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 ...
Ron Paul voted against REALID, did any of the other candidates?
Maybe that is an exaggeration, I'm still looking into it.
Okay, Bush would never abuse that. But suppose Hillary is president next, how do you feel about giving her so much power?
Sorry pal, looks like you didn’t read what I wrote too closely. If you’ll notice, the top part of my post was a quote by Darkmatter and most of my post was in response to what he wrote. I know I didn’t use italics, but I think it’d behoove you to check what people write before accusing them of not having the facts.
The only thing I wrote directly about Ron Paul is that I’m leery of voting for him and surprised that McClintock was (somewhat) supporting him.
Agreed. This is one of my biggest complaints about a process that offers much rhetoric and little of substance from most of the candidates; however, I find Ron Paul to be more specific than most.
And this is why I don’t worry about him when he says, for example, hypothetically, he intends to restore the gold standard (assuming that’s a bad thing). To do that will require a law. It will have to wind its way through Congress, same as any law unless Paul enacts a heinous presidential directive and that doesn’t seem to be his way.
Like most presidents, Paul will be fortunate to fulfill a handful of his campaign goals. You may enter the White House with 15-20 things you want to do, but reality pares that down pretty quickly, especially if voters hand a GOP president a Democrat Congress. There are limits and there is always opposition. But even a handful of Paul ideas looks better to me than anything from the remaining GOP or [evil] Democrat candidates.
My reply is skewed with regard to the point you were making, but you make a potent, spot on comment.
It illustrates why Paul, much villified here as a liberal for it, voted against the marriage amendment. He didn't want the power to decide marriage to fall into the hands of a liberal Congress or a president's liberal judiciary appointments down the road.
A marriage amendment torn gutless by judicial fiat would have ultimately made gay marriage legal in 50 states with the states having no recourse.
The LA LA Times Reports!!!
You’re right. It would be good to have someone in the WH that at least has the right mindset.
Government is the problem, not the solution.
“His record in Congress can be described as very similar to some of his supporters.
They spam the internet, he spams Congress. Neither one has garnered any support that will move our Country forward.
300 + bills introduced, less than 5 passed.”
__________________________________________________________
Perhaps you have different information than I have, but I never found one bill introduced by Paul that ever went anywhere.
Statistics: Ronald Paul has sponsored 346 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 341 haven’t made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted .(Average, relative to peers).
Paul has co-sponsored 1876 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers)
NOTE: 1876 bills, written by other congress members.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311
If America does not stand up for the causes of freedom everywhere around the world (as free people ourselves) just what other nation(s) are capable and willing to fill the void with the same committment?
A brokered convention will bring back discussion of the issues, in the wide open, for every Republican to see and hear. The only way the party can rally on a platform that will bring full conservative participation is to find common ground on EVERY ISSUE important to us. We have been ignored far too long by the National GOP. If they expect us to support the GOP after their recent record of abandonment they are going to have to put EVERYTHING on the table and stick to the platform presented.
A brokered convention will UNITE the GOP. And therein we have the BEST chance of defeating a Democrat. As long as we remain fragmented we give the Democrat Party high hopes of victory.
True, but the problemn isn’t thousands of mosquitos, it’s billions, and as many as you kill, they reproduce.
If we were actually seeing ANY incremental improvements out of the FedGov, you might have had a point there...
England, Australia and Poland. With their combined resources the next time there’s trouble in Grenada, they could liberate them.
The U.N. is busily either excusing the terrorists of the world or actually defending them.
I see what the problem is now. - You don't understand the basic structure of the political parties.
The Republican party is not a democratic entity. The party is run by an entrenched power elite at every level. The candidates don't pick the delegates, the state committees do. The delegates are usually bound for the first ballot, but they are rarely loyal to the candidate their state has chosen, and will bolt to the power elites choice on subsequent ballots. These delegates are chosen based on their proven loyalty to the party commanders, and nothing else.
Dissident voices are rarely heard at conventions, and it is emphatically so at a brokered convention.
"A brokered convention will UNITE the GOP. And therein we have the BEST chance of defeating a Democrat."
No, there will be a temporary illusion of unity for the Drive-By Media to display, but since few voters will be satisfied by the power brokers globalist elite choice, the turnout will be sparse, and the media's candidate will be the victor.
I wanted to touch base with CalCowGirl on the issue of Propositions 94 - 97. I had heard the commercials with McClintock joining Schwarzenegger and the Republican Party to support them. It had been my take that the negotiated terms would low-ball the state on this twenty year agreement.
Since you raised the issue in your comments, what’s you reasoning behind not supporting the gaming initiatives. Are you thoughts pretty much along the lines of mine, or did you have more information that would make this even clearer.
I suspect the casinos are going to pull in hundreds of billions of dollars over the next twenty years. IF it were say on the order of $750 billion dollars, $9 billion would be an incredibly low rate of taxation.
I don’t want the casinos taxed unfairly, but they should be taxed at the rates other businesses in California are. And the taxation of casinos in other states would be a good guideline.
They are playing up this $9 billion as if it were an amazing amount of money. And on the surface, it is. Dig deeper and it isn’t at all.
I recall McClintock taking money from the tribes years ago. He may still be, but I don’t know.
Can’t say this doesn’t trouble me. It was one of the main reasons I would have stayed away from casino money. Despite what folks say, I still don’t think of casino money as completely ‘clean’ money.
There are other ways to get funding and I wish Tom had gone other routes.
If you folks would comment on these matters, I’d appreciate it.
As it is, I’m still no on 94-97. And I am also scratching my head over Tom’s backing of them.
At one time I thought Ron Paul was a breath of fresh air. Today that air seems to be coming from the other end.
I disagree with Tom here. I will say that he doesn’t have a whole lot of choice with the other four either though, at least IMO.
Yup. And if they won’t, there’s other parties.
Yes he was! I'll say it!! Not only was he, but that danged Gerald R. Ford appointee that presided over the CONgress that cut off the money and over the ignomanious retreat and surrender to a thoroughly beaten Viet Cong!!!
All to the abject glee of Walter Chronkite who started it by demoralising LBJ!!!
Again we have been suffering a withering attack by the MSM, the anti-American/anti-war left and last but not least, here come a totally cheap shot at our victorious troops from you "disciples of Paul" that's enough to gag a maggot!!!
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.