Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What if McCain Chooses Fred Thompson for VP?
Right Wing News ^ | February 6, 2008 | John Stephenson

Posted on 02/21/2008 10:34:10 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

I ask the question because it isn't out of the question. They are good friends with a history. It would be a smart move on the Maverick's part to stilt up his lacking on conservative credentials. Could Thompson serve as the conservative concience? The ideological gravitas? Even...power behind the throne? How would the conservative base/blogosphere react?

Serious thought from Scott Ott:

Bring Fred Thompson on as vice president to serve as the Constitutional conscience of the administration -- an ideological gravitas behemoth -- who can do for President McCain what Dick Cheney has done for President Bush on foreign policy. Behind the scenes, Vice President Thompson offers President McCain private counsel, guided by our Founding Fathers, without drawing attention to himself. Mr. Thompson seems eminently qualified for such a role, eschewing publicity and advancing the cause which impelled him to mount his own White House bid.

But seriously...it is a possibility. Would it alter any factor on you pulling the lever for McCain?

More thoughts here

Another option: JC Watts

Meanwhile: Bush rules!

Hat tip: Reynolds

Already lots of interesting comments at STACLU...ranging from:

It would be brilliant, and a winning strategy.

to....

I just read the title of this post to my husband, and his response? "I'd pray for McCain's health to fail quickly!"

How rude of him! Heh. no no no not nice!


TOPICS: Arizona; Tennessee; Issues; Parties; U.S. Senate
KEYWORDS: 2008; 2008veep; dickcheney; election; electionpresident; elections; fredthompson; gop; johnmccain; mccain; republicans; runningmate; vicepresident; whitehouse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
This is the ONLY thing that would put a silver lining on the cloud that is the McCain nomination...
1 posted on 02/21/2008 10:34:15 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom; jellybean; Josh Painter; ejonesie22; papasmurf; Bobbisox; DesScorp; thefactor; ...

Food for thought Ping!


2 posted on 02/21/2008 10:36:41 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (http://www.fourfriedchickensandacoke.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

What if the tooth fairy is real?

What if Santa really does deliver Christmas gifts?

What if there really is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

He’s not going to choose Thompson, Hunter, Romney, or anyone else as the VP. The leading candidate is still probably Lindsay Graham. (Who in the hell assigns a girl’s name to their son, anyawy?)


3 posted on 02/21/2008 10:38:20 PM PST by Terpfen (Romney's loss in Florida is a catastrophe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

CFR 1 and CFR 3. Yippee.


4 posted on 02/21/2008 10:40:00 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

Linseed Grahamnesty?!! How bad does he want to get beaten by BOH?!


5 posted on 02/21/2008 10:40:24 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (http://www.fourfriedchickensandacoke.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

How’s the Ron Paul Revolution coming?!!


6 posted on 02/21/2008 10:41:15 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (http://www.fourfriedchickensandacoke.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Never happen, McCain never feeds conservatives. If it did, I think you got a whole new ballgame.


7 posted on 02/21/2008 10:43:29 PM PST by kingu (Party for rent - conservative opinions not required.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
How’s the Ron Paul Revolution coming?!!

The antiwar kook? How should I know. I'll probably vote Constitution Party if their candidate isn't too much of a kook his or herself. At least the Constitution Party wouldn't trash the first amendment and they will go to war with a declaration. Better than nothing.

8 posted on 02/21/2008 10:45:50 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Somebody beat me to the vanity question I was going to post.

I don’t know the answer. I guess it would depend on whether McCain would really listen to Fred or if Fred were just there as a hood ornament.

You would think that after the NYT article, McCain would get it.


9 posted on 02/21/2008 10:49:05 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shouldn't be a federal agency...it should be a convenience store.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger
and they will go to war with a declaration.

From the sound of it, they wouldn't go to war at all.

By the way, we did have a declaration. Had a nice long Congressional debate leading up to it. There is no stock form that says "The Congress of the United States declares war on __country name here__, signed __president's name here__"

Pushing that line, plus the Constitution Party thing, makes me think you're a plant.
10 posted on 02/21/2008 10:52:36 PM PST by Terpfen (Romney's loss in Florida is a catastrophe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
By the way, we did have a declaration. Had a nice long Congressional debate leading up to it. There is no stock form that says "The Congress of the United States declares war on __country name here__, signed __president's name here__"

I agree. But if the Constitution Party president wants it in that form, then Congress can give it to him or her in that form. Like I said, better than nothing. Meanwhile they aren't throwing the first amendment in the trash.

