Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

With Thompson out, Tom McClintock leans to Ron Paul
Los Angeles Times ^ | Jan 25, 2008 | Dan Morain

Posted on 01/25/2008 12:59:01 PM PST by CautiouslyHopeful

With Fred Thompson out of the presidential race, who's a self-respecting conservative to go for? Could it be, maybe, perhaps, a certain Republican-libertarian from Texas?

That's one question perplexing California state Sen. Tom McClintock, possibly the second-most-famous California Republican currently in office after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

McClintock created a stir two months when he endorsed Thompson’s presidential candidacy. Having run for governor, lieutenant governor and state controller, McClintock has shown that while he has not won a statewide contest, he can win GOP primaries, which conservatives tend to dominate. So heading into the Feb. 5 primary, McClintock’s endorsement is seen as important in California.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: california; donquixote; elections; fredthompson; mcclintock; paul; ronpaul; tommcclintock; tommiclintock
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-420 next last
This one greatly surprised me. Is it much ado about nothing? I have very deep respect for McClintock and trust his judgement.

I've noticed several former Thompson supporters going for Ron Paul as the lesser of five evils. I can understand that and Paul is, as Ann Coulter said, "magnificent" on domestic issues. But can the Republican Party really endorse an anti-Iraq-War candidate?

1 posted on 01/25/2008 12:59:07 PM PST by CautiouslyHopeful
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful
Amazingly, Paul is now a viable option for me, too, considering the rest of the field.

Never thought I'd see myself post that...
2 posted on 01/25/2008 1:00:48 PM PST by Antoninus ("Make all the promises you have to." -Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful

If Paul wasn’t a moonbat on the war, I’d support him. I like everything else I’ve heard him say, but the war’s a deal breaker.

Fred Thompson is still on my ballot and I’m voting for him anyway.


3 posted on 01/25/2008 1:02:30 PM PST by Redcloak (Dingos ate my tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful

...but will Kucinich endorse him?.......


4 posted on 01/25/2008 1:02:58 PM PST by Red Badger ( We don't have science, but we do have consensus.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful

Conservative does not have to mean support for aggressive Militarism. Sensible militarism in defense of US territory and US citizens and their property, yes. On this issue, Ron Paul is a strong as you can be.


5 posted on 01/25/2008 1:03:20 PM PST by ToryNotion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful
"But can the Republican Party really endorse an anti-Iraq-War candidate?"

It's a hard one to swallow but consider what you'll have to swallow with the other candidates. Remember wars end but federal programs never do.

6 posted on 01/25/2008 1:03:50 PM PST by antinomian (Show me a robber baron and I'll show you a pocket full of senators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Same here


7 posted on 01/25/2008 1:04:52 PM PST by trumandogz (Whichever Way the Wind Blows Willard 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful

Doesn’t surprise me at all. I live in McClintock’s district and have exactly the same feelings. My brain tells me that Romney is the next best choice since McCain ain’t a conservative. But my heart tells me that I like at least part of Paul’s agenda. Admittedly it’s only the domestic part and not all of that. Still, Rudy is a “no way” and I’m in mourning for Fred. Damnit.


8 posted on 01/25/2008 1:05:01 PM PST by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ToryNotion

But is immediate withdrawal from Iraq really a viable option? Will it not leave a power vacuum?

For that matter, this gold standard business seem odd to me. Or am I just not “conservative” enough for it?


9 posted on 01/25/2008 1:05:31 PM PST by CautiouslyHopeful
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful

Insanity descends.


10 posted on 01/25/2008 1:06:46 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antinomian
It's a hard one to swallow but consider what you'll have to swallow with the other candidates. Remember wars end but federal programs never do.

Good point.
11 posted on 01/25/2008 1:06:53 PM PST by CautiouslyHopeful
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful
Even if this year's version of Paul's domestic agenda sounded wonderful - and it doesn't - his defeatist attitude toward the US war effort still rules him out.

And that's just policy.

In terms of practical ability to govern, he has demonstrated in Congress a complete inability to lead and to assemble consenus on any important legislation.

His inability to even run his own newsletter demonstrates that he has zero executive ability.

Ron Paul isn't fit to be mayor of a town of one.

12 posted on 01/25/2008 1:07:07 PM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful

No, Tom, No!!!


13 posted on 01/25/2008 1:08:03 PM PST by RightOnTheLeftCoast ([Fred Thompson/Clarence Thomas 2008!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful

Ridiculous.


14 posted on 01/25/2008 1:08:14 PM PST by lonestar67 (Its time to withdraw from the War on Bush-- your side is hopelessly lost in a quagmire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful

I suppose in the primaries people can vote their consciences but I for one have a rather simple formula.

(1) Select all the candidates that I feel have a chance at the nomination
(2) Support the better man of that list until he is eliminated.

