True Conservatives: Who should Fred Thompson pick as VP?

[HooverWasRight]

I say Condi Rice.

True conservatives I mean true conservatives, not you Bush conservatives.


Rush Limbaugh is to far to the left for me.

[M.C.]

Bush conservatives are the neo-cons, not the true old right as that of a Ronald Reagan.

I'd say Thompson has to go with Thomas Tancredo.

[HooverWasRight]

Bush conservatives are the neo-cons, not the true old right as that of a Ronald Reagan.

I'd say Thompson has to go with Thomas Tancredo.


Tancredo got a lot of notice over at the ar15 forum. But I don't think it would broaden his base.

[EveningStar]

I would be amazed if Tancredo got picked. It would sink the ticket.

[noncom]

True conservatives I mean true conservatives, not you Bush conservatives.
Has anyone actually MET a "Bush Conservative?" I don't know if there's anyone out there thinking, "Gosh, I hope we can get another George Bush this time around!"

OK, not including like his family and a handful of eccentrics maybe. But I hardly think that's a movement to such an extent that you'd really need to bother with disclaimers.

Anyway, my suggestion: Dick Cheney.

[Antigone]

Anyway, my suggestion: Dick Cheney.

That would have the libs frothing at the mouth! :rotflmbo:

[omegatrump]

I don't see anybody in the bush camp that shows any conservatism. Cheney is a good executive director so to speak, but he isn't conservative. He's a full blown globalist with his own agenda.

I would say, Fred and Tom could face off with Hillary and Osama Obama.

No body can destroy the party any more than the shrub has. And he was a real neo con winner.

[HooverWasRight]

That would have the libs frothing at the mouth! :rotflmbo:


Hell, it has me frothing at the mouth.

[Rhino]

Anyway, my suggestion: Dick Cheney.That would have the libs frothing at the mouth! :rotflmbo:Just think what they'd do with Donald Rumsfeld! :rotflmbo:

[Lazarus]

I like Tancredo, and I wouldnt mind seeing him on the ticket... I disagree that he would sink it... I dont see the logic of that...

I can go with Newt Gingrich also... Newt would be an excellent choice to back up Thompson...

I cannot go with Condi Rice - She may be a reasonably good diplomat, but VP is a position that is one bullet or heart attack away from the oval office, and we have absolutely no idea how she stands on conservative dogma... All we know about her is that she is incredibly loyal to George Bush and she apparently has some skill in diplomacy - she is Bush's well groomed voice to the world...

That's a far cry from what I wanna see in a VP... I have no reason to dislike Miss Rice, but as far as qualifications for the top job, I see her as unqualified... She's really nothing more than a pop culture figure on the Republican side of the camp...

[Republican_Legion]

Thompson needs a guy with experience, character and can speak good and is hardline in fighting illegal immigration with history of success in immigration issues. That man is Duncan Hunter with 25+ years in congress.

He has managed to get more wall built on the san diego side of the border and actually as a member of congress introduced anti-abortion legislation and can get the American people back to strongly supporting the war in Iraq. His own son who has served there and that speaks that he didnt hide his son from the war like all the other politicans in washington DC.

He also served in Vietnam and supports this current war. What Lib can tell him he doesnt know how veterans feel when he has been there and his son has been in the recent war.

And yes he is also a Hunter who likes to go hunting ! :thumb:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bush conservatives are the neo-cons, not the true old right as that of a Ronald Reagan.
Wrong! The neo-cons are the Reagan conservatives and always will be. The problem is that when President Bush quit listening to the neo-cons, he started going downhill.

I'd say Thompson has to go with Thomas Tancredo.
No way. Tancredo would be a huge drag on the ticket.

[Naturalized-Texan]

RL: Duncan Hunter would be an excellent choice.

[Lazarus]

...No way. Tancredo would be a huge drag on the ticket.Explain, please...

[DoctorDoom]

Ann Coulter!

[PaulRevere]

How about former Wisconisn senator Tommy Thompson? Think of it: TNT

[omegatrump]

Explain, please...


Laz, Youv'e got to be kidding.....

[Lazarus]

Laz, Youv'e got to be kidding.....No, Im not kidding... I have heard and read Tancredo's positions and he's as conservative as anyone here... In fact as far as I know he was the VERY FIRST true conservative who entered the race because there was NO OTHER conservative in the pack and no one was speaking for OUR beliefs...

If you know something I dont, then say so... Dont just sit there with this "You've gotta be kidding" bullshit like some high school punk ridiculing someone who isnt in on the latest gossip... For Chrissakes!

