PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul / Tom Tancredo Ticket?




romeshomey
07-22-2007, 11:18 PM
Would these two be able to work together? Thoughts?

Here is some information on (R) congressman Tom Tancredo. He is also running for president.

From his campaign website.

----------------------
Tom stands for America

Want to know where Tom stands on the issues and what must be done today for the preservation of our future? NEED HELP? close window

Immigration

Illegal aliens threaten our economy and undermine our culture. While our brave soldiers risk their lives to protect us overseas, our political elites lack the courage to defend us at home. I am 100% opposed to amnesty. As President, I will secure our borders so illegal aliens do not come, and I will eliminate benefits and job prospects so they do not stay.

Preserving Life

The innocent unborn enjoy a God given right to life. Roe is a scar on the moral and intellectual history of the country; but, contrary to popular belief, overturning it would merely permit and not require states to prohibit abortion. To protect life, we also need to educate the public about the second victim of abortion, the mother who is subject to potential life long medical and emotional scarring.

Income Tax

A growing chorus of economists and experts argue, and I agree, that the current income tax system is complex and unfair and should be replaced by a flat tax or national sales tax. That's why I co-sponsored the FairTax legislation. Simplifying the process would dramatically reduce the costs of compliance, make American companies more competitive, and put billions back into the economy by encouraging investment.

Judicial Activism

The essence of Democracy is that the citizens dictate the rules by which they live. Yet in the last 40 years, on the social issues that most determine who we are as a people, decisions have been made not by elected legislatures, but by unelected judges. With decisions on abortion, gay rights, religion, sexual mores, and illegal immigration, activist judges have ripped democracy from the hands of the people on the issues they most want their voices heard. The intellectual dishonesty of activist judges has brought their profession into disrepute. As President, I would appoint strict constructionists who honor the separation of powers and respect democracy.


Fast Track Authority / Trade

The President's fast track authority should not be renewed. The constitution gives Congress not the Executive the power to negotiate treaties. Those who would delegate that authority to the President argue that the complexities of negotiation in a global economy require it. But that argument has lost its force because the Presidents have abused the power. Instead of sticking to trade agreements, they make commitments on matters of domestic policy, like immigration and carbon dioxide emissions, in the guise of international accords.

Iraq

America's noble sacrifice has purchased Iraqis a precious opportunity for democratic change; it is now up to them to ensure success. Setting the President's November benchmark for shifting control as an actual timetable for disengagement will let regional powers and Iraqi factions cooperate to forge a new balance of power.

Social Security

There is no question that the system is broken. Projections show that by 2016, the only way to avert its collapse will be deep cuts in benefits, heavy borrowing, or substantial tax hikes. The best suggestion I have heard is to switch from a defined benefits approach to a defined contribution approach with payroll tax funded private investment accounts. These accounts would be made available to young workers and function similarly to 401Ks.

Education

I spent a decade as the Department of Education's regional representative in Denver so I do not say this lightly. Federal involvement should be limited. Educational control is best left in the hands of parents. A no-strings-attached voucher system would promote school choice, while competition for students would drive educational improvements at the institutional level. I also suggest schools return to a more traditional course of study and that the public focus shift to certain non-school factors, like parental involvement, which studies show are the most important determinants of student performance.

Agriculture

As a general rule, I believe the farm economy should be market oriented. This is especially true under the current system, where the subsidies flow not so much to family farms but to very wealthy 'hobby farmers' and large agri-business concerns. To preserve our sovereignty however, the Country's domestic food supply should be self-sufficient. Therefore, I would not be opposed in principle to limited agricultural subsidies designed to keep farms afloat, and farming skills current, in case of national emergency.


Healthcare

The two major problems are the high cost of care and the number of uninsured. Tort reform and immigration enforcement would save the system billions and drive down costs. In California alone, illegal immigrants cost the system $800 million annually and have forced 84 hospitals to close.

As for the uninsured: as many as 25% of them are illegal aliens and should be deported or encouraged to leave. For citizens and legal residents who are employed by businesses which cannot afford coverage, I favor association health plans which band small businesses together to access lower cost insurance. For those out of work, state governments should be the primary source of relief, although I would not rule out federal incentives or limited subsidies to make sure families who have fallen on hard times are not without coverage.