While I believe miracles do happen I don’t see Ron Paul in the cards.


15 posted on 01/25/2008 1:08:14 PM PST by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antinomian

“It’s a hard one to swallow but consider what you’ll have to swallow with the other candidates. Remember wars end but federal programs never do.”

Wars could also end with a loss.


16 posted on 01/25/2008 1:08:31 PM PST by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful
I can't stand to say this, but except for his international policy, Paul is spot on in much of his domestic policy. He's better on illegal immigration, better on taxation, healthcare, abortion, and monetary policy than any other candidate.

If only if he wasn't so loony tunes.

17 posted on 01/25/2008 1:08:55 PM PST by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful
..the rest of the story...... "I don’t want to go too far. I am still looking."...- McClintock
18 posted on 01/25/2008 1:09:04 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful

Every day this race gets stranger and stranger...


19 posted on 01/25/2008 1:09:10 PM PST by chaos_5 (The Republic is doomed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful
No one expects Paul to win, but the more liberal wing of the GOP can't continue to trample on conservatives without some, at least, resorting to protest votes. Paul will surely gain from some of that.

This is just another manifestation of the fracture created by the loss of our unifying candidate and the void created by the candidates which remain.

20 posted on 01/25/2008 1:09:44 PM PST by Route66 (America's Main Street - - - Conservative Candidate Wanted... Conservative resume required.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful

good grief


21 posted on 01/25/2008 1:09:57 PM PST by Brian S. Fitzgerald ("We're going to drag that ship over the mountain.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antinomian
"Remember wars end..."

Yes, for example when a country loses and is overrun by its enemies and subjugated to their precepts. Which is what will happen if we turn tuck-tail on the War Against Islamofascism.
22 posted on 01/25/2008 1:10:32 PM PST by RightOnTheLeftCoast ([Fred Thompson/Clarence Thomas 2008!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ToryNotion
On this issue, Ron Paul is a strong as you can be

Paul's view is the same as John Murtha's. I pray I never need you people to defend my country.

23 posted on 01/25/2008 1:10:49 PM PST by chesty_puller (70-73 USMC VietNam 75-79 US Army Wash DC....VietNam was safer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nachum; AuntB
He's better on illegal immigration

You may want to check him out before he started running for president. He opposes using the military or national guard on the border, he opposed a national US immigration policy, he said we should let in anyone who wants to work, and he voted for the 2001 amnesty. If you like the Libertarian style of immigration policy, free and open borders, he is your guy.

24 posted on 01/25/2008 1:11:08 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

The war is maybe the only thing I don’t agree with him on. I disagree with the others far more.


25 posted on 01/25/2008 1:11:22 PM PST by stevio ((NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful
This tells me a lot about the remaining Republican candidates. Tom McClintock has earned the respect of Californians over the years. It was not bestowed on him because he has a R after his name; it was earned by him because of his thoughtful and consistent stands on issues.

This tells me that the standing field really IS as bad as I thought it was. God bless Tom McClintock.

26 posted on 01/25/2008 1:11:26 PM PST by Finny (FOX News: "We report only what we like. You decide based on what we decide.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Could it be, maybe, perhaps...

No facts here. Just speculation.

27 posted on 01/25/2008 1:11:58 PM PST by McGruff (Fred Thompson. The last hope for conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful

But can the Republican Party really endorse an anti-Iraq-War candidate?


Out of the total votes cast in the events held so far the Republican primary voters have shown no indication of selecting Paul as their Party nominee..... He’s received somthing like 6.27% of the almost 1.7 million votes cast todate.

So in answer to your question my guess is the party is not going to endorse an anti-Iraq candidate.......


28 posted on 01/25/2008 1:11:59 PM PST by deport (Go Florida... --11 days Super Tuesday -- [ Meanwhile:-- Cue Spooky Music--])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful

The rest of the region could be with our withdrawal from Iraq. If other Western nations or the UN want to step in, by all means they can have it. I think Dr. Paul’s position is that we’d first allow gold and silver to compete with the dollar. A return to gold would have to be gradual. The first step is to strengthen the dollar and stop purposely using inflation to drive consumption.


29 posted on 01/25/2008 1:12:06 PM PST by ToryNotion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
If Paul wasn’t a moonbat on the war, I’d support him.

Same here. I have strong libertarian leanings, but Paul is way off base on foreign policy. Plus there just something about the guy that kinda bothers me.
30 posted on 01/25/2008 1:12:20 PM PST by zencat (The universe is not what it appears, nor is it something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Granted, but concensus is the absence of leadership. If you are going to lead, then you lead to your point of view.


31 posted on 01/25/2008 1:12:28 PM PST by Bruinator ("It's the Media Stupid.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
"If only if he wasn't so loony tunes."

