Posted on 02/08/2008 6:53:23 PM PST by NoGrayZone
Fred Thompson, the one-time Republican presidential candidate, endorsed Sen. John McCain Friday, calling on the party to "close ranks" behind the presumed nominee
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.washingtonpost.com ...
Look for some Souters at best if McCain becomes the POTUS, which he will not.
“It also slammed mccain”....did you save that message? If you did, a little post of it would be nice =)!!!
Yes, and you see how many people have been attacking Rush lately? Completely sickening how quickly people can turn on others.
I share your concerns. I would not vote for McCain. I would not vote for McCain/Huckabee, or McCain/RINO.
I will CONSIDER voting McCain/Thompson, because McCain is old and sick and it would possibly groom Thompson to run later.
As for the problem of the Republican Establishment, it’s a very difficult one. As we’ve seen from the example of Alan Keyes, you can have good ideas, but unless you have many influential friends and connections and work the political levers, you are not going to be elected. You have to get on with people, and unless you have very strong principles that can lead to compromises that are fatal. But since politics is the art of the possible, some compromise is necessary—hopefully on the less vital issues.
That’s one of my problems with McCain. He sells out on the most important issues, and then gets credit by voting conservative on the minor issues, often when his vote doesn’t even count. Thompson messed up big time once, with McCain Feingold, but on the whole his record is solid. And the pressure to support McCain Feingold was just too much for many people to resist, including Bush, who regretably refrained from vetoing it.
So, I haven’t decided, but I might vote for McCain if Thompson were on the ticket.
Well he has said in debates it was a mistake. The the people do not trust Washington on this and he would now secure the border first. Problem for McCain is, Can we believe him?
Yes, even if McCain changes his position, do we believe him? Anyway, McCain's words about illegal immigration at CPAC were good but did they go far enough?
McCain does mention the important idea, that our actions shouldn't encourage new waves of illegal immigration. But he doesn't mention and connect his former bill's visa amnesty as something that would encourage additional waves of illegals.
McCain should make that clear.
Nice you have opinions. Too bad your opinions are totally divorced from all factual reality. Contrary to the mythology spun by the Leftists and theri Neo Isolationsist stoodges on the Right, the policy has wored BRILLIANTLY. For less then 4,000 dead the USA is now in the strongest stategic position it has ever been. Here is what we are up to in Iraq.
Why Iraq
One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the "Anti War movement") of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US's National "News" media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.
Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.
To start with Saddam's Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it's diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it's military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.
The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.
Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).
Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.
There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.
Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect" to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like "No Blood for Oil" or "We support the Troops, bring them home" or dumbest of all "We are creating terrorists" then to actually THINK.
Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their "god" will reward them for killing us.
So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.
Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming "We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad" and recruit the next round of "holy warriors". Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it -
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
You don't know that as fact.
Yes, you may be right. But he also knew that this was a critical time, and that his statement would inevitably help McCain's picture of inevitability.
In any case, he has the gift (huge B*llsh*ter) so he will be just fine.
McCain has time while Hillary and Obahma slug it out. He should author a strong Border Security bill and offer it up in the Senate. Put his actions where his mouth is.
I disagree entirely. The reason we didn’t like anyone but Fred or Hunter was because the rest talked like the left and took up the banner of the left. If God does the choosing then we have McCain. Using your own logic I have to ask So is McCain God’s candidate now? I don’t believe that at all. I tend to believe that the principalities and powers of this world want someone as empty and shallow and devoid of leadership as they can get. Someone who doesn’t dance around the fire is exactly what the evil that rules this world does not desire. What we wanted was someone who was a straight talker who could articulate conservative principles because he believed them. What the others offered was politics.
They wanted the Presidency so badly that they had to find their position on issue after issue as if they had never thought about them before with any seriousness.
I’m tired of the CEO presidents and the compassionate conservatives who speak flowery words to win prizes with the idiot and victim classes.
Oh please. I guess you are one of those bashers I was speaking of. I only have 1 God, and Rush isn’t it so don’t put blaspheming words in MY mouth!
I think Fred would be a good pick. Fred knows how to speak to the issues and would help temper McCain. I don’t know who McCain will pick. He may go for someone younger because he doesn’t want to run along side a peer as did George Bush senior did. I would accept any conservative. The one thing we can be assured of is he won’t choose the man of 1000 pardons Huckabee or the National Health Care candidate Romney.
They lost because they had no substance something which McCain does have. Sometimes the substance is closer to fertilizer but he is what he is.
McCain has time while Hillary and Obahma slug it out. He should author a strong Border Security bill and offer it up in the Senate. Put his actions where his mouth is.
I was thinking about that too. Yes, McCain is still a senator. There are actions he can now take...
Rush is the only person who keeps me sane, right now. We have not even had our primary, yet, and the nominee is already chosen. I intend to pressure party leaders to extract a promise from top GOP leaders to reorganize the primary system so that this never happens again, before we commit any delegates to McCain.
I said more than once that Fred was not what people thought he was, but thanks to absolute stupidity and pigheadedness Mitt Romney is out of the race.
If you look at the way this all came together, at one point or another McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson, and Hunter all colluded together to bring you a choice that the pro-amnesty, globalist party insiders wanted. The outcome is at complete odds with what the base and the people at large wanted.
We now have a choice between amnesty, amnesty and amnesty. Congratulations schmuckerheads!
HooRa! MCain 2008
When did he make a mistake? What are you talking about?
"John McCain supports scientific experimentations on unborn babies."
"John McCain sacrificed many pro life judges by teaming with his liberal senator friends."
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.