[Naturalized-Texan]

Explain, please...
He has no name recognition. Only a tiny minority of hard-core conservatives like us have ever heard of him. For example, I've never seen him on TV, I've never heard him speak, and until about a couple of months ago I had no idea what he even looked like, and I am far more informed than the vast majority of American voters.

[Republican_Legion]

It will probally be an outsider like Cheney was.

Someone thats a CEO like Cheney was.

[noncom]

[Tom Tancredo] has no name recognition. Only a tiny minority of hard-core conservatives like us have ever heard of him. For example, I've never seen him on TV, I've never heard him speak, and until about a couple of months ago I had no idea what he even looked like, and I am far more informed than the vast majority of American voters.
So? Hitching on to the Tancredo juggernaut would practically sew up all the electoral votes in the southern Denver-Aurora district of Colorado. Next step: WHITE HOUSE!

[Lazarus]

He has no name recognition. Only a tiny minority of hard-core conservatives like us have ever heard of him. For example, I've never seen him on TV, I've never heard him speak, and until about a couple of months ago I had no idea what he even looked like, and I am far more informed than the vast majority of American voters.Thanks, Tex, for an intelligent answer... And I can see your point on a lot of that... I agree that he has little name recognition, and as a candidate for president I think his chances are little to none simply because of that...

I have only seen him speak one time and that was when he announced his candidacy on Fox News... I was impressed with his presence and his delivery... If you get a chance to see him speak, do take the opportuniyty - I think you'll be impressed as I was...

I agree I think his biggest problem is PR - No one seems to know him outside of Colorado and hardcore conservatives like us... But Im not sure that translates into dragging the ticket down... He wont be the first little-known VP candidate who contributed to a winning ticket and served as a great VP... I think all Tancredo needs is face time in front of the camera... Once the public meets him I think he'll be an asset to Thompson's campaign...

But Im not stuck entirely on Tancredo... As I said, I think there are several good names who would serve just as well in the backseat... Hunter and Huckabee both are also excellent options...

The last thing I want to see Thompson do is compromise with a RINO as Reagan did with Bush Sr.... With Reagan it didnt cause any trouble because Reagan was such a strong leader... But that kind of mixed ticket makes me nervous... I believe Comnservatism is what America hungers for, and I want to see a solid, unified Conservative ticket with Thompson...

[Rhino]

Clinton had no name recognition either. While name recognition is good, the lack of it does not necessarily exclude someone. Time will tell.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

J. C. Watts or Michael Steele

[Lazarus]

Clinton had no name recognition either. While name recognition is good, the lack of it does not necessarily exclude someone. Time will tell.Exactly... Both Clinton and Carter came from obscurity to take the nomination...

J. C. Watts or Michael SteeleI admit I am not up on who all the popular kids are - Its an occupational hazard of being a hermit-in-training...:biggrin: So Im not entirely familiar with Michael Steele...

But JC Watts, I know... And I agree wholeheartedly there... Man, wouldnt that just twist the Democrats' tails... Mwahahahaha...:thumb:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I admit I am not up on who all the popular kids are - Its an occupational hazard of being a hermit-in-training...:biggrin: So Im not entirely familiar with Michael Steele...


Michael S. Steele, Maryland Lt. Governor (http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/08conoff/html/msa13921.html)

[Naturalized-Texan]

J. C. Watts or Michael Steele
Either of them would be great, as would Lynn Swann.

[hellinon]

Thompson/Guiliani would be unbeatable.

Though a Thompson/Huckabee ticket would be MUCH more to my liking.

[Rhino]

Guiliani would be a no go for me. I want a conservative ticket, not a mixed breed mutt. I don't really know anything about Huckabee.

[Lazarus]

Guiliani would be a no go for me. I want a conservative ticket, not a mixed breed mutt. I don't really know anything about Huckabee.I agree 100% about Giuliani... A Thompson/Giuliani ticket may indeed be unbeatable, but honestly I dont believe Thompson needs to compromise like that to win... Thompson, I believe, is going to be a strong personality on his own - Much like reagan... I honestly believe once he announces his candidacy formally, its all over - The Primary and the General election is done - Its just a matter of mopping up the blood and going to work...

I simply cannot support Giuliani... I will however give Giuliani this much... Unlike McCain and (I suspect) Romney, at least Giuliani has stepped up and told us up front honestly who he is and where he stands... He isnt trying to package himself as the Conservative heir to the Throne of Reagan... So I admire him for his honesty... But I still cant support him...

