if that ever took place. I see that your old buddy McCain came out and endorsed some RINO that’s running against Sam.

DH: Well that’s interesting, but not surprising. That’s the old Shadegg district. It’s a good republican seat. So in keeping with Republican traditions, we’re going to spend 10 million dollars to decide who gets a sure fire district.

AJM: (laughs)

DH: And we’ll lose the closely contested district by 50 votes, because we needed another $10K to put us over the top. We’re not real smart.

AJM: (laughs)

DH: I mean that always happens. Everyone is an independent contractor, so you can’t keep them from running.

So anyway, that’s a complicated district in this sense. There’s a bunch of guys running, some of whom have a lot of money. One of whom is Dan Quayle’s son. I talked to Sydney – oh, yeah, Sydney had her fundraiser out here, yeah. She did pretty good too. It’s harder to raise money for people who aren’t in the district. You’ve got to appeal to the folks that want the ‘team’ to go over the top. But anyway, Crump is in that busy primary. Sydney thinks it might be tough for him. You’ve got Quayle spending money like there is no tomorrow. And there are several other people there in the race. So it’s very hotly contested. But I liked Crump.

AJM: Yeah, well I read all of Sam Crump’s literature, all his statements and policy positions. He sounds like the real deal. He’s a pretty conservative guy.

DH: Yeah, he is.

AJM: Anyway, I think you chose wisely and I’ll see if I can help him a little bit. But I can’t spread myself too thin.

DH: Yeah. So Crump’s got a tough road. But that’s a good reason to help him.

AJM: Yep, absolutely. Another ‘no amnesty guy’! I imagine that Sydney (Sydney Hay, GOP candidate for congress in AZ #1) has a tough primary as well?

DH: Oh yeah. I think though she’s got a lot of name ID. And she’s got money, and she has about $160,000 in the bank. But she’s got a lot of name ID from last time. So, I think Sydney wins handily. That’s just my inkling here.

AJM: How about old Jesse? Jesse Kelly, down in Tucson?

DH: I got a call from Jesse. He says they are neck and neck.

AJM: Well, you might have to get back out there!

DH: Well, I’m going to help him again at some point and get out. I got a call yesterday. He’s running against a state senator. These guys are all calculators. When they think they can win, they get in.

AJM: Yeah, the thing is, most of them – I shouldn’t say most of them – but half of these guys are RINOs until they get into a situation where conservatism is the flavor of the day. Then all the sudden these limp wrists become rock ribbed Reaganites. But it seems to me that Kelly, who jumped in some time ago, was one right out of the gate.

DH: Absolutely. I agree with you.

AJM: But I’ve got a couple more questions then I’ll let you get on with your business.

DH: Go fast, because I’m writing away here and I’ve got a helper with me. He’s a PhD in history, so he’s very expensive. (laughs). He’s a $100 per hour.

AJM: (laughs) Is that right? That’s more than I charge you! (laughing)

DH: That’s more than I’m getting FROM YOU! (laughs).

OK, what do you got?

AJM: OK, I’ll be real quick. The Arizona case yesterday, we lost. At least Obama won the initial round.

DH: I only saw what was on the news, so tell me what really happened.

AJM: The judge ruled, she set aside the enforcement provisions of the Arizona law, saying you can’t do this until it has finally worked its way through the court system. So she set aside anything with teeth. But of course your friend Joe Arpaio, the Sheriff out there, said “I’m not changing a thing”. So, I don’t know if it’s going to affect him, but it will likely affect some of the other ones, the law enforcement out there.

DH: So they set aside the enforcement of the law?

AJM: They can’t ask, if they have reasonable suspicion, they cannot ask to see the documents of the suspected illegal aliens. Isn’t that ridiculous?

DH: Yes.

AJM: How the hell else are they supposed to tell if they are illegal? Of course, Arizona immediately appealed.

DH: Now, did she set that aside permanently, or did she set it aside until the final case is decided?

AJM: Yeah, she didn’t rule it unconstitutional, she just set it aside, I believe, until the full case is heard. The law was supposed to go into effect yesterday, but she’s saying you can’t check their papers. And that’s the whole point: To allow local law enforcement to check for immigration status. But we still have some hope for it; it’s not the end of the road for it.

DH: That may be a ‘victory’ that the Obama Administration doesn’t want to have around their necks going into the election.

AJM: Well, they were out there crowing about it.

DH: Well first, the Obama Administration is doing this strictly for the politics. Because they KNOW the border is out of control there and they are not offering to accelerate construction of the fence or do anything else to help.

AJM: They put the brakes on it completely.