Budget

The federal government is in debt because it spends too much, not because it taxes people too little. Government spending is classified as either discretionary or mandatory. Discretionary spending includes funds for things like the military and is explicitly set by Congress on an annual basis. But the major culprit in ballooning budgets is mandatory spending for entitlement programs like medicare, expenditures which are determined by the number of beneficiaries. The only way to control the budget is to reform the entitlement programs that mandatory spending funds. Those decisions on how to allocate resources are as economically necessary as they are politically and ethically difficult.

Homeland Security

Homeland security plans which do not include enforcing our immigration laws and securing our borders are entirely inadequate. A CIS study of 94 terrorists prosecuted for their crimes in the U.S., found that nearly two thirds had committed immigration fraud. It is difficult then to justify the rigor, expense, and inconvenience of new safety measures at our airports and harbors, while leaving the door open for terrorists to slip across our southern border undetected.

Gun Control

I fully and completely support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The failure of the ACLU to defend this right, and of federal courts to make the second amendment binding on the states, as they have made the first amendment and most others, testifies to their intellectual hypocrisy.

Gay Marriage

Federalism concerns make a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage an avenue of last resort, Unfortunately, intellectually dishonest activist judges have left us no choice.

Activist courts have ignored the principal legal argument that the state's interest in marriage is procreation. Population is power. Society needs a young generation to defend the country in battle, to support its programs with taxes and to carry on its culture and traditions. The mere fact that two people are in a loving relationship does not matter to the state. Society supports traditional marriage because it is the only union which, in the ordinary course, leads to children, without the intervention of a third party.

Political Correctness

In rational debate, the argument against something is that it is false not that it is hurtful. But political correctness has poisoned the climate for dealing with difficult issues and has returned us to the days when a sufficient counter-argument was that an idea was contrary to doctrine. A democracy that cannot tolerate debate on controversial issues cannot function.

http://www.teamtancredo.com/tancredo_meettom_index.asp

kalami
07-22-2007, 11:23 PM
He blew it for me. He was asked a question about terrorist and invoked Jack Bauer. The answer was obviously Chuck Norris.

Lord Xar
07-22-2007, 11:25 PM
I like Tancredo. I actually have suggested this before. Unfortunetly some here suggested this would be a bad matching.

njandrewg
07-22-2007, 11:27 PM
he doesn't believe in evolution...so no I don't want him in the whitehouse.

And if Ron Paul picks a VP you bet your ass it will be someone who believes his ideals...otherwise it would be too much of an incentive for neocons to take him out to have their puppet take the strings

Mesogen
07-22-2007, 11:46 PM
Activist courts have ignored the principal legal argument that the state's interest in marriage is procreation.
The state should have NO interest in marriage.


Society needs a young generation to defend the country in battle, to support its programs with taxes and to carry on its culture and traditions.
BARF!


The two major problems are the high cost of care and the number of uninsured. Tort reform and immigration enforcement would save the system billions and drive down costs.
Illegal immigration is putting a strain on health care systems, but there should be no caps on malpractice suits. This isn't what's making the US healthcare costs the most expensive per capita in the world. It's the administrative costs of huge organizations like HMOs and insurance companies. The way our system works now is totally lame, but tort "reform" isn't the answer. This is the lobbyists' answer.


Setting the President's November benchmark for shifting control as an actual timetable for disengagement will let regional powers and Iraqi factions cooperate to forge a new balance of power.

Hmm, I had no idea that Bush had any benchmarks whatsoever. I thought he was against them. What's so special about November?


With decisions on abortion, gay rights, religion, sexual mores, and illegal immigration, activist judges have ripped democracy from the hands of the people on the issues they most want their voices heard.Judges shouldn't control these things, but people should not democratically control anyone's sexual mores or marriages either.



A growing chorus of economists and experts argue, and I agree, that the current income tax system is complex and unfair and should be replaced by a flat tax or national sales tax.Yeah, let's replace something complex and unfair with something simple and unfair.


AND

He voted for the Iraq War. I think anyone who voted for that war should be out of government permanently, so I definitely wouldn't want him as VP.

AND

He voted for the Patriot Act. I think anyone who voted for that should be out of government permanently, so I definitely wouldn't want him as VP.

AND

He co-sponsored the Real ID Act of 2005. I think anyone who voted for that should be out of government permanently, so I definitely wouldn't want him as VP.

Dustancostine
07-22-2007, 11:51 PM
Activist courts have ignored the principal legal argument that the state's interest in marriage is procreation.

Population is power.

Society needs a young generation to defend the country in battle, to support its programs with taxes and to carry on its culture and traditions.

Society supports traditional marriage because it is the only union which, in the ordinary course, leads to children, without the intervention of a third party.