As for Mike Huckebee... Rhino, he was one of the House Managers who impeached Clinton and brought felony charges on him to the Senate... Based on my memory of that event, and some subsequent commentaries I have heard from him, he is a regular straight-up conservative Republican... I know of no evidence to suggest he is anything but one of "us"...

[Rhino]

And if Guiliani were the running mate, the possibility that something might happen to Thompson that would give Guiliani the office, is truly terrifying.

[Lazarus]

And if Guiliani were the running mate, the possibility that something might happen to Thompson that would give Guiliani the office, is truly terrifying.I agree... It simply isnt an option... However, if for some strange, unexplainable reason, (God forbid) Thompson were to choose Giuliani as his VP, I dont think it would stop me from voting for Fred... Like I did when Reagan compromised with Bush Sr, I would hold my nose and pray everyday for Thompson's safety and health...

Today Thompson is in the middle of the pack on the polls... But I honestly believe that is because he hasnt officially announced... Once he does I believe he will hit the pack like a freight train... McCain and Giuliani will slip into a distant 2nd and 3rd (despite the expected attacks from those men's talking heads in the media), and Romney will all but become a footnote...

On that day, if Romney is smart, he'd hand his warchest to Thompson, drop out of the race, and negotiate a cabinet slot in the Thompson presidency... McCain can go back to the Senate and continue to throw his weight around there for what its worth... And Giuliani can start his campaign for Head of FEMA, since disaster cleanup is all I can recommend his particular talents for...:brow:

Then we can all relax, sit back, and enjoy the circus that the Democrat primary will be... And look forward to the first debate between Thompson and the poor shmuck that the Dems finally settle on...
:popcorn:

[M.C.]

He has no name recognition. Only a tiny minority of hard-core conservatives like us have ever heard of him. For example, I've never seen him on TV, I've never heard him speak, and until about a couple of months ago I had no idea what he even looked like, and I am far more informed than the vast majority of American voters.

None of the other potential VP's are much more recognizable really. McCain and Giuliani would make a terrible ticket with Thompson in my opinion. Who else is left. Tancredo would win Colorado by default as the VP, but the presidential election, you are voting for the president not the VP, Fred is good enough to win the election with his name value. After all, who is Hillray gonna pick?

[Lazarus]

...After all, who is Hillray gonna pick?Im still not convinced that Hellary will be the nominee for the Dems... Its still way early and much can change... I noticed the other day that Bill Richardson is starting to peek his head above the horizon - as I predicted... Once he turns his campaign on full speed I believe we'll see the complexion of the Dem primary race change... In truth he's the Dem who scares me because he's the one who can win... When he speaks, he looks presidential and his resume' makes Hellary's look like a bubble gum wrapper... Keep your eyes on him...

[MrSanity]

At the risk of getting stoned for this...

Mitt Romney.

I like his overall platform, but he needs years of consistency to make up for his "conversions", which is why he is not electable for 2008, in my opinion. However, he has a stronger stance against illegal immigration than your average Pubbie. Besides, I think he's a pretty good communicator.

We don't need a Reagan or a Lincoln for the VP. Just a decent man who reflects the general platform of his running mate.

[MrSanity]

Im still not convinced that Hellary will be the nominee for the Dems... Its still way early and much can change... I noticed the other day that Bill Richardson is starting to peek his head above the horizon - as I predicted... Once he turns his campaign on full speed I believe we'll see the complexion of the Dem primary race change... In truth he's the Dem who scares me because he's the one who can win... When he speaks, he looks presidential and his resume' makes Hellary's look like a bubble gum wrapper... Keep your eyes on him...Hillary won't get the nomination, and you can quote me in stone.

Richardson may have a chance in the long run.

He can disguise himself as an adult much better than Hillary.

[Lazarus]

...I like his overall platform, but he needs years of consistency to make up for his "conversions"...Its his conversions that make me nervous... He just makes me nervous... I cant make myself trust him, and after our reeming from King George, Im being very careful over who I back these days...

[M.C.]

Mitt Romney flips more often than John Kerry did, I'd vote Nader if he's on the Thompson ticket.

[MrSanity]

Mitt Romney flips more often than John Kerry did, I'd vote Nader if he's on the Thompson ticket.With Romney as VP?

But go ahead and vote Nader (http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=itemview&event_id=445), since he's such a sane, untwisted individual.

[BEST45CAL]

I like Tancredo, and I wouldnt mind seeing him on the ticket... I disagree that he would sink it... I dont see the logic of that...

I can go with Newt Gingrich also... Newt would be an excellent choice to back up Thompson...