Pushing that line, plus the Constitution Party thing, makes me think you're a plant.

Nope...I think Bush is one of the top three presidents of all time along with Lincoln and Washington...supported Giuliani, then Romney, now Huckabee. No way I'm voting for the backstabber though if and when Huckabee drops out.

So anyone who isn't supporting the backstabber McCain is a plant? Got a lot of plants on FR in your eyes.

11 posted on 02/21/2008 11:00:49 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
McCain's going to get my vote, but I don't like it. But if he picks Lindsey Graham, I might just stay home.

I prefer Fred, but I don't think he's going to pick another old white guy. Kay Bailey Hutchinson...?

12 posted on 02/21/2008 11:03:26 PM PST by Darkwolf377 (Republican "Suicide Voters" need to repeat: SCOTUS...SCOTUS...SCOTUS...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

Funny that you peg me as a McPain supporter, given my tagline and posting history. I wanted Hunter, then Romney, and never really got excited about Thompson.

I’m just pointing out that you’re using an idiotic liberal argument regarding declarations if war. They pulled that one early on and it went nowhere: your using it now pointed my radar at “possible plant.”


13 posted on 02/21/2008 11:20:54 PM PST by Terpfen (Romney's loss in Florida is a catastrophe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Been hashed over a SZILLION times .. Im tired of dreaming and will await what the Senator says


14 posted on 02/21/2008 11:29:17 PM PST by BlueNgold (... Feed the tree!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

McCain wants a puppet VP. He doesn’t want a VP with opinions.

FRed won’t take a meaningless job.


15 posted on 02/21/2008 11:45:21 PM PST by Politicalmom (Better a leftist Dem with energized GOP opposition, than a leftist "Republican" with no opposition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
I agree. Under an egotist like McCain, the vice presidency will revert to being the traditional bucket of warm spit. Also, a 71-year-old with a 65-year-old running mate? Against young, vital Mr. HopeChange? Seems like one of them should be too young to collect full Social Security benefits.
16 posted on 02/22/2008 12:04:32 AM PST by Hunton Peck (alias Runs with Turtles of the tribe of el Conservo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
What if McCain Chooses Fred Thompson for VP?

What if he doesn't?

17 posted on 02/22/2008 12:23:10 AM PST by Old Sarge (CTHULHU '08 - I won't settle for a lesser evil any longer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
Following the constitution is now "liberal"? Hmm, I thought it was the opposite.
18 posted on 02/22/2008 12:27:05 AM PST by incindiary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVodI85NLMQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
I’m just pointing out that you’re using an idiotic liberal argument regarding declarations if war. They pulled that one early on and it went nowhere: your using it now pointed my radar at “possible plant.”

Where the hell did I use a liberal argument for declaration of war? The only thing I said that has you worked up is that the Constitution Party president would want a declaration of war to go to war. You must've missed the part where I said it was "better than nothing", meaning I fully support our actions in the war zones by Bush.

You appear to be looking for enemies where none exist.

19 posted on 02/22/2008 1:00:22 AM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Any ticket with McCain on it is DOA with me.


20 posted on 02/22/2008 1:21:42 AM PST by politicalwit (AKA... A Tradition Continues...Now a Hoosier Freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hunton Peck

Seems like one of them should be too young to collect full Social Security benefits.

Ping LOUD and CLEAR


21 posted on 02/22/2008 1:32:53 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Well as a Fred supporter I’d say great, but.....Thompson is 64 years old, he’d be 69 after “their” first term, I don’t see Thompson looking at 2012. McCain and Thompson are friends, but they have some “large” differances on policy, immigration, taxes and Thompson’s Federalist view's on the role of government, (it what really attracted me to his candidacy), I just see to much conflict on a host of issues.........I do see a McCain - Romney Ticket as being more of a possibility, setting Romney up for a 2012 run.
22 posted on 02/22/2008 4:38:20 AM PST by swimdad387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

“Nope...I think Bush is one of the top three presidents of all time along with Lincoln and Washington...”

You gotta be kidding, right? I guess we should start carving a new face on Mount Rushmore. While I think that Bush has done a great job on taxes, judges and the War on Islamo Fascism, he has been terrible in so many other aspects.

Lets keep in mind the school bill he had crafted with Ted Kennedy and the stupid free perscription drugs for seniors and the McCain Kennedy amnesty that almost passed. He also said he would sign the AWB if it came to his desk and he signed the McCain/Feingold bill. That means he’s weak on the first and second amendment.

