Skip to comments.With Thompson out, Tom McClintock leans to Ron Paul
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 Thompsons 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, McClintocks endorsement is seen as important in California.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
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?
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.
...but will Kucinich endorse him?.......
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
No, Tom, No!!!
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.
“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.
If only if he wasn't so loony tunes.
Every day this race gets stranger and stranger...
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.
Paul's view is the same as John Murtha's. I pray I never need you people to defend my country.
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.
The war is maybe the only thing I don’t agree with him on. I disagree with the others far more.
This tells me that the standing field really IS as bad as I thought it was. God bless Tom McClintock.
No facts here. Just speculation.
But can the Republican Party really endorse an anti-Iraq-War candidate?
So in answer to your question my guess is the party is not going to endorse an anti-Iraq candidate.......
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.
Granted, but concensus is the absence of leadership. If you are going to lead, then you lead to your point of view.
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...
Yea, but I would rather have someone whose goal isn't loss.
“”If Paul wasnt a moonbat on the war, Id support him. I like everything else Ive heard him say, but the wars a deal breaker.
Fred Thompson is still on my ballot and Im voting for him anyway.””
Exactly my sentiment!!
Go Ron Go!
So do nations. I'd prefer that we did not.
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.
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.
Funny thing about wars. Usually, one side loses.
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.
Ron Paul is an idiot!
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.
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.
OBGYN’s don’t need to run for President, besides the fact that his voice alone is bothersome.
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?
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.
I agree, but concessions are one thing. Consensus denotes giving up much more in a political context. Just my opinion.
I it wasn’t the Muslims it would be some other boogeyman.
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.