DH: Yeah, that’s my point. They’re not saying in good faith, ‘let’s secure the border, but we don’t like the way you’re doing it, here’s our way’. They’re offering NO WAY. So for all practical purposes, they are perpetuating an open border. They are content to leave the floodgates wide open.

AJM: Absolutely. And here is the proof. I got proof today, and this is the main reason I called you tonight. You know how we talked a little bit before about how Chuck Grassley and some of the senators had written a letter to Obama saying, ‘hey, we hear rumor that you guys are trying to do an executive order amnesty’?

DH: Yeah.

AJM: Well, turns out it wasn’t rumor. They got the documents; Grassley managed to get the documents from the administration. And they have like an 8 point plan for all the things they can do to give amnesty without the legislators’ input. So hair is on fire right now. I’ll send you this PDF and the news story that’s on it. National Review covered it. Numbers USA covered it today. A few outlets have covered it already today. I know you’re busy writing the book, but if you could write an article and get it out, maybe send it to the San Diego Tribune, or somebody; this is diabolical.

DH: Yeah, whip it over to me. There ought to be a large hue and cry, a lot of people in Congress should be commenting on this!

AJM: Yeah, but it just broke. And unfortunately, as you well know, there’s a large contingent of the GOP that really doesn’t care about this subject.

DH: You mean out of the almost 200 GOP representatives, none of them are saying a word? That can’t be!

AJM: Well, Grassley is. And maybe they haven’t had time to digest it all yet.

DH: That should be explosive news!

AJM: And it is, and…

DH: Are you sure it is? Are you sure you’ve got what’s been advertised?

AJM: Yes, absolutely. I’m sure you’ll see people like Steve King, I’m sure he’ll come out and say something. Maybe JD Hayworth will say something, even thought he’s not elected now. I mean, I anticipate that all the usual suspects will come out and say something. The other Republicans, mmmmmm, we’ll see. The reason I think you are the best choice to give a response is that you have moral authority. Lots of people still see you as the kingpin of the anti-amnesty crowd.

DH: Well send it on over. But the things that I have done, the contribution I’ve had, has been securing parts of the border by building the fence. I’ve left a lot of the talking head stuff to the other guys, because in the end, all they’ve done is have a good conversation. What I’ve done is construction, basically, and some enforcement. Construction works. (laughs)

AJM: That’s true. But you’re being too modest. I went through your congressional record back in 2007.

DH: But listen, King has been on the television every other night. He’s part of the ‘talking crowd’.

AJM: (laughs)

DH: He’s been a great supporter of border enforcement, rhetorically, and that’s been good. Let me see, who else? Obviously Tancredo. But these guys have actually done more speaking and talking about amnesty and immigration than I have. What I’ve done is just gone out and built stuff.

AJM: Well, you’re selling yourself short.

DH: No listen, I think action is always better than words! I’m not selling myself short. I’ve done real stuff. But you want me to join the debate club. (laughs)

AJM: You ARE selling yourself short. Not that the construction wasn’t fantastic and genuine and concrete and absolutely needed, but you proposed, either sponsored or cosponsored, legislation – of course a lot of it failed by hitting brick walls with dems and RINOs – but you sponsored or cosponsored some 80 or 90 bills or amendments dealing with illegal immigration, above and beyond just the fencing.

DH: Yeah, but in the end, the only thing, or one of the few things that have been of substance has been the fencing. Its impact has been dramatic, where it gets built. All those other 90 bills, even the things that initially got some Democrat co-sponsors early on, fell apart. You know like E-Verify? One thing we got was that employers didn’t want to, and in most cases couldn’t, be the ones to determine the validation of documents, the validity of documents. So we made something very easy for them, which was E-Verify, where they knock out the social security number and they get either a yea or a nay. In the end, even that has lost Democrat support. So essentially, the Democrats turned, almost without exception, without debating the point, they turned into the open borders crowd.

AJM: That’s true. They see illegal aliens and hispancis as their meal ticket.

DH: Yeah, that’s what they think.

AJM: But you’ve had, for example, legislation to punish sanctuary cities, to end the anchor baby nonsense. By the way, your son came out with the other day new legislation too on sanctuary cities. Did you know that?

DH: I know he’s been working hard on it.

AJM: I think he’s now got it drafted up, and he’s got cosponsors coming on. So he’s taking up in your footsteps. And just like you, taking the heat. You’ve dealt with all these things over the years. And you’re right; most of them have been smothered in the crib, so to speak.

DH: (laughs loudly). Yeah, they just haven’t had enough support. But nonetheless, they’ve been good talking points for the cause. But in the end the only thing that has really worked has been the real fencing.

