With Thompson out, Tom McClintock leans to Ron Paul

Los Angeles Times ^ | Jan 25, 2008 | Dan Morain

[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.

[Brian S. Fitzgerald]

good grief

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"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.

[chesty_puller]

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.

[mnehring]

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.

[stevio]

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

[Finny]

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.

[McGruff]

Could it be, maybe, perhaps...

No facts here. Just speculation.

[deport]

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.......

[ToryNotion]

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.

[zencat]

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.

[Bruinator]

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

[buckleyfan]

"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...

[mnehring]

Wars could also end with a loss.

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

[jmaroneps37]

Loony is as loony does.

[o_zarkman44]

“”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!!

[nicmarlo]

Go Ron Go!

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

wars end

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

[sourcery]

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.

[Harvey105]

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.

[trisham]

Remember wars end but federal programs never do.

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

Funny thing about wars. Usually, one side loses.