Open Letter to Senator McCain

Charles Purvis

[charlespurvis]

Open Letter to Senator McCain

Senator McCain, I write this to you out of dire concern for the outcome of the general election, thus the direction our great country will be led at this crucial time in our history. It appears Barrack Obama will secure the Democratic nomination. With the overwhelmingly diverse support he is receiving and the ensuing contributions, coupled with the fact Democratic voter turnout is consistently much higher than ours, it is imperative the staunch conservative base of our party be not only fully aligned, but also inspired.

For this reason, your choice of a VP running mate is more critical than ever. They must be of the caliber to secure this support not only in the South, but across America.They must have a proven record. I implore you to not only consider, but to choose Fred Dalton Thompson. A McCain/Thompson ticket can and will triumph over any ticket the Democrats will put forth.

Sincerely, Charles T. Purvis

[mad_as_he$$]

Dreamer.

[Zeon Cowboy]

It’d be nice, but I’m expecting Joseph Lieberman.

[Jazzman1]

Rush

[Man50D]

They deserve each other since neither are Conservative.

[tx_eggman]

I implore you to not only consider, but to choose Fred Dalton Thompson.

Charlie,

To date Mr. McCain has ignored the wishes of the conservative base on quite a few extremely important issues ... what makes you think he's going to listen now?

Oh, and welcome to FreeRepublic.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Let’s see, that would be “Old and Older” as well as “Sick and Sicker”. Thompson is a good man, but he is ten years too late, and his cancer condition is no small matter. So is McCain’s, beside the fact that McCain is no Conservative and the VP spot would not cancel that fact out.

[TLI]

Fred want to revoke the anchor babies and actually not grant amnesty but force the illegals to get out.

Little Juan MxCain has sold out on those exact issues. Juan will have no part of Fred.

[Reagan Man]

After the way so many talking-head elitists on the right simultaneously ignored and trashed Fred Thompson when he was running for POTUS, I doubt he wants that attention all over again. Besides, having a 65 year old running mate isn’t the best choice for the 71 year old McCain.

[Grunthor]

Welcome to FR, but lets not be delusional, McCain doesn’t give a rip what you, me or any conservative thinks. He thinks that he can win without all of us. I am going to enjoy watching him try.

[elizabetty]

Two Old white men with a history of cancer recurrences?

This sounds like a sure loser.

[Grunthor]

“A McCain/Thompson ticket can and will”

Be named after that movie, “Grumpy Old Men” by the MSM.

[hinckley buzzard]

Whoever he picks, he will be better than the radical marxist.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Dear Sen. McCain,
When I hear you say how you respect Clinton and Obama, and then hear you repudiate and apologize for conservative commentators and their remarks, I wonder whose side you’re on.
You’re not going to pick a good running mate, are you? Somebody you might have to repudiate for running against Democrats. No, of course you won’t.

[NautiNurse]

A McCain/Thompson ticket

Grumpy Old Men.

[Utah Binger]

Did Fred send you here? I think not.

[Digital Sniper]

You must be operating under the mistaken belief that McCain gives a flying crap what any conservative thinks.

I'd be willing to put money on McCain tapping John Edwards as his running mate. This makes perfect sense since McCain came undeniably close to being John Kerry's running mate in 2004.

[Digital Sniper]

Whoever he picks, he will be better than the radical marxist.

That ain't sayin' much. My baby's soiled diapers are a better candidate than Obama.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Watch McNoob pick the Huckster, (My guess) in order to get the “conservative/evangelical” vote. (McLaim views Huck as conservative LOL!)

And, look at the fundraising, sort of right in line with how the voting is going to go....count on it......and start planning smartly to straighten this party out for good. This is our best chance not to blow it for 2012.

[TLI]

I'd be willing to put money on McCain tapping John Edwards as his running mate.

John Edwards, VP.

GAWD. That is just about sick enough to actually make sense to little Juan.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

There you go again, voting AGAINST the opposition, not realizing that we have been betrayed by our party AGAIN. It simply has to stop here. Let the Democrats take the blame for the next 4 years like they did when Carter messed things up.

