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.

[AmericanInTokyo]

For the time being, as a former supporter of Duncan Hunter, with second and third choices for Tancredo and Thompson, and a sworn enemy of RINOs and the MSM and State GOP parties which support and coddle them, while not decided on the vote when it comes to my stae, on online polls at least (such as with FR) for the time being, I am casting it for Ron Paul just to upset the apple cart and shove it in the face of the FRLS. Four RINOs Left Standing.

[editor-surveyor]

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

That's the kind of thinking that will have us choosing between McSenator, and Ms. Senator. Please don't do it. We have a viable candidate in Romney; not perfect, but better than any of the rest that remain.

[dmw]

This is one cRaZy political season. And Duncan Hunter endorsed the Hucknut! Who woulda ever thunk it would come to this?

[rob777]

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


Ron's real problem is not necessarily his position on the war, but his naivete on the threat of radical Islam.

[Gondring]

The "We the People Act" wouldn't be necessary were the Constitution actually followed, just like the Bill of Rights wouldn't be needed were the Constitution actually followed. Nowhere does it give the power of Congress to take our guns and nowhere does it give the courts the power to make or enforce law.

The "We the People Act" would restrict federal courts to their role of judging Constitutionality, and would have prevented them from spending money on enforcement of rulings...keeping enforcement power in the Executive branch and making Federal precedents non-binding on State courts.

The Constitutionality of the Act is laid out in the act itself.

[editor-surveyor]

"...this gold standard business seem odd to me."

It doesn't have to be gold, but we have to have a standard. Fiat money empowers tyrants, and permits oligarchy. The real world value of our paper investments has been depleted by 30% in the past year by the decline of the dollar. How much more do you want to give to the banking cartel?

[Redcloak]

His opinions on the war is shared by over two-thirds of the country. How are the other RINOs going to get these votes?

I don't want a candidate who panders to the idiocy some voters. I want a (Get this!) principled candidate who says what's right instead of what's popular. A staggered surrender (The Paul/Clinton plan) is still a surrender and the wrong thing to do. As the so-called "Libertarian Candidate", one would have expected Paul to understand that one of government's proper functions is to protect its people from the aggressive use of force. Paul forgets this in his pandering, moonbat mode.

[Redcloak]

No thanks. I don’t intend to waste my vote on Romney.

[KDD]

Give up telling lies about Ron Paul.

We here in Florida are going to send your New York Boy Rudy packing. Keep him up there with you and the rest of the NY liberals. Y’all are stinking up the place down here.

[LowCountryJoe]

Remember wars end but federal programs never do.

Now that you put it that way.

[Finny]

I don't know whether or not you are from Calfornia. I am, and both sides of my mother's family go back to the 1860s in this state. Many of those relatives have been very active over the decades in state politics. McClintock has earned deep respect here over the past 30 years. The wisest, smartest, most thoughtful Republicans I know here ALL regard McClintock very highly, highly enough to know that when he says something, it's worth consideration. That McClintock hasn't won a statewide election is less reflective on him than it is on an electorate dominated in general (as opposed to primary) elections by ill-informed and ignorant voters of metropolitan areas of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

That some (such as the L.A. Times!) would conclude, "Well, he's never won a state-wide election so that means the people of California don't actually respect him," is more reflective on their ignorance of California politics.

[Redcloak]

Have either of you gentlemen read Ron Paul's book; "A Foreign Policy of Freedom"?

No. I haven't read "Everybody Farts" either.

[CautiouslyHopeful]

But what about Romney’s support for NCLB? What about his regulation of industry? What about his tax hikes?

He seems a long way from being merely “not perfect”. Fred Thompson was not perfect with his McCain-Feingold baggage, lobbying background, and CFR connections. And Mitt Romney is no Fred Thompson.

[frankiep]

As far as I’m concerned we won the Iraq War when Saddam’s government fell. After all, that was what the objective of the invasion was. Does anyone really think that we can ‘win’ the war now that we continue to allow the UN, media, and leftists change the conditions of victory? Of course not, they would love nothing more than to see us bankrupt ourselves there, hence their insistance that we always need to do more.

My point is that we need to decide which is more bearable, continuing our involvement in that country and drive ourselves into bankruptcy, or letting the people of Iraq finally take responsibility for their own security and potentially allowing that country to fall into the hands of extremists. Given those choices I would rather avoid bankruptcy due to the obvious implications.

[rom]

I don't want a candidate who panders to the idiocy some voters. I want a (Get this!) principled candidate who says what's right instead of what's popular.

If you apply this philosophy to the other candidates, you'd have no one to vote for, right? Well, I guess Rudy has been pretty consistent. Not conservative, but consistent.

As far as I can tell, Ron Paul has been very consistent, even though he's staked out positions that are unpopular in the *Republican* primary. He could have had an 11th hour conversion like the other candidates have on a myriad other issues in order to pander to the base. But he hasn't.

[prairiebreeze]

Unbelievable. Is there something in the water in California?

[CAluvdubya]

I had heard this earlier and my first thought was, “Man, everybody is struggling with this election. We need a do-over for sure!”

[editor-surveyor]

Stop being sentimental, and think, please!

We could end up with McCain.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't know that Paul's a moonbat on the war. By his own description (and it matches his voting record, I think) he'd be a "Constitutionalist."

"Congress shall have power to ... declare War."

I am open to correction.