I am sorry, but I wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole.

Where I come from he would be considered a socialist.

The state does not have interest, the states are made up of people, only individuals have interest.

Society doesn't need crap, and does not have the right to place a needy burden on any generation.

Society also doesn't need taxes.

Also this guy comes off as stupid or blind one or the other. Marriage does not lead to procreation, sex leads to procreation regardless of marriage (Now having children inside a marriage is clearly superior, but has nothing to do with procreation)

And does he really think that if the government bans gay marriage, homosexuals are just going to "ah shucks" and then go find a partner of the opposite sex and start having children. Is he really serious?

I wonder what else he feels society needs and should forcefully take from people.

His positions are borderline evil.

Sematary
07-22-2007, 11:51 PM
I think RP has already tapped a potential VP - a governor I think.

WhiteWhaleHolyGrail
07-22-2007, 11:54 PM
No thanks, for many of the reasons already listed. I know his bread and butter is the immigration issue, but in one of the national GOP debates he suggested stopping all immigration - including legal immigration - until the illegal immigration issue was fixed.

Most Americans won't go for that.

james1906
07-22-2007, 11:58 PM
he's the least hackiest of all the hacks running, but a hack nonetheless.

JosephTheLibertarian
07-23-2007, 12:00 AM
Immigration

Open borders


Preserving Life

Pro choice


Income Tax

Eliminate it.


Fast Track Authority / Trade

Free trade


Iraq

Leave.


Social Security

Eliminate it.


Education

Deregulate and privatize.


Judicial Activism

No.


Agriculture

Free market - no subsidies


Healthcare

Deregulate and privatize


Budget

Constitutional amendment to balance every budget.


Homeland Security

Eliminate it


Gun Control

No gun control


Gay Marriage

Allow. Government shouldn't even regulate marriage.


Political Correctness

We can start by eliminating Affirmative Action programs and by eliminating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Dustancostine
07-23-2007, 12:10 AM
Joseph,

Right now I think we need to protect our borders (not close them). Do you agree with this? That we can let as many people who want to come in come, but they have to be screened first.

Also I am sure you agree that this can't happen until we get rid of the welfare state.

billv
07-23-2007, 12:10 AM
I used to support Tancredo until he said he would support nuking Mecca as a deterrent to Islamic terrorism. That was it for me there. Nuking Mecca would be, in my opinion, the moral equivalent of them nuking New York.

JosephTheLibertarian
07-23-2007, 12:12 AM
Joseph,

Right now I think we need to protect our borders (not close them). Do you agree with this? That we can let as many people who want to come in come, but they have to be screened first.

Also I am sure you agree that this can't happen until we get rid of the welfare state.

yup. We're not ready for an open border policy quite yet.

hells_unicorn
07-23-2007, 12:16 AM
I used to support Tancredo until he said he would support nuking Mecca as a deterrent to Islamic terrorism. That was it for me there. Nuking Mecca would be, in my opinion, the moral equivalent of them nuking New York.

When you consider Tancredo's feverish support for America's sovereignty, you'd think he'd be able to process the concept of respecting the national sovereignty of other nations by the same reasoning. He is indicative of not only what is wrong with the Republican Party, but pretty much every candidate aside from Ron Paul and Mike Gravel, it is not the business of any nation to try to manipulate the internal politics of other nations, there is no rational justification for it.

jorlowitz
07-23-2007, 12:20 AM
People seem to have problems with this guy being too conservative (religiously), too liberal (on size of gov.t) or just too extreme (on immigration). I think the bigger issue is that he's almost identical to Paul without adding any special something. If Paul is going to get elected he needs a phenomenally bright and appealing VP who very well might be from the other side of the aisle (or outside of the two parties). Tancredo overlaps with Paul's base but doesn't add any strength or new support to it; I think he'd just be a shadow.

Dustancostine
07-23-2007, 12:26 AM
People seem to have problems with this guy being too conservative (religiously), too liberal (on size of gov.t) or just too extreme (on immigration). I think the bigger issue is that he's almost identical to Paul without adding any special something. If Paul is going to get elected he needs a phenomenally bright and appealing VP who very well might be from the other side of the aisle (or outside of the two parties). Tancredo overlaps with Paul's base but doesn't add any strength or new support to it; I think he'd just be a shadow.

How is he identical to RP. Read his platform posted. It is sickening.

Lord Xar
07-23-2007, 12:28 AM
Open borders

uhmmm, not if you enjoy Americas soverignty and 'way of life' - in addition to its culture and laws. Or if you are against the North American Union, and the SPP.