I cannot go with Condi Rice - She may be a reasonably good diplomat, but VP is a position that is one bullet or heart attack away from the oval office, and we have absolutely no idea how she stands on conservative dogma... All we know about her is that she is incredibly loyal to George Bush and she apparently has some skill in diplomacy - she is Bush's well groomed voice to the world...

That's a far cry from what I wanna see in a VP... I have no reason to dislike Miss Rice, but as far as qualifications for the top job, I see her as unqualified... She's really nothing more than a pop culture figure on the Republican side of the camp...But someone like Dan Quayle was better qualified? LOL

[BEST45CAL]

Thompson should choose wisely. The media could twist it around and make his choice the main reason NOT to vote for Thompson.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

hellinon:
Thompson/Guiliani would be unbeatable.

:unsmile: NO.

[M.C.]

With Romney as VP?

But go ahead and vote Nader (http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=itemview&event_id=445), since he's such a sane, untwisted individual.
It doesn't matter who I vote for, Democrat wins my state, Nader is at least a fun way to waste a vote.

Hopefully Fred picks a good VP so I can vote for him.

[M.C.]

On a more serious note, what about the Newt man?

[Naturalized-Texan]

But someone like Dan Quayle was better qualified?
Much better.

[M.C.]

But someone like Dan Quayle was better qualified? LOL

Hey now he TRIED to speak with the people in Latin America, not his fault he didn't speak latin....thats what he said....

[Suzie]

I realize this isn't going to be a popular opinion, but I am putting it out there. My bet is that he will pick John McCain. Thompson supported McCain in the last election, so I am afraid it's coming. Remember Reagan picked Bush 1 and he wasn't all that conservative. I am thinking they will look at it as a way to get some of those who would normally vote democrat but can't swallow Hillary.

Thompson also endorsed John McCain's bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 and became the national co-chairman of his campaign.

[Riverboat]

He has no name recognition.I lost track of the referent, but I have to ask you and everyone else: Who had ever heard of Dan Quayle outside of Indiana? Bush plucked him from near-obscurity when he ran for president. He was as qualified as anyone else, and twice as intelligent, I'd wager.

PaulRevere suggested Tommy Thompson. I'd shoot myself if he did that. Being the head of a non-essential department does something to their heads. Having been in charge of Health and Human Services, I'm sure he's not going to be willing to cut their reach or their budget, let alone the whole damned department.

[BEST45CAL]

A _________& Giuliani or Giuliani and ___________ ticket is a NO GO.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

A _________& Giuliani or Giuliani and ___________ ticket is a NO GO.


:yeahthat: http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/shake000.gif

[TheIrishman]

What about Sam Brownback. He makes pretty good sense when he speaks!

[Timberwolf]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Lazarus http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=556331#post556331)
I like Tancredo, and I wouldnt mind seeing him on the ticket... I disagree that he would sink it... I dont see the logic of that...

I can go with Newt Gingrich also... Newt would be an excellent choice to back up Thompson...

I cannot go with Condi Rice - She may be a reasonably good diplomat, but VP is a position that is one bullet or heart attack away from the oval office, and we have absolutely no idea how she stands on conservative dogma... All we know about her is that she is incredibly loyal to George Bush and she apparently has some skill in diplomacy - she is Bush's well groomed voice to the world...

That's a far cry from what I wanna see in a VP... I have no reason to dislike Miss Rice, but as far as qualifications for the top job, I see her as unqualified... She's really nothing more than a pop culture figure on the Republican side of the camp...
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
But someone like Dan Quayle was better qualified? LOL
That is EXACTLY what I was thinking!! LOL

If the Republican leadership hadn't forced Bush 41 on Reagan, we wouldn't have to worry about the decline in the Party, as it likely would never have happened.

FTR - I like Hunter or Huckabee for Veep. Tancredo would be an asset as would Gingrich...and I'd vote for ANY of those 4 tickets.

To the RNC...make NO mistake, if Guiliani or McCain are foisted upon us in ANY capacity, I will either vote Constitution Party or stay home.

[DesertFox]

Back in 1977 I did a poll in a poli sci course, to discover if the second man on the ticket made any difference to anybody. In that poll, at that time, it made no difference at all. I still don't think it matters. I wouldn't not vote for somebody because of the No. 2 person.

[TheIrishman]

It doesn't hurt to think about no2 becoming President if anything happened to the President.

[DesertFox]

Agreed. It just doesn't affect how people vote. 'Least, it didn't 30 years ago.

[Beowulf]

Since Tom Tancredo is the only candidate that I agree with and is in my book a real Conservative, I'd support him as V.P. Mind you, there is much time to November 2008 so we'll see who Thompson picks.