He might only be perceived as "loony tunes" because so many people here say he is. If he's right on (most) of the issues, then is he really that loony, or moreso significantly than the other candidates? McCain? Rudy? Romney? Huck?

So Ron Paul is the loony in that crowd? I don't buy it. I don't necessarily support Paul right now, but he is the most principled of those four, without a doubt in my mind. The others just blow with the wind...

32 posted on 01/25/2008 1:12:34 PM PST by buckleyfan (WFB, save us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher
Wars could also end with a loss.

Yea, but I would rather have someone whose goal isn't loss.

33 posted on 01/25/2008 1:12:38 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful
Loony is as loony does.
34 posted on 01/25/2008 1:12:40 PM PST by jmaroneps37 (Conservatives live in the truth. Liberals live in lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

“”If Paul wasn’t a moonbat on the war, I’d support him. I like everything else I’ve heard him say, but the war’s a deal breaker.

Fred Thompson is still on my ballot and I’m voting for him anyway.””

Exactly my sentiment!!


35 posted on 01/25/2008 1:13:18 PM PST by o_zarkman44 (No Bull in 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf

Go Ron Go!


36 posted on 01/25/2008 1:13:39 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antinomian
wars end

So do nations. I'd prefer that we did not.

37 posted on 01/25/2008 1:15:19 PM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Mike Huckabee: If Gomer Pyle and Hugo Chavez had a love child this is who it would be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CautiouslyHopeful
Paul has always been my first choice, in spite of his foreign policy positions (which I don't share.) But I supported Fred, and now support Mitt, because I see them as both more electable, and better able to unify Conservatives.

Had I been as selfish and uncompromising as many other appear to still be, I would have supported Paul to the exclusion of all the others. To be honest, I don't care anywhere near as much about foreign policy as I do domestic policy. I fear things have gotten so bad at home, that foreign policy may be approaching irrelevancy.

38 posted on 01/25/2008 1:15:40 PM PST by sourcery (Electile Disfunction: The inability to get excited about any of the available candidates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKV

I believe that the loss of liberty at home is the biggest threat we face. Paul is the only one who really wants smaller, less intrusive government. He is the logical choice.


39 posted on 01/25/2008 1:16:00 PM PST by Harvey105
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: antinomian
Remember wars end but federal programs never do.

********************

Funny thing about wars. Usually, one side loses.

40 posted on 01/25/2008 1:16:25 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

That’s my point. We can’t go with Ron Paul because he wants us to lose and retreat back to the US. People who think we can lose this war and continue with our idyllic domestic existence are either naive or stupid.

I don’t care what Paul’s domestic policies are, if we lose this war it won’t matter.


41 posted on 01/25/2008 1:17:11 PM PST by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Ron Paul is an idiot!


42 posted on 01/25/2008 1:17:52 PM PST by JFC (I am now a MITTEN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bruinator
If you are going to lead, then you lead to your point of view.

Concessions always have to be made along the way to get important stuff done. Reagan was excellent at making tangential concessions that did not eviscerate the effectiveness of his stated goal.

43 posted on 01/25/2008 1:17:58 PM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: chesty_puller
I pray I never need you people to defend my country.

Now when you say defend my country is assume your mean the territory within the actual boundaries of the United States. I see nothing in Dr Paul's proposals that say's the United States would be undefended. So you must either be referring to the abstraction called 'national security' or some expected terrorist attack after we remove the main reason the terrorists want to attack us.

44 posted on 01/25/2008 1:18:27 PM PST by ToryNotion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ToryNotion

OBGYN’s don’t need to run for President, besides the fact that his voice alone is bothersome.


45 posted on 01/25/2008 1:20:43 PM PST by JFC (I am now a MITTEN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ToryNotion

The main reason they want to attack us is that we’re not Muslims who submit to the will of Allah.

How do you propose we remove that reason?


46 posted on 01/25/2008 1:20:58 PM PST by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast

Do you think it better that we are subjugated by our own rapidly expanding and intrusive government?

Before any invading army could reach America, we could sink their ships and shoot down their planes. What we haven’t done is secure our border.

Paul wants to defend America and secure our borders. He also wants to shrink the size, cost, cost, and power of government.

To me, that’s a plan that makes sense.


47 posted on 01/25/2008 1:21:57 PM PST by Harvey105
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I agree, but concessions are one thing. Consensus denotes giving up much more in a political context. Just my opinion.


48 posted on 01/25/2008 1:21:59 PM PST by Bruinator ("It's the Media Stupid.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher

I it wasn’t the Muslims it would be some other boogeyman.


49 posted on 01/25/2008 1:22:27 PM PST by ToryNotion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: JFC
Ron Paul is an idiot!

Based on your tagline, that opinion holds little weight.
50 posted on 01/25/2008 1:22:33 PM PST by Antoninus ("Make all the promises you have to." -Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-420 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson