2 GOP Candidates Show Some Guts

During the Republican duh-bate yesterday, Representatives Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo showed testicular fortitude in publically stating that they wouldn't support the GOP nominee if they didn't agree with him philosophically. In doing so, both set themselves apart from the other contenders by basically stating what so many of us believe- principles must trump party loyalty.

Giuliani is a social progressive; Romney may as well change his name to Eggo; Thompson has all the charisma of Admiral Stockdale, and we're still not sure where he stands on anything; and McCain, Huckabee and Brownback apparently don't think that having 20% of the Mexican population living in the United States is enough. Paul and Tacredo are right about those guys- I couldn't in good conscience support any of them, either.

To paraphrase Chuck Baldwin, having to choose between Rudy and Romney, or Thompson and McCain, or any combination of those would be roughly akin to having to choose between Nero and Caligula.

Tancredo has been the attack dog against illegal immigration, while Paul has spoken long and loud against the Neocon war in Iraq. They've shown guts in the past, and showed them again yesterday. Good job, guys.
_____________________________________________

From The Hill:

Paul and Tancredo hint at not supporting GOP nominee
By Klaus Marre
October 09, 2007

Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) made it clear Tuesday that they are not inclined to support the GOP nominee for president if that candidate is not in line with their views.

Asked about it during the debate of Republican presidential candidates in Michigan, Paul said right now he would not commit to support the party’s nominee.

“Not unless they’re willing to end the war and bring our troops home,” Paul said, to which Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) answered “You don’t want me then, pal.”

Paul also said he would not support a GOP candidate who is unwilling to curb spending in Washington.

“I’m not going to support them if they continue down the path that has taken our party down the tubes,” Paul said. “I mean, we’ve lost credibility because of all our spending, because we have violated the civil liberties of all the American people, and we have adopted the Democrats’ foreign policy.”

Tancredo, a staunch supporter of tight border security, also did not commit to supporting the GOP candidate.

“I am absolutely tired and sick and tired of being forced to go to the polls and say I’m going to make this choice between the lesser of two evils,” he said. “I really don’t intend to do that again.

I am hoping, of course, that whoever we nominate will be the principled flag carrier for the Republican Party. But if that is not the case, no, then I will not support them.”

How Many Billions Do You Suppose This Will Cost?

In yet another red herring that will waste untold amounts of US tax dollars, Reuters is reporting that the United States and Russia have reached an agreement to jointly search for water on the moon and Mars.

I have to ask- exactly what benefit if there in this undertaking? How is this going to benefit me as a taxpayer? How is knowing whether or not the moon or Mars has water going to change my life for the better? We have Bush's war in Irag costing us billions, Hillary's Baby Bonds that will cost billions, illegal aliens costing us billions, and now this ridiculous idea- when will it end?

The only way to put a stop to the insanity (short of armed revolt) if for sensible Americans to get off their butts, get to their polling places, and elect Ron Paul President of the United States. You know the Democratic candidates aren't going to cut spending, and the top tier Republicans all want to keep pouring money down the bottomless pit that is Iraq. Ron Paul is the only candidate who will get us back to Constitutional constraints on out of control spending. Ron Paul believes "we need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States."