As someone mentioned though, Thompson doesn't need a strong V.P. to win the general election. His own merits will do that.

[Kathy30]

No one is ever going to pick McCain as a running mate. His temper is too legendary. No one is going to choose a fight on every issue all the time. Guliani is way too liberal.

Condi Rice isn't going to get it, as the RNC tries to outrun the stink of the Bush administration. Not that Rice would do well in her own right if not for that. Aside from her acknowledged brilliance and experience, she has been an abysmal failure.

I would love to see a Thompson/Tancredo ticket. I've heard Tancredo speak on a number of occasions. Where ever he has appeared he's been very well received. But, unless the RNC wants to invest in making Tancredo a household word, he's not going to get the nod.

Gingrich is presidential material himself. The RNC has to remember when he sacrificed himself to keep scandal away from the party and feel that he deserves a little payback. He's a good choice, and can carry the ball if, in fact, rumors are true and Thompson is slightly on the lazy side. Gingrich has name recognition.

The RNC has another problem and that is although they have a lot of money, the faucet has been turned off. There are no more phone solicitors. Everyone hired to ask for donations has gotten nothing but a lot of anger at the republican amnesty bill and no money. They have all been fired. The RNC has to get in candidates trusted enough to turn that faucet back on. Guiliani won't do it, neither will Rice, Huckabee is a non-starter, forget McCain. Romney? Maybe but I'd say Gingrich is the best choice.

[The_Elucidator]

Doesn't really matter who he picks to some it wouldn't be right; he could pick Christ himself but we all know that he is a globalist.

[omegatrump]

No, Im not kidding... I have heard and read Tancredo's positions and he's as conservative as anyone here... In fact as far as I know he was the VERY FIRST true conservative who entered the race because there was NO OTHER conservative in the pack and no one was speaking for OUR beliefs...

If you know something I dont, then say so... Dont just sit there with this "You've gotta be kidding" bullshit like some high school punk ridiculing someone who isnt in on the latest gossip... For Chrissakes!

No, Laz, I meant your kidding to ask NT to explain.


NT, Now you are telling us that because he has "No name recognition" that he wouldn't add anything to the ticket? Sort of like Jimmy (who) Carter didn't add any thing to the Democratic ticket, or Bill (who) Clinton didn't add anything to the dim ticket.

You've got to be kidding. Tancredo's biggest obstacle is the RNC, but then maybe after Bush????

[Etaoin]

RON PAUL !!!

He would bring some support from democRATS, the Libertarians and terrorize the RINOs and the hard core left. What a potential coup d'etat!:thumb:

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: Ron Paul is a moon unit.

[dPrasse]

J.C.Watts is the man I've pushed for on the Thompson board ...

Thompson / Watts !!

[Naturalized-Texan]

Etaoin:

:rolleyes::hahaha: You're joking , of course.

On second thought, the hate-America left would support Ron Paul because he favors surrendering to the terrorists. However, patriotic Americans would never support someone like Ron Paul, whose failure to support our troops in a time of war is reprehensible, at best, and treasonous, at worst.

[DesertFox]

A failure to support our troops is reprehensible; it isn't treasonous.

[hdmundt]

I agree with Beo that Thompson can win on his own strengths and he should pick his running mate based on how good a President he/she would make if needed. I also find Tancredo to be the only person now officially in the race that I could support and I'm thoroughly disgusted at how he has been marginalized as a "one issue" candidate. I heard some more of that nonsense this morning. I think Christopher Cox would make a good VP; he has strong knowledge of foreign affairs especially with respect to China.
And thank goodness Giuliani and McCain are unlikely to accept a backseat to Thompson.

[maxparrish]

Steele would be the best VP choice IF he had not lost his election. A stellar person, his minority credentials would be of great help. BUT African-American Republicans, while out shining their peers in both parties, are just damn hard to get elected. Blacks are leery of them, and they too often run in liberal states (Penn, Maryland). Its a shame, Democrats would droool to get the likes of Steele or Swan.

I can't think of a woman who would shine (well Noonan, Coulter, Ingerham, Tammy Bruce, Bay Buchanen, and a few others) and has earned an electable profile (Liz Dole has sputtered out, Hutchinson is soft, etc.).

Romney is the best choice. Otherwise I have no idea (although I wish Santorium would be considered.).

[Rhino]

But someone like Dan Quayle was better qualified? LOLYes.

[Rhino]

Hey now he TRIED to speak with the people in Latin America, not his fault he didn't speak latin....thats what he said....No, it isn't.