That Open Borders scenario is COMPLETELY BOGUS and I would venture to say that probably 1 in a 1,000 actually think that is even feasible, much less of benefit to america...

Think on this ... If You lived in a Mansion and I lived in a slothy apartment with roaches.... I am sure you would not want to give me access to your home, cause I am sure you would not be coming to mine.

OPEN BORDERS is a horrible, horrendous idea and one that the libertarians are completely wrong on.... completely.

JosephTheLibertarian
07-23-2007, 12:30 AM
uhmmm, not if you enjoy Americas soverignty and 'way of life' - in addition to its culture and laws. Or if you are against the North American Union, and the SPP.

That Open Borders scenario is COMPLETELY BOGUS and I would venture to say that probably 1 in a 1,000 actually think that is even feasible, much less of benefit to america...

Think on this ... If You lived in a Mansion and I lived in a slothy apartment with roaches.... I am sure you would not want to give me access to your home, cause I am sure you would not be coming to mine.

OPEN BORDERS is a horrible, horrendous idea and one that the libertarians are completely wrong on.... completely.

I agree that we need security to ensure that no one is hauling over a nuke, but there's nothing wrong with opening our borders once we eliminate the incentives to why poor Mexicans flood here in the first place.

Delaware
07-23-2007, 12:31 AM
I was all for Tancredo, but then i found out about Ron Paul. I wounldnt mind the ticket, but Tancredo has to understand what is wrong with Neo-conservatism.

I'd MUCH rather have Tancredo than the cross-dressing authoritarian Guiliani, or the turncoat Romney, or Fred Thompson the tired looking actor. No To McCain either, selling out our country to special interests.

The only people i really like running for President in the republican Party are Tancredo and Paul

ThePieSwindler
07-23-2007, 12:37 AM
he doesn't believe in evolution...so no I don't want him in the whitehouse.


What does that have to do with anything? Honestly, who cares? As long as he doesn't mix religion with politics, who the fuck cares? What does evolution have to do with being a good executive and defending liberty? i don't like tancredo really, but is this seriously your only qualifier? So if Ron Paul didn't believe in evolution, would you just throw his candidacy out the window? Enjoy the devolution of your liberties, then. (Note: i "believe" in evolution insofar as theres really no question of belief in a solid scientific theory. The methods/mechanisms are disputable, the origin of all life is even disputable, but genetic modifications and adaptations and varying of traits isn't. But it doesn't have anything to do with politics, or it shouldn't)

This post is childish.

Lord Xar
07-23-2007, 12:52 AM
I agree that we need security to ensure that no one is hauling over a nuke, but there's nothing wrong with opening our borders once we eliminate the incentives to why poor Mexicans flood here in the first place.

I still disagree... with open borders, there are disease, drugs etc.. that make their way into our areas... plus, I believe you cannot have open borders with todays world. Too many crack pots.... when nukes can be put in a suitcase --- how can an open border prevent that...?

Naw, open borders was and is a fantasy to me. In some utopian America decades away, perhaps.. but not now... not with the mentality that businesses/politicians have.... there would be too much incentive to create the North American Union and the one currency....

I think the "open border" policy was a thought without all the ramifications of its implementation.

jorlowitz
07-23-2007, 01:07 AM
He's not 'identical' to RP, but in the eyes of many voters he would be. That's why this thread was started, because they seem similar or at least compatible.

Mom4Ron
07-23-2007, 01:29 AM
No IMO

JosephTheLibertarian
07-23-2007, 02:04 AM
I still disagree... with open borders, there are disease, drugs etc.. that make their way into our areas... plus, I believe you cannot have open borders with todays world. Too many crack pots.... when nukes can be put in a suitcase --- how can an open border prevent that...?

Naw, open borders was and is a fantasy to me. In some utopian America decades away, perhaps.. but not now... not with the mentality that businesses/politicians have.... there would be too much incentive to create the North American Union and the one currency....

I think the "open border" policy was a thought without all the ramifications of its implementation.

That's why I believe in decriminalizing all drugs. ;) Were Mexicans flooding here in the 19th century? It was pretty much wide open..

Lord Xar
07-23-2007, 02:21 AM
That's why I believe in decriminalizing all drugs. ;) Were Mexicans flooding here in the 19th century? It was pretty much wide open..

hmmm. Your rationale makes my point very obvious. Outdated rationale. The differences between the 19th and 20th century, and the ramifications thereof are so vast that to bring it up when you find it irrelevant is moot.

jorlowitz
07-23-2007, 03:12 AM
XAR,

With the exception of possibly terrorism (not that terrorism is really something new), I'm not sure the situation is so different.