Also, under his Presidency he has just recognized Kosovo as a seperate nation. This is a royal blunder that could very well end up backfiring right in our face. And for what? What national interest do we have in Kosovo? Is it worth expending American lives for? We might find out because this could explode into another balkan war.

In the words of Bismark, “the whole of the Balkans is not worth the blood of one Pomeranian grenadier” and my addendum or one American soldier/Marine.

Yes, Bush has done some good things as president, but he has also helped to fracture the conservative base of the party. So much so that we have McCain as our standard bearer.


23 posted on 02/22/2008 5:03:42 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I love Fred—gave $$$—but two old men who have had cancer is the last thing we need on the GOP ticket if there is any hope of winning.


24 posted on 02/22/2008 5:10:17 AM PST by lonestar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Coming from a Fred head I don’t think this is a good idea. I love Fred and felt he was far and away the best candidate, but he should not be McCain’s running mate. He might make a great AG in a McCain administration.

McCain needs to pick someone young and very conservative. If he wants to counter the Obama minority thing, then it might be a good idea to have Michael Steele or J.C. Watts as his running mate. Both good conservatives who can announciate the conservative positions well (unlike our current POTUS). Steele has executive experience and almost won that Senate seat in Maryland, a heavily democratic state. He is supposed to be a great campaigner and campaign organizer. My pick would be him.


25 posted on 02/22/2008 5:10:46 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
So much so that we have McCain as our standard bearer.

You're as bad as the Dems blaming Bush. Bush hasn't voted.

The voters in NH started the ball rolling down the East coast for McCain.

26 posted on 02/22/2008 5:15:01 AM PST by lonestar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: lonestar

“You’re as bad as the Dems blaming Bush. Bush hasn’t voted.

The voters in NH started the ball rolling down the East coast for McCain.”

I’m blaming Bush for fracturing the conservative base of the Republican party with some of his stupid issues like Amnesty (with McCain) and signing the McCain Feingold. Sure, McCain gets the blame for this stuff, but Bush supported it also and he deserves blame for it.

Could you please name one thing that I got wrong about Bush? I’m a conservative first, I support conservative causes. I’m not going to just tow the Republican party line.

You’re right, the voters in NH got the ball rolling. A lot of them were independents and Democrats. They got to decide who my party’s candidate was and I still haven’t had a say because I live in Pennsylvania. How fair is that?? There has to be something done about these early states and allowing Democrats and Independents into the primaries and caucuses.


27 posted on 02/22/2008 5:21:22 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: incindiary

Believing that there was no declaration of war is a liberal argument, yes.


28 posted on 02/22/2008 5:22:49 AM PST by Terpfen (Romney's loss in Florida is a catastrophe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I like Fred but:

It would be having two old farts in the the office.

29 posted on 02/22/2008 5:24:17 AM PST by bmwcyle (I am the watchman on the tower sounding the alarm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
“Nope...I think Bush is one of the top three presidents of all time along with Lincoln and Washington...” You gotta be kidding, right? I guess we should start carving a new face on Mount Rushmore.

Who besides Washington and Lincoln is better than Bush?

While I think that Bush has done a great job on taxes, judges and the War on Islamo Fascism, he has been terrible in so many other aspects. Lets keep in mind the school bill he had crafted with Ted Kennedy and the stupid free perscription drugs for seniors...

Good economic times will bring spending. The key is to look at the tax burden percentage-wise. I don't like the prescription drug bill, but the problem with that is more the American people's attitude toward it. Everybody thinks there has to be a pill for everything.

...and the McCain Kennedy amnesty that almost passed.

Unlike most of my conservative brethren, I see no solution to the illegal immigrant problem besides what Bush supports and sealing the border better. The idea of rounding up millions and dumping them in the northen Mexican desert is a non-starter. It'll never happen. What does that leave us?

He also said he would sign the AWB if it came to his desk...

The American people wanted a Dem Congress in 06 and they got it.

...and he signed the McCain/Feingold bill...

McCain demogogued it to a 70% approval rating...not much Bush could do about that.

That means he’s weak on the first and second amendment. Also, under his Presidency he has just recognized Kosovo as a seperate nation. This is a royal blunder that could very well end up backfiring right in our face. And for what? What national interest do we have in Kosovo? Is it worth expending American lives for? We might find out because this could explode into another balkan war.

Clinton's doings there. What's Bush supposed to do, send troops to kick out the Muslims, just to have Obama send in troops a year from now to kick out the Serbs again?

In the words of Bismark, “the whole of the Balkans is not worth the blood of one Pomeranian grenadier” and my addendum or one American soldier/Marine.