If McCain gets it, then the GOP will be blamed and it will be decades before we see another majority. This economy IS going under no matter who is in office this time around. The Democrats started the ball rolling in ‘06. Let’s let them take full credit for it in ‘08.

[mkjessup]

You might as well be urging JohnnyMac to go with the ‘McCain/Purvis’ ticket.

Welcome to FR. Please do not feed the wild life should they walk up to your monitor.

[varon]

McCain/Thompson

Slow/Slower

[Resolute Conservative]

He’ll pick a woman like governor Palin to offset the racial thing and draw women voters.

[Godebert]

McCain is a disgusting and grotesque little man. I’ll never forget him defending John Kerry by calling the Swift Boat Veterans “dishonest and dishonorable”. He should resign his senate seat and end his presidential campaign. He is a disgrace.

[levotb]

McNasty needs to win in the South, but Fred cannot even guarantee he would help McLame carry TN, let alone the South.

The problem with McQueeg right now is not only is he not winning over true conservatives, but there is no “fire”, no excitement in the Campaign. Adding Fred wouldn’t bring excitement.

It’s gonna be a blowout...

[mc5cents]

I've got a better idea:

Sarah Palin, Gov. of Alaska

[freespirited]

It’d be nice, but I’m expecting Joseph Lieberman.

Will never happen. McCain is not going to pick someone more liberal than himself. And I doubt you will see a two-senator ticket.

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

The problem with McQueeg right now is not only is he not winning over true conservatives, but there is no “fire”, no excitement in the Campaign. Adding Fred wouldn’t bring excitement.

I'm afraid it's "Bob Dole" all over again. Help, we've fallen and can't get up!

Regards,
GtG

[Eva]

Maybe he’ll pick Hillary.

[Riodacat]

His running mate will likely be a "mini-him"....

[charlespurvis]

You need to do more research on Thompson, for you are way off!

[E. Cartman]

His running mate will likely be a "mini-him"....

What? An inflammed hemmorhoid???

Who'd a thunk it??

[Man50D]

You need to do more research on Thompson, for you are way off!

Below is my research.

In 1997 Fred Thompson voted to revoke China’s Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status (S.Amdt. 890 to S. 955), then turned around in 1999 – after even more Chinese malfeasance was uncovered, some by Mr. Thompson himself – and voted in favor of MFN (S.J.Res. 27). Then, during the 2000 debate to give Bill Clinton his coveted Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for the chicoms, Fred teamed with Robert Toricelli to put in a poison pill amendment (S.Amdt 4132 to HR 4444), tying trade to a series of weapons non proliferation standards. Despite the Jesse Helms-like posture and the subsequent failure of his amendment, Fred ended up voting for PNTR, amendment free, handing Clinton a huge victory at the expense of our national security.

He voted to grant amnesty to close to one million illegal aliens from Nicaragua and Cuba in 1997 by giving legal status for those who had lived in the United States illegally since 1995, along with their spouses and minor unmarried children.

He voted against the Simpson Amendment to S.1664 that was in favor of a chain migration system that has been the primary reason for annual immigration levels snowballing from less than 300,000 in 1965 to around a million. Sen. Thompson supported provisions that allow immigrants to send for their adult relatives. Then each of those relatives can send for their and their spouse’s adult relatives, creating a never-ending and ever-growing chain. The bi-partisan Barbara Jordan Commission recommended doing away with the adult relative categories (begun only in the 1950s) in order to lessen wage depression among lower-paid American workers.

Before the Senate passed the H-1B doubling bill (S.1723), Sen. Thompson had an opportunity to vote for a measure requiring U.S. firms to check a box on a form attesting that they had first sought an American worker for the job. Sen. Thompson voted against that, joining those who said the requirement would give government too much authority over corporations’ right to hire whomever they please from whatever country.

Thompson supported Roe vs. Wade in the 90’s. Thompson said he supports the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. Source: the Memphis Commercial Appeal on July 29, 1993 page B1.

