Presidential Frontrunners Would Surrender America's Borders

Constitution Party ^ | 2/6/07 | Chuck Baldwin

[tfelice]

Looking at the potential presidential frontrunners for both the Democrat and Republican parties reveals that virtually everyone of them would surrender America’s borders. Not one of the presidential frontrunners from either party would protect our borders against illegal immigration. Just the opposite. They would continue George Bush’s policy of wide open borders, including his determination to grant amnesty to illegals. In other words, when it comes to protecting our borders, there is not a nickel’s worth of difference between the two major parties’ leading presidential contenders.

Democratic presidential frontrunners include John Edwards, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Republican frontrunners include John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani.

In fact, virtually every Democratic candidate, and even the vast majority of Republican candidates, would provide no relief to America’s border problems. And, yes, that includes Sam Brownback and Newt Gingrich. Notable exceptions include Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo, with Tancredo at the head of the class.

[stevie_d_64]

Actually this has been commented on the "Texas" board...

I'm actually leaning towards a "Cruz/Hayek" ticket in '08...

I could habla with that all day!!!

But then again I am the most hated person in Texas...

Rick Perry ain't got nothin' on me!!!

[wastedyears]

Vote Duncan Hunter

[tiger-one]

Then put Duncan Hunter in front!!!!

[Fierce Allegiance]

We need Hunter!

[MNJohnnie]

Let see, we can do SOMETHING about the border or we can mindless scream the 100%er dogmas of a party that cannot even get .0001 of the vote and has NEVER won any elections anywhere ever.

I suggest instead of spending all their time shooting their own in the back the Always Whining consider the fact that the Democrats are planning on taking away the $1.2 Billion for the Border Fence the Republicans gave you.

70% of something is WAY better then 100% of NOTHING. Quit being such fools or it WILL be President Hillary in 2008.

[OB1kNOb]

Duncan Hunter / Fred Thompson '08 !

[ghostrider]

Hmm! Now, that is an interesting thought.

[snowrip]

The border issue is the frontrunner for any thinking American.

Hunter looks like the best candidate. Maybe he could convince Schwartzkopf to run for VP.

[ghostrider]

Looking at the potential presidential frontrunners for both the Democrat and Republican parties reveals that virtually everyone of them would surrender America’s borders.

That is because both major parties get their big contributions from the same sources, and will do what they are told or get no more funding.

[ghostrider]

Let see, we can do SOMETHING about the border or we can mindless scream the 100%er dogmas of a party that cannot even get .0001 of the vote and has NEVER won any elections anywhere ever.

It is a good thing George Washington, did not think like this.

[tfelice]

Let see, we can do SOMETHING about the border or we can mindless scream the 100%er dogmas of a party that cannot even get .0001 of the vote and has NEVER won any elections anywhere ever.

Your facts are wrong. The CP candidate for state rep in Montana won in '06. Additionally, there are 12 CP members serving in local offices.

[ANGGAPO]

Hunter is the man.

[Russ]

Hunter might be the best candidate but he couldn't raise enough money to wage a presidential campaign if he had five years do to so. I don't care how many candidates have declared or are going to declare there are probably only two or three at the most in each party that has a chance of going all the way to their party's nomination.

[TomGuy]

Add to the list Hagel, Huckabee, Brownback.

The only ones expressly for border control are Tancredo and Hunter.

[chaos_5]

I second that notion, HUNTER 08!!

[TChris]

70% of something is WAY better then 100% of NOTHING. Quit being such fools or it WILL be President Hillary in 2008.

Well put!

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Republican frontrunners include John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani.

Why would anyone vote for Giuliani, he's just another Northeastern liberal living in his ivory tower. I've had a lifetime of these clowns and seen the destruction they've brought upon this country and continue to do so...

[Enosh]

Hunter does look good.

Source

• Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Rated 83% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Rated 17% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
• Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Rated A+ by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Rated 11% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
• Rated 20% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)

[Carry_Okie]

70% of something is WAY better then 100% of NOTHING. Quit being such fools or it WILL be President Hillary in 2008.

The same BS frar mongering was told to us about Arnold. What we got was 20%, not 70%, with a destroyed Republican Party tossed in as a kicker. Arnold did more damage to California than his Democrat predecessor we recalled ever dreamed. He cut off all support to down ticket Republicans so that he could hawk more debt.

No. No gun grabbing Giuliani, no two-faced weasel Romney, and no borderline psychotic McCain.

No.