It appears that's close to Bush's position. If the Serbs wanted the Muzzies out, they've had 7 years to do it.

Yes, Bush has done some good things as president, but he has also helped to fracture the conservative base of the party. So much so that we have McCain as our standard bearer.

The people that have fractured the conservative base is the conservative base by making the perfect (not perfect in my eyes...kicking out 12 million is a dumb idea...protectionist trade policy is a dumb idea...) the enemy of the good.

30 posted on 02/22/2008 5:49:16 AM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

“Who besides Washington and Lincoln is better than Bush?”

You know, I can see that just as we have Obama koolaid drinkers we have Bush koolaid drinkers. I could refute your arguments and then you would respond and it would go on forever. I’m not beholden to any man or woman politically. I’m beholden to ideas that started with people like John Hume, Adam Smith and Edmund Burke. Ideas that were put into practice by our founding fathers. If you want to make excuses for all of Bush’s failings you are free to do so. However I will take up the above point with you. You asked me to name ones that are better than Bush.

How about the other guys on Mount Rushmore? Roosevelt and Jefferson? How about Jackson? How about Reagan? How about Truman? Heck, I might even put Kennedy in there. I might put Ike in there. He found he could not get anything conservative passed so he mostly had 8 years of gridlock and played golf. That would be better than some of the things that Bush has done.


31 posted on 02/22/2008 5:59:05 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
Believing that there was no declaration of war is a liberal argument, yes.

You have reading comprehension problems, don't you.

If you look at my posts, I said that the Constitution Party president would want a declaration in a certain form. I then agreed with you that what congress did was sufficient. If I agreed with the Constitution Party on almost everything, then they would have been my first choice this election cycle, but as you can see from my posts, I supported Giuliani, then Romney, and now Huckabee, and the Constitution Party candidate will probably be my fourth choice because there's no way I'm voting for the backstabber McCain. If their candidate is too much of a kook then maybe I'll write in Jeb Bush.

This is what's wrong with the conservative base...more and more people who consider themselves conservative can't seem to take the time to look at things analytically anymore and everyone wants to blame the president (as we can see from this thread) for their own shortcomings. The media has instilled buzzwords in their minds and they run on emotion about as much as liberals anymore.

32 posted on 02/22/2008 6:04:47 AM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

“Believing that there was no declaration of war is a liberal argument, yes.”

Don’t waste your breath with people who think we are in an unconstitutional war in Iraq. I’ve had this debate with a number of Ron Paul supporters. These people claim to have the all knowledge of the constitution, but apparently don’t even read it. All it says in the constitution is that the Congress has the power to declare war. As you pointed out, it does not lay out how the Congress is to declare war. The Congress passed the Iraq resolution which specifically gave Bush the power to go to war.

I wonder if some of the same liberals who say Bush is in an unconstitutional war supported Bill Clinton who started an air war in Kosovo without going to Congress to get approval. And it was never given as far as I know.


33 posted on 02/22/2008 6:10:12 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
You know, I can see that just as we have Obama koolaid drinkers we have Bush koolaid drinkers. I could refute your arguments and then you would respond and it would go on forever. I’m not beholden to any man or woman politically.

Niether am I, but I have my faves. Lincoln, Washington, and Bush43 are my faves. Clinton, FDR, and Carter are the opposite end of the spectrum.

I’m beholden to ideas that started with people like John Hume, Adam Smith and Edmund Burke. Ideas that were put into practice by our founding fathers. If you want to make excuses for all of Bush’s failings you are free to do so.

Not all, there are some things I disagree with. My biggest disagreement with him was the Chinese takedown of our spyplane for instance. We should have sent in the fleet.

However I will take up the above point with you. You asked me to name ones that are better than Bush.How about the other guys on Mount Rushmore? Roosevelt

I disagree with his company-busting...let the market decide. Plus he undercut Wilson in time of war.

and Jefferson?

Hypocrite and backstabber and liar about George Washington. Blasphemed the Old Testament by writing his own leaving out what he disagreed with.

How about Jackson?

Trail of Tears...had to be a better way. A question of his duels also. Was one of them murder?

How about Reagan?

Would not fight terrorists. Left our agents in Lebanon out to dry. Huge gas tax. 4th best though, set the stage for Bush. Great on cutting government other than the gas tax.

How about Truman?

Class warfare.

Heck, I might even put Kennedy in there.

Indecisive, left our Cuban allies out to dry. Great against the mafia/unions though...best Democrat by far.

