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!
Seems like one of them should be too young to collect full Social Security benefits.
Ping LOUD and CLEAR
“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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Believing that there was no declaration of war is a liberal argument, yes.
It would be having two old farts in the the office.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
Key word there.
“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.
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.
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.
I’d be thrilled if he chose Fred!
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.