Silke, yes, we do have to deal with the illegal issue. But, it is not by giving them amnesty, which is what McCain was pushing.

I understand what you are saying about Iraq, Ogre. I do not think we should be staying there for years and decades, except with a quick reaction force, if the Iraqi’s let us. If we can just give them a little more time for stability and political progress, I believe we can really start pulling out by mid 2008. I just don’t think the time is now.

Sorry the response took so long, Bad Behavior fragged me on my own blog

I do still like Paul better. As folks here already pointed out, Paul agrees with you on your big issues. And please — he is absolutely NOT isolationist in any way, shape or form. He wants to trade with, talk to, and do other stuff with everyone else on the planet — he just don’t want to use our military to tell them how to live their lives.

I also have reached the point where I think leaving Iraq now isn’t surrender. Didn’t we already win? Aren’t we done? Sure, we’ve made progress, but I don’t see anyone on the right or left, outlining when we’ll be done. Bush makes it sound like we won’t be done until every Al-Queda goat lover is dead. That’s going to be decades or centuries. I don’t want troops in Iraq in 3007. I think we’ve won, we’re done, now it’s time to come home.

From what I can tell McCain’s position is not that different from Fred Thompson’s.

After the bill McCain supported was defeated I think he realized that securing the boarder is the first step to real immigration reform. He has backed off from his position on what to do with those illegal immigrants who are already here. But even Thompson realizes that eventually you will have to deal with that issue:

“[B]ecause we allowed ourselves to wait until we woke up one day and found 12 million illegals here, there’s no easy solution. And I think that you have to realize that you’re either going to drive 12 million people underground permanently, which is not a good solution. You’re going to get them all together and get them out of the country, which is not going to happen. Or you’re going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it’s unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law.” (Fox News’ “Hannity & Colmes,” 4/3/06)

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/fred-thompson-no-restrictionist.html

Do you agree with Thompson, Teach?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Co7x3A12s

In my mind illegal immigration is not as important as the war in Iraq. McCain’s credentials far exceed all other candidates.

As far as Paul goes, yes, he too has good points. But his retreat and defeat stance, his isolationist stance, and his failure to repudiate his Truther and white supremacist followers have turned me against him.

As for his environment positions, this is from his website:

Increasing our energy independence and investing in alternative energy sources will also produce a healthier environment. And while we don’t know for certain how or why climate change is occurring, it makes sense to take reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions without harming our economy.

http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=OnTheIssues

Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.

1. Low Taxes – Ron Paul wants no income tax and a return to year 2000 spending levels

2. Small Government – Ron Paul is advocating the smallest federal government of any candidate

3. Tough on illegal immigration – Paul’s first and foremost solution is to secure the borders with no amnesty.

4. Strong on National Security – well, it seems that alex has pointed you in the right direction.

Ron Paul is the leader on each issue that is most important to you. But who are we kidding, the real ‘will and moral courage of free men and women’ is best embodied in faulting a candidate through guilt by association and swallowing whatever package the mainstream media feeds to you.

that actually demonstrated why Ron Paul is the toughest on terror