Emilio wonders why I don’t support Tancredo:
your call for rush to endorse ron paul was not a good idea, if you are going to ask “the godfather” to endorse anyone, it would have been a better choice tom tancredo, as small as it is, he would have a much better chance to pull it off than mr. paul. tancredo main focus is on illegal immigration, what is mr. paul’s stand on the subject? would he close the borders? i have asked ms mercer since she is another libertarian, and she does not know the answer to that question. i agree we should bring home troops back from all over the world, but would he put them once here, on the border?
also his view that the main reason the islamic terrorists hate us is because we went over there, is not quite true, they hate us because THEY HATE EVERYBODY THAT IS NOT MUSLIM and will not be happy until they take over the whole world, whether we had gone there or not. those two points makes me very leery of mr. paul.
Paul wants to defend the border and limit immigration. Paul is also a much more viable candidate than Tancredo, who is good on immigration but isn’t anywhere nearly as articulate. Also, Paul has proven that he is an unusually principled man, Tancredo has not.
Paul never said anything about why they hate us, he correctly identified why they ATTACKED us. There is a big difference.
thanks for answering, i agree about his having been articulate. i hope in future speeches mr. paul puts the emphasis on the illegal invasion of mexico because that is what will bring this country down in the near future without a doubt.
Don’t get me wrong, Tancredo is much better than Giuliani, McCain or Romney, he simply isn’t as reliable on the Constitutional issues as Paul. The same goes for Hunter or Huckabee. Still, it’s interesting to see how many people generally like Paul but give one or two reasons for not supporting him which are based on a mistaken view of his actual positions.
Fred Thompson, on the other hand, is pure Three Monkey Republican bait, anyone who believes that he will be any different than George W. Bush is risks being fooled thrice. Proof of this is the way Bush’s biggest supporters are now rushing to get on board with Thompson’s campaign. Thompson will likely talk a good game, just as George Delano did in 2000, and that may allow him to keep the Republican Party from entirely imploding by losing to Hillary in a respectable manner instead of being blown out in the historic landslide I’m expecting.
I find Thompson’s entry to be very interesting, as I suspect it is a desperate “Save the Party” move designed to prevent that backbone-busting blowout. It’s proof that the Giuliani sale failed. I’m not convinced that it will even work, as I have little doubt that Thompson’s appeal will dissipate as soon as conservatives realize that he’s simply offering the same status quo currently on offer from Romney and McCain. He’s pro-occupation, anti-free speech and pro-UN, so there’s no reason for conservatives to be any more excited about him as a potential Hillary-killer than the other three candidates favored by the leadership.