It bears repeating that this country originated as predominantly white and protestant and British and yet has gone on to accommodate Catholics, Jews, Germans, Irish, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Africans, Australians, South Americans, etc...

The differences you allege, about Mexican immigration and Islamic fundamentalism being so incomparably different could use more scrutiny, especially since it is an attempt to justify policies which would involve more aggression and less liberty.

The notion that Islamic fundamentalism is real and a direct threat to the United States is a complicated topic, as exemplified by the Paul v. Giuliani debate. I can't speak for RP or the international community at large, but there are many voices who support the idea that our policy has inflamed these aggressors and that their ire and violence is rooted in the all-too-common sources of poverty and occupation. Fundamentalism is always a welcome weapon for extremes of human discontent, but the fundamentalism needs a willing host to flourish.

As for immigration, there's no doubt that the waves of hispanic immigration into the U.S. over the past 10-20 years have been dramatic and transformed the demographic landscape of an entire region of the country. Immigration is a search for something better and given the choices between Mexico's corrupt government and stagnant economy, it is little surprise that they have sought to have the same freedoms and opportunities Americans do. On the other hand, as has been widely discussed, this immigration has been fueled by domestic policies which subvert the long-standing process of immigration and assimilation. The immigrants of the past were not welcomed with open arms either but there was an expectation that they would work hard, establish themselves in the country, and stay here. This cannot be said of allhispanic immigrants to the U.S. but it is also widely unfair to indict the entire perceived community of hispanic immigrants of the same behavior. Moreover, welfare policies that accomodate immigrants are sympathetic and humane albeit not practical in a republic where people pool their taxes to pay for services. This situation could be remedied with better regulation of the business who employ so many thousands of illegal immigrants without issue and with closer enforcement. The other side of the issue, of course, is that our economy needs and 'wants' this influx of workers. As one who lives in a growing resort town, I can attest that the results os billions of dollars of renovations being poured into the area are largely pieced together by the hands of immigrants. How hard do you want to fight to keep people who want to work from being able to do so?

The issues regarding disease seem exaggerated and somewhat moot regardless. With a truly global infrastructure of transportation and commerce, the notion that we can insulate ourselves from contagions by putting up a fence seems naive. I agree that Ellis Island did it's part in screening for all types of common infections and illness, but that was a time when people didn't daily unboard planes with 300 people from 20 different countries (no do today's people immigrating to the U.S. have to endure an infested multi-month long boat ride with other immigrants to get here).

Lastly, regarding drugs. It's fairly obviously that it has been the attempt to keep drugs out of the country that has fueled and funded far more crime and corruption than many can imagine. It is a limited understanding of black-markets which leads people to associate drug related crime with demand for drugs. If there was sufficient supply to meet this demand (regulated and possibly taxed), the addicts might still remain but the security and control issues would not.

I'm not an expert here, but I think the libertarian approach is one of ceding control to allow an increase of both choice and personal responsibility. Rather than characterize these times as uniquely dangerous, consider the possibility that they are uniquely able--with technology, trade, and civic action--to deal with the most complex issues.

BuddyRey
07-23-2007, 04:01 AM
I like Tancredo's immigration stance, but that's about it. He may be a good guy, but he's definitely a warhawk and a reactionary with regard to social issues. I'm sick and tired of "convenience Christians" who use religion to pick on people who are different from them, then refuse to heed Jesus' most fervent call to end bloodshed and sew the seeds of peace and understanding throughout the world.

AnotherAmerican
07-23-2007, 04:03 AM
This Tancredo guy sure likes to speak for "the state" and give it lots of power to decide how Americans live their personal lives. He fails the "This is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy" test, and seems to have little idea what the Enumerated Powers are.

Pass.

beermotor
07-23-2007, 04:23 AM
I like Tancredo. I actually have suggested this before. Unfortunetly some here suggested this would be a bad matching.


Unless he changes his stance on war, he is a non-starter. Anyone who favors war as a solution over trade is, frankly, an idiot.

Lois
07-23-2007, 04:49 AM
I didn't even bother reading all the posts on this thread, because --

Tom Tancredo is a Warmonger - plain and simple.

Why do people on this board continue to sing the praises of Tom Tancredo -- just because he's big on the Illegal Immigration issue?