I might put Ike in there. He found he could not get anything conservative passed so he mostly had 8 years of gridlock and played golf. That would be better than some of the things that Bush has done.

I'd rather have tax cuts rather than nothing.

All presidents have their problems, but Bush has the big things right: trade, war, taxes, human rights.

34 posted on 02/22/2008 6:27:18 AM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger
You have reading comprehension problems, don't you.

That would be on your end. After all, that reply wasn't even directed at you.
35 posted on 02/22/2008 6:36:17 AM PST by Terpfen (Romney's loss in Florida is a catastrophe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
directed

Key word there.

36 posted on 02/22/2008 6:38:57 AM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

“My biggest disagreement with him was the Chinese takedown of our spyplane for instance. We should have sent in the fleet.”

And done what? Go to war over a plane being shot down??? That’s crazy talk. Should we have gone to war when Gary Powers got shot down also?

“Hypocrite and backstabber and liar about George Washington. Blasphemed the Old Testament by writing his own leaving out what he disagreed with.”

And what exactly does any of that have to do with Jefferson’s presidency? I could disagree on the points about Washington, but none of it was about his Presidency and I don’t care about re-writing the old testement. We are electing a commander in chief, not a preacher in chief.

“I disagree with his company-busting...let the market decide. Plus he undercut Wilson in time of war.”

Talk about a war we should not have been in. We had no business being involved in WWI and our involvement tipped the scales of victory to the allies and sowed the seeds of WWII where 25 million people died. Wilson was possibly our worst president next to Grant.

“All presidents have their problems, but Bush has the big things right: trade, war, taxes, human rights.”

Of course no President is perfect but Bush has gotten so many things wrong from immigration, to expanding governmental schools to not vetoing spending. He almost got the judges wrong also. Remember, before we got Alito he wanted to put a crony of his on the bench in Harriet Meirs. Alito is more a victory of conservatives in congress than it is for Bush. Far more things wrong than what was talked about the other Presidents.

Most of all, Bush has fractured the conservative base. The principles by which you say you believe in. That is one of the reasons IMHO we now have McCain instead of a true standard bearer of conservatism.


37 posted on 02/22/2008 6:58:44 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
And done what? Go to war over a plane being shot down???

The plane was taken down over international waters by a collision with a Chinese fighter and the crew taken hostage. Yes, that is an act of war. If we would have sent in the fleet and the Chinese would not have given up their hostages then the war would be on Chinese hands. We could have defeated them then much easier than now, and there'll likely be another incident.

That’s crazy talk. Should we have gone to war when Gary Powers got shot down also?

He wasn't in international airspace.

And what exactly does any of that have to do with Jefferson’s presidency?

You missed the "hypocrite" part. Forming the Navy and making the Louisiana Purchase (two acts that I agree with) were acts of hypocrisy since he spent the whole time of the Washington presidency railing against George Washington for smaller acts. I judge Clinton on the rape of Broaddricke too. Is there a rule that we can't like or dislike a president based on his "personal" life? Bush is a good man and a great president. Clinton is/was neither.

I could disagree on the points about Washington...

You mean "Jefferson"...Washington is one of my faves.

..., but none of it was about his Presidency and I don’t care about re-writing the old testement. We are electing a commander in chief, not a preacher in chief.

In that we are totally different. No wonder you're so screwed up in your discernment. It takes good people to have good government...you can't separate the two.

Talk about a war we should not have been in. We had no business being involved in WWI and our involvement tipped the scales of victory to the allies and sowed the seeds of WWII where 25 million people died. Wilson was possibly our worst president next to Grant.

So you have no problem with the Germans sinking American ships. Amazing. I'm surprised you support the war on terrorism. What's a few sailors...what's a few WTC businesspeople, eh?

Of course no President is perfect but Bush has gotten so many things wrong from immigration, to expanding governmental schools to not vetoing spending. He almost got the judges wrong also. Remember, before we got Alito he wanted to put a crony of his on the bench in Harriet Meirs. Alito is more a victory of conservatives in congress than it is for Bush. Far more things wrong than what was talked about the other Presidents.

I agree with him on immigration, spending will come with higher tax receipts (look at the lower rates), and we'll never know if Meirs would have been good or bad. Who knows, she may have been one of the best. The other presidents were a long time ago, if they were contemporary I'm sure the lists would be longer. The fact the you have only mentioned four shows that Bush was pretty good, seeing as how there hasn't been decades and centuries for things to fade, and the things you complain about aren't really on Bush.

