With Thompson out, Tom McClintock leans to Ron Paul

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

[darkmatter]

“Remember wars end but federal programs never do”

Hmmm, yes I see your point now. Indeed since Ron Paul thinks World Wars 1 and 2 and the Civil War were also foreign policy “blunders”, then maybe losing a war is just no big deal huh?

In Paul’s bizaare view of the world:

1. The COnfederate bombardment of Fort Sumter;

2. The German sinking of allied shipping in 1916-17;

3. The japanese Bombing of Pearl Harbor;

Should have just gone unanswered, because losing a war is one thing, but adding the Department of Education is just intolerable huh? (SARCASM)

What really bother’s me is these people pass this crap off for conservatism and patriotism. If thats true then the Daily Kos is the TRUE conservative website then. (sarcasm)

[rom]

I am (now) a supporter of Dr. Paul.

These are my reasons, they are probably not the ones that Code Pinko gave you. They are probably quite different from Obama’s platform.

* Authorized to use force in Afghanistan after 9/11.
* Wrote legislation to Declare War on Iraq in 2002.
* Is 100% consistent on the 2nd Amendment.
* Is 100% anti-abortion.
* Is anti-Department of Education.
* Introduced the “We the People Act”, which would prevent federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and religious texts/symbols.

Among other things. Hardly the platform a Code Pinko would run on, is it?

Or other than his disagreement with the Iraq War, does he sound like a traditional conservative to you?

I doubt Obama would embrace any of the above.

I agree that I find that a lot of Ron Paul supporters are fairly unsavory sorts. At least the really vocal ones at public events here in SoCal.

But on the balance? He’s more of a Conservative than anyone left running in our party.

[jmc813]

The ones who are really playing on fear are the ones creating a bogeyman out of President Bush and other PTBs as having some sinister conspiracy.

It isn't the war itself. It's nonsense like, "if you smoke marijuana you support the terrorists", or the people who use tragedies like VA Tech to convince citizens that gun grabbing is AOK. Politiciaans fear-monger. It's human nature.

[Designer]

"Wars could also end with a loss."

And they have.

Every "conflict" that we have been in since joining the United Nations, we have not "won".

As long as the U.N. is involved, we will never actually "win".

And since the Iraq war is our involvement in enforcing a U.N. mandate, we won't "win" there, either.

[nickcarraway]

Yes, we will have to live with the result, as we had to in the past. What’s worse, living 4-8 years under a president from a left-of-center party, or a country that has two left-of-center parties, and no center-to-right-of-center party? We had to have 4 years of Carter to get Reagan. (Instead of 4-8 years of Gerlad Ford and who-knows-what after that.)

Yes, it’s important to defend the country, but what happenes when the country becomes what you were defending against?

[SoCalPol]

The thing with L Ron Paul cal is that he would put our country in danger.

I have talked with to many of his supporters and have read his material and wouldn’t think of supporting him as I wouldn’t support the Dems.

[roamer_1]

Amazingly, Paul is now a viable option for me, too, considering the rest of the field.

I just can't do that. If not for our own troops, we've got word with folks over there. If we back out now, there will be a slaughter just like what happened when we left Viet Nam. No way. we have to finish the job, or at least it must be the Dems that kill those folks...

[jmc813]

His views on national and international affairs are no different than Ted Kennedy

Yeah. I remember when Paul worked hand-in-hand with Kennedy to get that unconstitutional piece of crap No Child Left Behind passed, errr, ummm, $hit...

[darkmatter]

Its cute how anti-war candidate who sounds like Mike Gravel and who Dennis Kucinich wanted as a running mate can pass himself off as a conservative.

Trust me if surrendering and losing wars is “conservative” then you’ll love the Kos Kidz.

You may like Ron Paul but dont call him a Conservative. This is the party of Reagan and Lincoln, and a man who calls Reagan a failure and believed Lincoln fought a “Needless War” is neither a Republican, Conservative, or sane.

On that count although Giulian and Romney are not conservatives, they are more conservative than that senile nut case you call a leader.

[Designer]

"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."

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

[roamer_1]

Insanity descends.

We desperately need a dark horse.

[SoCalPol]

Authorized to use force in Afghanistan after 9/11.

So did most democrats.

You can cherry pick but I have to much respect for my country and myself to support that psyche case

[rom]

My thought on the war is, “What’s done is done”. Sure we didn’t expect to see as much insurgent activity as we’ve seen.

Don’t leave without getting the job done.