Every so often there a post on here about Ron Paul with Tom Tancredo -- drop it, will you! You're wasting all our energy!

Lois

sunny
07-23-2007, 05:02 AM
that's easy - NO!

Scribbler de Stebbing
07-23-2007, 06:15 AM
I haven't read all the posts, but don't think two Congressmen create a balanced ticket. Governors tend to win POTUS elections, presumably because of their executive experience. Ron Paul should attempt to balance the ticket with a governor if possible.

(I wouldn't find Tancredo the most objectionable, but he has a couple positions that do concern me. He was for a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution. It might just be easier to take the 1st Amendment completely out, appeasing the McCain/F. Thompson constituency at the same time.)

LibertyEagle
07-23-2007, 06:25 AM
Joseph the Libertarian:


Quote:
Immigration
Open borders

You want open borders??? If so, I sure am glad Dr. Paul disagrees with you.

LibertyEagle
07-23-2007, 06:32 AM
Dr. Paul and Tom Tancredo are friends. I don't think it serves us well to be bashing him. Especially since Tom will probably leave the race before too long. I don't know... if you were a supporter of Tancredo and then saw another campaign talking negatively about him, would it make you view this other campaign more favorable, or would it make you view it less favorable?

Bradley in DC
07-23-2007, 06:43 AM
They are personal friends and philosophically compatible, but I'm hoping Dr. Paul picks someone with more managerial experience and a higher profile: my top choices are Mark Sanford, Gary Johnson, and Janice Rogers Brown.

Bradley in DC
07-23-2007, 06:44 AM
Joseph the Libertarian:


You want open borders??? If so, I sure am glad Dr. Paul disagrees with you.

Based on what?

LibertyEagle
07-23-2007, 06:47 AM
Based on what?

What? He has talked numerous times about securing the borders. That's what.


"Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals."

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/

JosephTheLibertarian
07-23-2007, 07:07 AM
Joseph the Libertarian:


You want open borders??? If so, I sure am glad Dr. Paul disagrees with you.

I guess I'm more socially liberal in contrast to you, what I can I say? LOL would I advocate an open borders policy at this time? No. Eventually... I'm sure we could balance security without needing to lock down the borders.

Lesgov
07-23-2007, 07:33 AM
I think Tanc would be more valuable to Ron Paul as a congressman. They do see eye to eye on many things.

mtmedlin
07-23-2007, 09:04 AM
They are personal friends and philosophically compatible, but I'm hoping Dr. Paul picks someone with more managerial experience and a higher profile: my top choices are Mark Sanford, Gary Johnson, and Janice Rogers Brown.


Ive been saying Mark Sanford for quite a while. His views are nearly identical to RP and he has a voting record to PROVE it. Tancredo doesn't. Sanford is also in his second term as Governor and is term limited. His state has the sixth primary and its on Saturday. Saturday primaries typically have higher turnout. Also, its an open primary. This gives RP an advantage because of the many different parties that are coming in to his camp. If RP do well in NH (which I believe he will win) and place in the top 3 in Iowa, then we get Nevada and Wyoming (I believe thats the correct order) Nevada has a Libertarian bend to them and honestly I don't know much about Wyoming voting trend. These first four states I believe will put RP as a contender. Then it comes to my home, Florida, and were working on it. Then comes SOUTH CAROLINA, home of Mark Sanford, who is a friend of RP. If RP looks like a serious contender and he already knows he is on RP short list, then maybe an endorsement could help swing the state.
Guiliani wont take Mark, Fred isn't going to take someone who is so geographically close to Tennessee, Romney will probably choose someone in the south from a BIG state or he might go for help in the Midwest to offset concerns about his religious affiliation.
I really think Mark Sanford is the best choice.

Now, isn't that about a $5 worth of crap to a .02 question. :D

PaleoForPaul
07-23-2007, 09:17 AM
Tancredo and Paul are friends from what I've read.

Some people here reject Tancredo on petty grouds such as his religious beliefs. Others take the 'nuke mecca' quote out of context, when it was simply his response as to what we could use as a MAD target with middle eastern regimes.

The two get along on most things, the only disagreements they run into is that Tancredo's operating philosophy is to put America first, Paul's is to respect the constitution.

Tancredo is also pro-war, because he views the islamic world as being at war with the US. He has called for a pullout within 6 months of September if the Iraqi's don't reach certain benchmarks.

He's probably going to pull out of the race soon, since he can not run for Congress and the President at the same time in his state.