Most of all, Bush has fractured the conservative base. The principles by which you say you believe in. That is one of the reasons IMHO we now have McCain instead of a true standard bearer of conservatism.

No, people like you have fractured the conservative base. You're doing it again on this thread, you're all worked up over nothing and this has been going on for years from people like you. So what if I think Bush is great, what are you upset about, everyone has opinions and no one will exactly match another on everything? You're making a big todo about nothing...fracture, fracture, fracture.

38 posted on 02/22/2008 7:30:48 AM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Pick Santorum. I saw some polls this year that have him leading in PA. I’m sure many folks are regretting voting for Casey over Santorum by now. And Santorum knows the state well enough help the McCain campaign gain an edge there.


39 posted on 02/22/2008 7:42:32 AM PST by mainerforglobalwarming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’d be thrilled if he chose Fred!


40 posted on 02/22/2008 8:01:06 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

Wow, you’re willing to go to war over a plane being shot down. That’s great that you’re willing to expend many young lives over one incident. If you were the POTUS we would be at war every five years or so. Lets see, I guess we should have invaded Libya when Gohdaffi bombed the plane over Lockerbee and when Gary Powers got captured we should have gone to war with Russia and when the Mayaguez Incident happened we should have went to war with Cambodia. I support us going to war when its in our national interests. In fact, I have fought in combat when its in our national interests and when it wasn’t. However, we got all of the Navy personnel back in that crisis without going to war. When we can avert a war, it is a good thing. Since you appear to be so bloodthirsty I was just wondering if you served in combat?

“You missed the “hypocrite” part. Forming the Navy and making the Louisiana Purchase (two acts that I agree with) were acts of hypocrisy since he spent the whole time of the Washington presidency railing against George Washington for smaller acts.”

You know, that’s called politics. Deal with it.

“No wonder you’re so screwed up in your discernment. It takes good people to have good government...you can’t separate the two.”

So let me get this straight. If you rewrite the Old Testament you are a bad person? So if someone steps on your religious sensibilities they are a bad person? Just to let you know, you don’t have to be a Christian who attends church every Sunday to be a good person.

“So you have no problem with the Germans sinking American ships.”

I assume that you are talking about the Lisutania? Did you know that:

1. It was a British ship.
2. It sailed into a war zone in which the Germans declared all ships would be targets of warfare.
3. The British Navy was blockading Germany.
4. The German Embassy tried to buy adds in newspapers all across America warning the Americans that these ships were subject to sinking going into a war zone. Our government pressured many newspapers not to print this advertisement. It only got out in one newspaper. (Desmoine Register)
5. The German embassy posted signs at the pier leading up to the Lisutania that it was subject to sinking and warning American citizens not to travel on it.
6. The American and British government were secretly storing munitions on these ocean liners and it is believed that the Lisutania did indeed have munitions stored on it.

We know that Wilson wanted in the worst way to get into the war but political pressure forced him to stay out of it. What better thing than to have it look as though Germany was attacking America making them look like the bad guy. This incident was so similar to the U.S.S. Main exploding to set off the Spainish American war it’s sickening. Germany did not want America to enter the war.

Again, look at the consequences of us getting involved in a European war that had nothing to do with our National interests. We had to get invovled in another one 20 years later that was far more terrible.

“No, people like you have fractured the conservative base. You’re doing it again on this thread”

So because I’m consistent with conservative philosophy I’m the one fracturing the base, not the ones who are attacking the first amendment and adhering to liberal ideas like climate change? You sound like all of these conservative leaders who are going after the radio talk show hosts.


41 posted on 02/22/2008 8:47:58 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: mainerforglobalwarming

“Pick Santorum. I saw some polls this year that have him leading in PA. “

As a PA. resident and big Santorum supporter, I like this idea!!!


42 posted on 02/22/2008 8:48:54 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I believe McCain has to go with a younger minority and/or woman pick. I dunno who would join the “snaketalk express”


43 posted on 02/22/2008 10:56:01 AM PST by dynachrome (Immigration without assimilation means the death of this nation~Captainpaintball)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Santorum would be my first choice, but I don’t see him being selected. He came out too strongly against McCain and for Romney.

I’d prefer Gov. Pawlenty of Minn. to Fred Thompson... who was at best a Howard Baker Republican.


44 posted on 02/22/2008 1:22:33 PM PST by Amish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I was a Fred supporter, but having two older, less-than- healthy white guys on the ticket would eliminate any chance the GOP would have of holding the White House.

McCain is going to have to choose someone younger and more vigorous.