I will not blame President Bush for the invasion. You go to war with the intelligence that you have.

Then, when things f’up, you have to take care of it. I think we have done that with the surge.

I do feel that a formal Declaration of War would have been wise. Why let Congress off the hook and let the CIC take all the blame for military action?

Now that the military action has turned into a peacekeeping operation, we need to get ourselves out of there and let the Iraqis start to fend for themselves.

I don’t want YET another country to be a welfare recipient of the American military like Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Germany, etc...

My children are going to have to pay for this War, the roads in CA, and feeding/housing/educating illegals for the rest of their lives.

[antinomian]

In Paul’s bizaare view of the world:

1. The COnfederate bombardment of Fort Sumter;

2. The German sinking of allied shipping in 1916-17;

3. The japanese Bombing of Pearl Harbor;

Should have just gone unanswered, 

Nice try. The bombing of Fort Sumpter should have gone unanswered because it was completely justified.

There would have been no issue with the sinking of "Allied" shipping if Wilson had not decreed that American citizens have the right to sail unmolested through a war zone on combatant vessels carrying ammunition. Remember the British were sinking or seizing any ship that approached Germany - including American Ships!

Pearl Harbor was the culmination of four decades of colonial ambitions in China by both the US and Japan. If we had minded our own business with regard to China we would never have ended up in a war with Japan.

[Route66]

A candidate who wants to surrender in Iraq is NOT “conservative”. There is nothing conservative about the wholesale surrender and capitulation of the US to Al Quaeda! Wake Up!

You don't have to tell me to wake up. I'm not voting for him. But there are no conservatives left and some are going to shift because they feel they must make a choice. As a part of that, some will protest vote. It's the way it is. We have a very bad field left to choose from and no organization among conservatives to do anything constructive for conservatives with our votes.

[mnehring]

* Authorized to use force in Afghanistan after 9/11.- Then later said we shouldn't be there and it was also empire building. Said it should be handled through Letters of Marquis- Was for it before he was against it.

* Wrote legislation to Declare War on Iraq in 2002.- Now says it is an immoral war of empire building, was for it before he is against it.

* Is 100% consistent on the 2nd Amendment.- Unless it is reducing the waiting period to get a firearm or prohibiting lawsuits against firearm manufacturers.

* Is 100% anti-abortion.- Unless it involves making it a crime to take a minor across State lines for an abortion or harming a fetus in the commission of a crime.

But on the balance? He’s more of a Conservative than anyone left running in our party.- Unless you look at his full voting record as done by OnTheIssues or the American Conservative Union that both have him as moderate at best.

Don't be fooled.. Paul is no Conservative. Votes speak louder than rhetoric.

Ron Paul's 2006 American Conservative Union rating: 76% Lifetime Rating: 82.3%

Ron Paul's Voting Record (ya, ya, I know, there is an excuse for all of these, state's rights are more important than stopping abortion and fixing the border, Ronnie is making a statement, or everyone else was voting against it and he was just playing the game, yadda, yadda, yadda)

Here are some more ‘Conservative(sic)’ votes by Paul:

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons.

Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime.

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.

Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror.

Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools.

Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy.

Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy.

Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.

Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects.

Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding.

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers.

Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers

Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse.

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.

Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill.

Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers.

Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers.

Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients.

Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.

Let's also not forget Paul's Pork Projects (that he voted for before he voted against when he calls them unconstitutional but he is just playing the game when he submits them because everyone else does it.. yadda yadda yadda..)

[Dead Corpse]

RKBA? Check.

Lower taxes? Check.

Smaller more Constitutional government? Check.

Bill of Rights enforcement? Check.

Dr. Paul may be a bit of a tard on foreign policy, but don't kid yourself for a second that his domestic policy doesn't beat the tar out of any other GOP candidate out there.

[jmc813]

(Lets Have A Broker Convention)

Is that where a bunch of dudes who buy stocks get together for cocktails? ;-)

[Dead Corpse]

I’m north of Paul on that chart by 3-4 spaces. Your reposting of that list only re-enforces my opinion that you have little clue what it means.

[B4Ranch]

The Grand Old Party establishment once was conservative, Anti-Federalist, and once supported the rights of the individual. They are now RINO’s. Don’t think so? Look at the crowd that came out running for the White House chair. Every one of them except Hunter and Thompson is a RINO.

Their concern for the individual is restricted to themselves and those who don’t speak English. Not the American citizen.

Ron Paul is the only true conservative, true Anti-Federalist, and truely support the rights of the individual.