In an October 21, 1994 article, The Washington Post reported that “both” Thompson and his Democratic opponent in the 1994 Senate race, then-Rep. Jim Cooper, “believe in legal abortion.”

Thompson spoke on the Senate floor on April 23, 2002 in support legislation that stated global warming was due to human intervention. Per Title X:

SEC. 1001. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON GLOBAL WARMING.

(a) FINDINGS. The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Evidence continues to build that increases in atmospheric concentrations of man-made greenhouse gases are contributing to global climate change.

These are hardly the positions of a Conservative.

[charlespurvis]

“Thompson filled out a survey for Project Vote Smart back in 1994, when he was running for Senate. Under abortion: He checked the box for: “Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.” He did, however, support a number of restrictions on abortion: requiring parental notification, allowing states to impose waiting periods, and eliminating all federal funding of abortion. Lastly, he said Congress should leave legislation on abortion to the states.Fred Thompson has a solid pro-life voting record, but he has gotten more pro-life over time.He says he is solidly pro-life now and that his convictions have solidified since the birth of his daughter. (http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/05/fred_thompson_a.html) “

“Third, acknowledge that you’ve gotten more pro-life over time. Twice in recent weeks, you have expressed perplexity that anyone thinks you were once pro-choice. Stephen Hayes quoted you in The Weekly Standard:
“I have read these accounts and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them. Although I don’t remember it, I must have said something to someone as I was getting my campaign started that led to a story. Apparently, another story was based upon that story, and then another was based upon that, concluding I was pro-choice.”

But, he adds: “I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100 percent voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate.”

Your record in the mid-1990s was a bit less solidly pro-life than that. A 1994 issue of Republican Liberty apparently quotes you opposing public financing of abortion but adding: “The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.” That same year, in which you ran for the Senate (and won), you said something similar in a debate: There should be no federal funding, and states should be allowed to enact parental notification and other “reasonable controls,” but government should not “come in and criminalize, let’s say, a young girl and her parents and her doctor as aiders and abettors that would be involved.”

News accounts treated you as pro-choice, and there is no record of your campaign’s trying to dispute that characterization. The National Right to Life Committee did indeed endorse you in that race, and their post-election newsletter listed you among the victorious “pro-life candidates” that year. But that newsletter also grouped you with candidates who were opposed to the Freedom of Choice Act and federal funding of abortion, rather than with candidates who were pro-life across the board.

In 1997, finally, your office sent a constituent a letter about abortion that included this line: “I believe that government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area.”

I think the record suggests that you were always uncomfortable with abortion and prepared to support some restrictions on it, but that your opposition deepened over the course of your time in public life. The whole country’s discomfort with abortion seems to have deepened over that time, too. (In part, that was a result of the partial-birth abortion debate in which you were involved.) If that is what happened, I don’t think pro-lifers will hold it against you to say so. Those pro-lifers who worry about the sincerity of Mitt Romney’s conversion do so because he seemed ardently pro-choice not long ago. As you said, you have a strong record of voting with pro-lifers that goes back to 1995.
(http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2E0NGRiZTRmNTkzMTc4MzA2ZWIwMTNhNDRlZTg2NWE=&w=MA==) “

See also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm2UOyzQr5E (interview with Sean Hannity, part 2)

“Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science
On the issue of abortion Thompson was unequivocal: “Prolife.” Asked if he supported overturning Roe v. Wade, Thompson was equally unequivocal: “I think Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad medical science And the way to address that is through good judges. I don’t think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country. It’s contrary to what it’s been the past 200 years... That’s what happened in this case [Roe v. Wade]. I think it was wrong.”
Source: The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill, p.143-144 Jun 3, 2007

Appoint strict constructionist judges
As President, Thompson would appoint strict constructionist judges like the man he helped through the confirmation process to the position of Chief Justice, John Roberts.
Source: The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill, p.162 Jun 3, 2007

Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports
Some news reports from Thompson’s 1994 campaign classified him as pro-choice. Thompson confesses to being perplexed over the confusion about his position on the issue: “I have read these accounts [about me being pro-choice] and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them, although I don’t remember it.”
But, he adds: “I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100% voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate.” Planned Parenthood gave him a ZERO rating because of his pro-life voting record. NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) gave him an “F” rating when considering potential vice-presidential candidates in 2000.