45 posted on 02/22/2008 1:27:49 PM PST by EDINVA (Proud American for 23,062 days.... and counting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
McCain will choose someone from a state he needs to carry. Its as simple as that. He will most likely be more Conservative but when was the last time a Vice President made that much of a difference and put that against McCain's ego. I'm really torn here as to what to do. This is like voting for either Napoleon, Stalin, or Putin<. You can figure out who is who./p>
46 posted on 02/22/2008 3:00:38 PM PST by hawkwind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
You're right. Got to be younger and most likely from the East. Fred's not the one.
47 posted on 02/22/2008 3:17:42 PM PST by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
Wow, you’re willing to go to war over a plane being shot down.

You have reading comprehension difficulties. I said send in the fleet, then it's up to them if they would have wanted war.

That’s great that you’re willing to expend many young lives over one incident. If you were the POTUS we would be at war every five years or so.

Wars and rumors of wars will carry on until the end. No use being naive about it.

Lets see, I guess we should have invaded Libya when Gohdaffi bombed the plane over Lockerbee...

We certainly should have killed Khadaffy through airstikes.

...and when Gary Powers got captured we should have gone to war with Russia...

Again, you have reading comprehension difficulties. That wasn't over international airspace as I said.

and when the Mayaguez Incident happened we should have went to war with Cambodia.

There should be military action when there is military action against us...whether that is full-scale war is up to the initial aggressor.

I support us going to war when its in our national interests. In fact, I have fought in combat when its in our national interests and when it wasn’t. However, we got all of the Navy personnel back in that crisis without going to war. When we can avert a war, it is a good thing.

War shouldn't be avoided by an apology tour when there was nothing for us to apologize over.

Since you appear to be so bloodthirsty I was just wondering if you served in combat?

Nope, 80s graduate. So if a country conducts a military operation against us, we should not take military action unless the president and vice president served in combat? How is it you support the war on terrorism...Bush and Cheney never served in combat? How is it you support any military action Reagan partook in? Reagan never served in combat.

You know, that’s called politics. Deal with it.

Ha! So if it's one of your heros like Jefferson it's politics, but if it's Bush having to do what he does with CFR and AWB because of politics, then he's one of the worst. You're Mr Double Standard, aren't you.

So let me get this straight. If you rewrite the Old Testament you are a bad person?

Certainly not fit for office.

So if someone steps on your religious sensibilities they are a bad person?

If it's ignorance, no. If it's outright rebellion as Jefferson did, then that's another story.

Just to let you know, you don’t have to be a Christian who attends church every Sunday to be a good person.

I've never been to church a Sunday in my life, that's not the issue. The issue is outright rebellion against the written Word.

I assume that you are talking about the Lisutania? Did you know that: 1. It was a British ship. 2. It sailed into a war zone in which the Germans declared all ships would be targets of warfare. 3. The British Navy was blockading Germany. 4. The German Embassy tried to buy adds in newspapers all across America warning the Americans that these ships were subject to sinking going into a war zone. Our government pressured many newspapers not to print this advertisement. It only got out in one newspaper. (Desmoine Register) 5. The German embassy posted signs at the pier leading up to the Lisutania that it was subject to sinking and warning American citizens not to travel on it. 6. The American and British government were secretly storing munitions on these ocean liners and it is believed that the Lisutania did indeed have munitions stored on it. We know that Wilson wanted in the worst way to get into the war but political pressure forced him to stay out of it. What better thing than to have it look as though Germany was attacking America making them look like the bad guy. This incident was so similar to the U.S.S. Main exploding to set off the Spainish American war it’s sickening. Germany did not want America to enter the war. Again, look at the consequences of us getting involved in a European war that had nothing to do with our National interests. We had to get invovled in another one 20 years later that was far more terrible..

Nice history lesson, but I'm talking merchant shipping sunk by the Germans before we entered the war. Those are acts of war. What's a few sailors, eh?

So because I’m consistent with conservative philosophy I’m the one fracturing the base, not the ones who are attacking the first amendment...

In your own words: "Politics...deal with it".

...and adhering to liberal ideas like climate change?

Bush has resisted Gorebull warming tremendously.

You sound like all of these conservative leaders who are going after the radio talk show hosts.

Um...in case you forgot, this thread is about McCain and my posts here are about me not voting for him, that's what started this argument between you, Terpfen, and I. I'm with Rush and the others on this and voting Constitution Party if their candidate isn't too kooky.

You keep blaming Bush for fracturing the base, here's a couple of test questions to see if you can pass: Am I a conservative? Is Bush a conservative?