AJM: I’ll switch gears on you in a minute, but some of that gum flapping you did…

DH: (laughs) I don’t do gum flapping. I’ve endorsed stuff. But if you look at the debates, and you saw all the guys that just go out and talk and talk and talk about the immigration issue, I’ve been there, usually writing or supporting the bills, but I’ve tried to be a man of few words, but more action.

AJM: No doubt.

DH: So I haven’t spent a lot of time singing to the choir, like most people do in this business, right? At some point you have to move forward and try to do things that are meaningful and real. So that’s what I’ve done.

AJM: That’s true. But there are certainly exceptions to that, and one big recent one. And that was in 2007 when the amnesty bill was imminent – remember Bush said “see you at the signing” of McCain-Kennedy? – you led the charge, though you had a lot of help, you led the charge condemning that in no uncertain terms.

DH: Yep. I’m against any amnesty. I condemned it during the presidential debates, with McCain there on the stage with me: “The Kenndy-McCain bill”. Highly popular in New Hampshire. (laughs)

So that’s all true. But on the other hand, to go back to my original point, the only thing of substance that has occurred to inhibit illegal immigration, and all the smuggling that has attended this illegal wave, has ultimately been the fence. So that’s what I’ve concentrated on.

AJM: That’s not altogether true; you’re still selling yourself short. (laughs)

DH: No, no, I’m selling myself STRONG. Listen, there are a lot of guys that spend tons of time talking. Which to a certain degree is necessary to present the point to the people and to initiate action. But the action is more important than the talking. It’s always been that way.

If you go to the debates for example, I pointed out the fallacy of the McCain-Kennedy bill. It needed to be exposed for what it was: Amnesty. I recall the main time talking about it was when it came up at the New Hampshire presidential debate. But, in EVERY debate, I pointed out the efficacy of the border fence. So I didn’t get too wound up in sanctuary cities, and anchor babies and all the issues that attend this debate. It was for this reason: If you have a secure border, most of those other issues go away, to a large degree. If Arizona, today, had a secure border, they wouldn’t be having this debate right now.

You know one alternative for Arizona? It is to build the fence; for the State Government to build the fence.

AJM: They’d probably be sued again by the Obama Administration.

DH: I’m not sure they could. The state has, under their rights as a sovereign state, they have a right to control the flow of people coming in. Just as they have the right to have stop stations at their borders where they ask the inevitable question – “do you have or fruits or vegetables in your car” - right? They have a right, as a state, to determine whether people coming into their state are legal or not. And they have a right and an obligation to protect their installations. So I think a state certainly has a right to put up a border fence.

But my point is, when you go out on a broad front, sometimes you lose the ability to drive a single issue home. What I’ve tried to be most persistent in is border security. While other folks talk about all these other attended issues, most of those attended issues are a function of not having an enforceable border.

AJM: That’s true. But when I say you are selling yourself short, I’m saying you are not giving yourself enough credit for some of the other things you did. You had sponsored multiple times, and some of them were actually successful, legislation for larger detention facilities, and Border…

DH: Yeah, I helped to increase the Border Patrol. But those are physical border security related, that go to interdicting illegal aliens coming across the border. And that all goes to a physically strong border. It’s our national sovereignty, and our national security, to have real border. But it doesn’t go to the internal politics which you’ve been discussing. Those are all important and they highlight the issue. But Tancredo’s spent 10 times the floor time that I have talking about what I would call the interior politics and policies.

AJM: Yes he has, and he has about 1/10th the number of amendments and bills that you put forward to deal with them. So he was a lot of hat and few cattle on that one (laughs).

DH: No, no. Tancredo did a lot of good stuff. But listen, thanks for telling me what a great guy I was. It’s usually not a challenge to assure fat, old ex-congressmen that they were really great. (laughs) Getting them to accept that praise is usually not a toughie.

AJM: (Laughs)

DH: Anyway, what else is new? I’ve got to just a few minutes. I need to get about 10 more typed pages done before midnight.

AJM: Listen, I’ll let you run. But I just wanted to mention that I think your son, Duncan D., has bested you already in his short career. He won an award I don’t recall you even being considered for. You know the Hill? The publication called the Hill?

DH: Yeah.

AJM: Well they just awarded Duncan as one of the “50 Most Beautiful People” in Washington DC. Did you know that? (laughs)

DH: Yeah. I heard. And I’ve got a capper for that.

AJM: Yeah?

DH: When the Washington Post reported on it, they put my picture in the paper instead of his! (laughing)

AJM: HA!!! You’re kidding, aren’t you? (laughing)

DH: No!

AJM: Now THAT is hilarious!!

On that note, I’ll sign off. I’ll get you the PDF for the Obama amnesty plan to you tonight though.

DH: OK. Send it over. I’ll look at Mr. Obama’s grand plan here. We’ll talk to you later.