Ultimately, however, Thompson is motivated on the issue from a personal level, not just a legalistic or moralistic viewpoint. He has said the issue “means more’’ to him now because he has had two children in recent years. “I have seen the sonograms of my babies.’’

Source: The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill, p.159-160 Jun 3, 2007

Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.
Vote on a motion to table [kill] an amendment that would repeal the ban on privately funded abortions at overseas military facilities.
Reference: Bill S 2549 ; vote number 2000-134 on Jun 20, 2000

Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions.
This legislation, if enacted, would ban the abortion procedure in which the physician partially delivers the fetus before completing the abortion. [A NO vote supports abortion rights].
Status: Bill Passed Y)63; N)34; NV)3
Reference: Partial Birth Abortion Ban; Bill S. 1692 ; vote number 1999-340 on Oct 21, 1999

Voted YES on banning human cloning.
This cloture motion was in order to end debate and move to consideration of legislation banning human cloning. [A YES vote opposes human cloning].
Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)42; N)54; NV)4
Reference: Motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to S. 1601; Bill S. 1601 ; vote number 1998-10 on Feb 11, 1998
(http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Fred_Thompson_Abortion.htm) “

This is just a start on his position on abortion, much less other issues.I guess I could go on and on, but instead everyone can check out his voting record for themselves at the following:

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=22003

Sounds conservative to me. Of course if you think you can show me a 100% “perfect” candidate, hell, point him out and I’ll back him.

[Man50D]

“Third, acknowledge that you’ve gotten more pro-life over time.

Gotten more pro life? In other words he gradually became less supportive of murdering human beings overtime. LOL!!!!This statement along with the other information in your post and my information about Thompson in my previous post to you only illustrates his waffling on a fundamentally Conservative issue proves he is not a Conservative.

[charlespurvis]

Like I say Man, if you think you can show me a 100% purely conservative, “perfect” candidate, name him. And not only name him, but point me to his voting record, enlighten me. I will be more than glad to support him, just give me his name so I can do the research. Oh, by the way, anyone can pull a sentence or two out of the context of a dicussion.

See: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=22003 (Fred’s voting record)

[Convert from ECUSA]

McCain has long made clear that he could care less about conservatives and their concerns, and that he doesn’t need us. I would be very surprised if he picks a true conservative for his VP.

[mkjessup]

Oh no question of that. McCain doesn’t give a good damn about what conservatives think, he expects us to go to the back of the bus as he treats us exactly the way the ‘Rats have treated blacks in their party for decades.

Uh uh, not me. I’m gonna p*ss all over the driver’s seat and let JohnnyMac sit in the puddle.

I would not at all be surprised if McCain “reached across the aisle” and picked whoever loses the ‘Rat nomination to be his VP choice, as devious and insane as that sounds, it would probably get him the presidency, if Hiliarly steals the nomination, and if Obama were to cross party lines to run as McCain’s Veep-choice, Obama would deliver nearly all of the black vote to the GOP. If Obama gets the nomination, and McCain invited the Hildabeast to join his ticket, most of the Klinton-Koolaide drinkers would flock to vote for McCain/Clinton, bet on that.

As for the outrage such machinations would create with the conservative wing of what used to be the Republican Party, McCain wouldn’t care whatsoever as we’re already out in the desert doing the Moses shuffle, hopefully back to the promised land some day.

[Convert from ECUSA]

"I’m gonna p*ss all over the driver’s seat and let JohnnyMac sit in the puddle."

ROFL! You and me both! He wants conservatives to shut up and stay in the corner until we're summoned to vote for him. During normal times we're addressed "shut the $#%k up you buch of @$#%@#%oles!" When election time comes, he addresses us as "my friends" every other sentence. As a Republican acquaintance said to me, "he's our Hillary."