48 posted on 02/22/2008 3:28:16 PM PST by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
You're claiming that congress declared war officially? As the constitution requires?
49 posted on 02/22/2008 3:56:11 PM PST by incindiary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVodI85NLMQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

“War shouldn’t be avoided by an apology tour when there was nothing for us to apologize over.”

You are the one with a reading comprehension problem. I have said many times that when it is in our national interests we should go to war. The war on Islamo Fascism is in our national interest. Keeping the free flow of oil is in our national interests. Going to war over a naval aircrew is not in our national interest. What is in our national interest is to negotiate with China to get them back. Bush did the right thing here. The U.S. apologized for being responsible for causing the death of the Chinese pilot and for landing in China without authorization. However, they never apologized for spying on China.

“How is it you support the war on terrorism...Bush and Cheney never served in combat? How is it you support any military action Reagan partook in? Reagan never served in combat.”

I don’t believe I ever stipulated that the POTUS had to be a military person or served in combat to be an effective commander in chief. In fact, two of our best commanders in chiefs were Lincoln and FDR neither having any military experience. What I was talking about is you personally. Your apparent lust for combat. When I asked that question, I already knew the answer. Someone who has been in combat, who has smelled burned bodies, who has seen bodies blown to pieces is not so quick to run into combat at the drop of a hat.

Going to war is serious business. It is not something to be done without looking at all options. You go to war when it is in your national interest and when all other alternatives are worse. I don’t expect you to understand this since the only time you have seen combat is when renting a DVD.

“Ha! So if it’s one of your heros like Jefferson it’s politics, but if it’s Bush having to do what he does with CFR and AWB because of politics, then he’s one of the worst. You’re Mr Double Standard, aren’t you.”

You really don’t understand much do you? Jefferson’s policies as President is why I like and admire him. Among the many other accomplishments in his life. Bush’s policies are what is at issue here. It is your opinion that Jefferson was a backstabber etc... That is the politics that I’m speaking of. Of course you point out differences with your political opponents. You call it backstabbing, I call it politics.

“I’ve never been to church a Sunday in my life, that’s not the issue. The issue is outright rebellion against the written Word.”

Where in any of our founding documents does it say you have to adhere to the Christian word of God in order to be a good president??? I’ve also never heard of someone who does not go to church but has such reverence for the Bible. You are very stange indeed. What are you Catholic and always go to Church Saturday night? I don’t get you. I think you just like to argue.

“Nice history lesson, but I’m talking merchant shipping sunk by the Germans before we entered the war. Those are acts of war. What’s a few sailors, eh?”

Did you know that we were shipping munitions and war supplies to Germany’s enemy Britian and France. Is that not an act of War?

Did you know that Britian and France asked us not to ship munitions and war supplies to Germany and did not allow us through their blockade. Doncha’ think we were playing favorites?

Wilson was begging to get into the war. He wanted it and thats why he did not prevent the shipping from going through. We should have honored both sides, not just one. By picking a side, Wilson was begging the Germans to attack us. It is Wilson who is to blame.

Look what it gave us, a second world war that cost 25 million lives. Whats 25 million lives though eh? War! War! WW II had to be fought by us, but it could have been prevented except for Wilson’s stupidity. Read “The Kings Depart” by Richard Watt. You’ll see how incompetent and stupid Wilson was.

“Bush has resisted Gorebull warming tremendously.”

That was in reference to McCain.

“Um...in case you forgot, this thread is about McCain and my posts here are about me not voting for him, that’s what started this argument between you, Terpfen, and I. I’m with Rush and the others on this and voting Constitution Party if their candidate isn’t too kooky. “

We started arguing about Bush being the third best President. My position is he was not and has fractured the party and that is why we have McCain. Obviously I’m not happy with McCain either. The only way I’ll vote for him is if he has a strong conservative as a VP. If he were to pick Lindsey Gramnesty then I will not vote for him. I’ll put my energies towards conservative congressmen.

We don’t have differences except for your apparent belief that Bush has not significantly caused where we are as conservatives today. He deserves a large part of that blame. Your going to defend him to the death so there’s no point in discussing this with you. You have drunk the Bush koolaid.

Where we have a big problem is how you believe we should be constantly going to war over every international incident. You’re being a good American when you support our Country in it’s war efforts. When you advocate going to war all the time, then I say pick up a rifle and help the cause. Don’t just cheer from the sidelines to constantly go to war.


50 posted on 02/22/2008 5:21:23 PM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson