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 ...
I don't believe that. Go back and read George Bush's foreign policy statements before the 2000 election. It sounds a lot like what RP is saying today. His record on defending our country is strong. You may not agree with what he thinks we should do in other countries, but I don't think he would put the U.S.A. in danger.
Ron Paul???
Romney is the obvious choice. Paul has a snowball’s chance to be elected, plus he’s a nutjob about our troops in Iraq. We’re there for the long haul, like it or not.
The terrible events of September 11th brought the issue of immigration reform squarely into the public spotlight. Most of the terrorist hijackers involved in the attacks were in the country illegally, having gained entrance using student visas that had later expired. The INS now admits that potentially tens of millions of aliens in the country are unaccounted for, many having simply disappeared after passing through customs. This in turn leads to fears that numerous terrorist cells may be operating within the U.S. and plotting future acts of terror. No amount of military might used abroad does us much good if the American people are not safe in their own communities.
Immigration policy must now be considered a matter of national security. America has the same sovereign right to defend itself against enemies when the enemy attacks us from within. Common sense tells us that we currently should not be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists, or from nations with whom we are at war. There were many fine German-Americans in the U.S. during World War II, but we certainly did not allow open immigration from Germany until hostilities had ceased and loyalties could be determined. While we generally should welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. Legislation I introduced in the fall would restrict immigration, including the granting of heavily abused student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.
We also must do a better job keeping track of the noncitizens who already have been admitted to America. Individuals who remain in the country after their visas have expired must be treated as lawbreakers. Remember, only U.S. citizens have the constitutional right to be on American soil; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. We should not tolerate lawless behavior or anti-American activities from guests in our country.
It is far better to focus our efforts on immigration reform and ridding our country of suspected terrorists than to restrict the constitutional liberties of our own citizens. The fight against terrorism should be fought largely at our borders. Once potential terrorists are in the country, the task of finding and arresting them becomes much harder, and the calls for intrusive government monitoring of all of us become louder. If we do not want to move in the direction of a police state at home, we must prevent terrorists from entering the country in the first place.
Finally, meaningful immigration reform can only take place when we end the welfare state. No one has a right to immigrate to America and receive benefits paid for by taxpayers. When we eliminate welfare incentives, we insure that only those who truly seek America’s freedoms and opportunities will want to come here.
Ron Paul
Every time I see you post one of your outrageous mis-statements I will post a retort from the Ron Paul library. Any discussion with you is pointless.
So keep yapping...it give me more space to refute your BS with actual policy statements like these Immigratiom
Idealism running amok. Can John Stoos be far behind? A Stoos/Paul connection would kill the Republicans...forever.
..and how exactly do we know he wrote this? As his campaign pointed out, he had a ghost writer for decades writing things in his name, in his newsletters, that he was oblivious to.
Bump for later, got a video re Paul and immigration that will add light to the subject.. good to actually see a man saying it in his own words..
No, it's explaining why it happened. I don't read this statement as assigning blame. For instance, I could also say that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia because it possessed the Sudetenland. That's not saying that Czechoslovakia was at fault for Germany's invasion, it's just stating why it happened.
Keep ignoring the electorate, mnehrling.
When November rolls around and McCain or Romney loses in a landslide to Hillary I'll be making plans to move to Costa Rica.
*Gulp* *winces painfully at McCain and Huckabee*
*takes Romney's and Paul's resumes out of the garbage*
By attrition, I gotta go with Paul. And if the nominee is neither Paul nor Romney, I may just follow Paul to the Constitution-Libertarian Party to make a statement. The rest in the field ARE that toxic to me, and I offer no apologies.
What about the electoriate that overwhelmingly supported it initially? Do we just jump back and forth depending on polls by the MSM?
I thought it was Argentina?
Educate yourself here...http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=3
Where do you go on OpenSecrets.org for a donor breakdown to see that Google is Paul’s main contributor?
Sorry no. Damnit. But compared to what? Compared to McCain, who is for all policy purposes a Democrat? Or to Rudy who is the same. Romney? Maybe. Jezus. Where’s Fred when you need him. Hell, I’ll say it. “DRAFT FRED, and to hell with the rest!”
I must say, I don’t know why so many individuals find Romney much better than McCain. To me, Romney seems to have just as many warts.
It's a little like my attitude toward the rat candidates.
I'd be happy to vote for a woman, but I won't be voting for Hillary Clinton.
I'd be happy to vote for a black, but I won't be voting for Osama Balack.
I'd be happy to vote for a Libertarian, but I won't be voting for Rue Paul.
(Besides, he's given up on the presidential election. The commercials from the Committee Re-Elect Ron Paul (CREERP) are coming hot and heavy now.)
If Paul wasn’t such a screwball on the WOT, he’d be my choice.
Wow. Sounds like there are very few that you wouldn't vote for, including Dems. Who, exactly, has advocated the wholesale surrender of the United States of America to all of those mentioned? Sources, please.
“The gold standard is great if you want your economy to be directly tied to power failures and lack of coal in South Africa.”
Could you explain that a little more? How does energy tie into the price (especially long-term) of gold?
Let me get this straight... Thompson drops out of the race, so you both go running to a Surrender Monkey who blames the U.S. for 9-11?? Are you kidding me?? I'm not happy with the field either, but Ron Paul is the LAST Republican you want in office!!
Yes, and don’t forget the rock-ribbed conservative, Huckabee. Given these choices, I too may end up swallowing the red pill and going with Paul. But we’ll see.
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.