Vice-President Dan Quayle once said, "I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn't study Latin harder in school so I could converse with those people."

Status: False....

....In April 1989, Representative Claudine Schneider of Rhode Island told a gathering of Republicans that she had recently attended an event at the Belgian embassy, where Vice-President Quayle complimented her on her command of French. Then, Schneider said, the Vice-President added: "I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn't study Latin harder in school so I could converse with those people." Ms. Schneider concluded by admitting that the story was merely a joke, but not all the newspapers reported it that way....http://www.snopes.com/quotes/quayle.htm

As usual, be careful of falling for media distortions.

[Lazarus]

J.C.Watts is the man I've pushed for on the Thompson board ...

Thompson / Watts !!I can go with that... I've always liked J.C. Watts...

I realize this isn't going to be a popular opinion, but I am putting it out there. My bet is that he will pick John McCain. Thompson supported McCain in the last election, so I am afraid it's coming. Remember Reagan picked Bush 1 and he wasn't all that conservative. I am thinking they will look at it as a way to get some of those who would normally vote democrat but can't swallow Hillary.

Thompson also endorsed John McCain's bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 and became the national co-chairman of his campaign.Suzie does, however make a good point here - God forbid that it would happen, but the probability is higher than we think, I believe...

There is a comraderie among Senators, and Thompson was well liked when he was in the Senate and had a good working relationship with McCain...

McCain is hungry for the Whitehouse - This will be his 2nd serious try at the prize, and if the primaries go against him, he might be willing to hook onto Thompson's coattails under the theory that 4 or 8 years of a successful Thompson/McCain administration could be the best way for McCain to snag the nomination after Thompson leaves office... Of course the clock is working against him - How old is he now? How old will he be after 8 years of Thompson?

If nothing else, McCain might be hungry enough for Executive power to settle for the No 2 slot just to be in the decision-making process... He's something of a bully and he will definitely try to wield power in staff meetings, pretending he can work the Clinton co-presidency model...

IMO, that would be a major mistake for Thompson to make... McCain might bring in a segment of the voters, but after the election, I believe he would be a serious problem for Thompson - McCain might forget WHO exactly the president is...

In any event, senatorial relationships can be close enough for Thompson to seriously consider McCain as a running mate to draw in the RINOs and moderate fence-sitters...

I dont like it - I dont like McCain on the ticket at all and I dont at all believe its necessary - I think Thompson with a conservative partner can win on his own merits... But Suzie has a point and we have to consider that the possibility is there depending on who is advising Thompson and who he listens to...

[MrSanity]

I realize this isn't going to be a popular opinion, but I am putting it out there. My bet is that he will pick John McCain. Thompson supported McCain in the last election, so I am afraid it's coming. Remember Reagan picked Bush 1 and he wasn't all that conservative. I am thinking they will look at it as a way to get some of those who would normally vote democrat but can't swallow Hillary.

Thompson also endorsed John McCain's bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 and became the national co-chairman of his campaign.A respectable argument.

However, Thompson has done a great deal to distance himself from McCain's baggage on illegal immigration and campaign finance reform. Thompson has supported only a few things that I don't agree with - McFeingold - which he has expressed regrets for, and No Child Left Behind. The best thing he has going for him is the potential to clean up the era of loose constructionism and return to a constitutional government - at least as much as humanly possible this day in age.

He has been a remarkable voice on the blogosphere and elsewhere. Nobody has seen a de facto campaign run so successfully, unless I'm badly mistaken.

I don't care if he's a personal friend of John McCain, for as much as I loathe his platform. McCain seems like a decent man outside of the political arena, and I respect his military service.

Thompson is more likely to run with someone who mirrors his platform, like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.

Although, I think McCain would do less damage as a Vice President than as a Senator.

Time will tell.

[Etaoin]

A respectable argument.

However, Thompson has done a great deal to distance himself from McCain's baggage on illegal immigration and campaign finance reform. Thompson has supported only a few things that I don't agree with - McFeingold - which he has expressed regrets for, and No Child Left Behind. The best thing he has going for him is the potential to clean up the era of loose constructionism and return to a constitutional government - at least as much as humanly possible this day in age.

He has been a remarkable voice on the blogosphere and elsewhere. Nobody has seen a de facto campaign run so successfully, unless I'm badly mistaken.

I don't care if he's a personal friend of John McCain, for as much as I loathe his platform. McCain seems like a decent man outside of the political arena, and I respect his military service.

Thompson is more likely to run with someone who mirrors his platform, like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.

Although, I think McCain would do less damage as a Vice President than as a Senator.

Time will tell.

McCain's baggage is far too heavy for any honest candidate to carry. So far, I am 100% supportive of Thompson. I don't know if I could support a Thompson/McCain ticket! McCain would corrupt the entire concept of an honest ticket! Sooo, he served in Viet-Nam, He was shot down, broke within 3 days of captivity, was ORDERED BY THE SENIOR POW to refuse out of seniority repatriation, returned to the U.S. and elected on his name and misunderstood record only to be involved in the Keating 5, again his geneology served him well enough for him to be the co-author of the despicable McCain / Feingold deprivation of our constitutional rights! My sources for the Hanoi portion of my predjudice: 2 classmates who shared the Hanoi Hilton with McCain!

If there is any one person that could defeat Thompson's electability, it is JOHN McCain! It is beyound my comprehension how any person on this board can even consider John McCan for any office representing the American people when he is co-author of the McCain-Feingold law!

[noncom]

The best "qualification" for any VP is the ability to help with electoral votes.

Huckabee: Arkansas - who cares?
McCain: Arizona - who cares?
Tancredo: Colorado - who cares?
Hunter: California - would be great, but the odds he could carry it are slim.
Giuliani: New York - if he were able to take that from Hillary, we'd already have a landslide with or without him anyway.
Romney: Does he have cache outside MA? A few percentage points throughout the Northeast could sway who knows how many electoral votes.

I'd think somebody who can carry a state like Florida or Pennsylvania would be a plus. Actually, the PERFECT running made would be Arnold Schwarzenegger, if only it weren't for that pesky Consitution thingy.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Actually, the PERFECT running made would be Arnold Schwarzenegger, if only it weren't for that pesky Consitution thingy.

You have GOT to be kidding! Ahnold is NO conservative ... shoot, he's BARELY a Republican (as far as I'm concerned, he really doesn't even qualify for -INO status!)

[noncom]

You have GOT to be kidding! Ahnold is NO conservative ... shoot, he's BARELY a Republican (as far as I'm concerned, he really doesn't even qualify for -INO status!)
No, Arnold is actually fairly conservative; that's why Bush hates him so much - he's sort of the anti-Bush. And Arnold's a LOT more Republican than some of our so-called "front-runners" are. He's making concessions where he has to, but so did Reagan back when he was governer of California. In fact, there are more similarities between Arnold and a young Reagan than there are between Reagan and Thompson.

But, yeah, a lot of people see Arnold as socially liberal and that could actually help out the demographics. A lightweight arch-conservative adds nothing to Thompson's campaign - that would actually be an impediment. Seriously, somebody like Tom Tancredo? Oh yeah, that'd really juice up a Thompson ticket!

A moderate snake like McCain or Giuliani would be a knife-in-the-back waiting to happen. But Arnold would help give the appearance of "compromise" while providing absolutely nothing but support on the campaign trail. (As I recall, he gave a nice little speech at the 2004 Convention.)

And talk about star power!

[Rhino]

Ah-nuld is no conservative.

[Etaoin]

Arnold might be a great choice, but I question the constitutionality of his selection as VP and next in line to the presidency!

[Republican_Legion]

No one voted for Arnold thinking he was a Conservative.
They voted for him because Gray Davis was guilty of destroying the state and we wanted a new arsehole to screw things up.

Gray Davis is perhaps the worst govenor this country has seen in the last ten
years.

Arnold is a "feel good" politician. Enough said.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

But, yeah, a lot of people see Arnold as socially liberal and that could actually help out the demographics.

Social liberals AREN'T conservatives! Arnold is NO conservative -- not even fiscally! Think you need to go and take a good look at his political stances and decisions! He's even too liberal for a liberal-lite title!

A lightweight arch-conservative adds nothing to Thompson's campaign - that would actually be an impediment. Seriously, somebody like Tom Tancredo? Oh yeah, that'd really juice up a Thompson ticket!

The idea is to have a COMPLETE conservative ticket -- I'll take a "so-called" lightweight-conservative over a "socially-liberal" conservative any day of the week and twice on Sunday!

Tancredo is ONLY considered a "lightweight" because 1) the GOP isn't ABOUT to promote a real conservative (as opposed to a RINO), 2) the mainslime media isn't ABOUT to give any prime-time face-time to someone offering a real conservative perspective, 3) without GOP promotion, media attention, plus all the self-proclaimed conservatives who would rather compromise their positions (i.e. accepting a Guiliani-republican) instead of standing firm, holding the line, and demanding nothing less than a REAL conservative option, how in the world is a "lightweight"-branded conservative supposed to break out of that stereotype?

I'm not saying Tancredo is the be-all end all, but how many have taken the time to research him, or any other others? How about digging out others from behind the scenes?

Honestly, Senator Thompson would do better, in my opinion, in selecting a realtively unknown, so there is no pre-conceived notions, no aspersions cast to his "brand of conservatism" --- better than Thompson do his research, pick a qualified candidate than one that will "unite" or "offer a constituency to" the ticket.


But Arnold would help give the appearance of "compromise" while providing absolutely nothing but support on the campaign trail. (As I recall, he gave a nice little speech at the 2004 Convention.)

And talk about star power!

Now is the time we do NOT settle for "compromise." Compromise is no longer a valid option -- we have "compromised" ourself out of the majority, out of the presidency, and out of favor with the majority of the base, which IS the party.

We don't need the "moderates," "fence-sitters." and the "undecided." Will THEY settle for a Hillary-or-Obama vote just because a real conservative ticket is the other option? If THAT is the reason they vote for "them," don't you imagine if they voted for "our guy" (if we offered up a liberal-lite, fiscal conservative/social liberal, Ahnold-type) they would expect the same type of decisions and leadership from our guy that caused them to vote against him (if he were conservative instead)?

[Timberwolf]

Preach it Sis!! Rock on! :thumb:

[MrSanity]

Arnold is a sexual degenerate, through and through.

And he sure as HELL ain't no conservative.

He's the runner up to Chaffe when it comes to America's biggest RINO.

Bush is probably proud of him for INCREASING SPENDING after he was elected.

[Kathy30]

It won't be McCain. McCain is noted for a terrible temper and no one will buy a ticket to be hitched to that ride.

I think it will be Newt Gingrich.

[Republican_Legion]

Arnold is a sexual degenerate, through and through.

And he sure as HELL ain't no conservative.

He's the runner up to Chaffe when it comes to America's biggest RINO.

Bush is probably proud of him for INCREASING SPENDING after he was elected.

Actually Rudy Giuliani is worse. Arnold vetoed gay marriage, Rudy is a supporter of it. If Rudy was Govenor, that would be easy to figure out what he would do if given a decision to make on a Gay Marriage bill.

Top RINOs: Chaffee, Bloomberg, Pataki, Giuliani and Arnold.

Did you forget about bloomberg the gun grabber ? The same guy who complained about GWB picking John Roberts to replace reinquist.

[Lazarus]

Honestly, Senator Thompson would do better, in my opinion, in selecting a realtively unknown, so there is no pre-conceived notions, no aspersions cast to his "brand of conservatism" --- better than Thompson do his research, pick a qualified candidate than one that will "unite" or "offer a constituency to" the ticket.Exactly... I dont know what all this fuss is about choosing someone with big name recognition - Thompson doesnt need that in the VP slot - HE IS the big name recognition - Folks aren't gonna vote for or against Thompson because he has a big name in the backseat - People are voting for Thompson...

The backseat man is only considered when someone considers the chance of Thompson not being able to finish his term... And when they consider that, national name recognition isnt the defining attribute people look for - They look for someone who represents the political dogma that the president stands for - in this case that means Tancredo is perfectly qualified...

Name recognition isnt a problem - he'll get plenty of that in the general election... And as Homegirl points out, the less personal baggage he's carrying the more it works in our favor...

And I dont get this "lightweight" crap... What exactly is it about Tancredo that is lightweight? Anyone who is familiar with him and has heard him speak knows he's NO lightweight...

Now is the time we do NOT settle for "compromise." Compromise is no longer a valid option -- we have "compromised" ourself out of the majority, out of the presidency, and out of favor with the majority of the base, which IS the party.No more Compromise!!! No more Compromise!!! Thompson doesnt need it - He's gonna run away with this race on his own merits...

I think Tancredo is the perfect VP for the team... But I'm not obssessed and locked into only him... I can go with any number of other GOOD CONSERVATIVES... Huckabee and Gingrich both come to mind as excellent choices... As long as Thompson chooses a compatable conservative - NOT A COMPROMISE!

BTW, in reference to Schwartsenegger - I don't think he is qualified legally to run in the VP position... As an immigrant he cannot hold the office of President - That makes the VP slot for him incompatable with the law in the event that the president comes up missing...

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Thanks brudder, :smirky:

[M.C.]

[QUOTE] No more Compromise!!! No more Compromise!!! Thompson doesnt need it - He's gonna run away with this race on his own merits...
Indeed brother.

I think Tancredo is the perfect VP for the team... But I'm not obssessed and locked into only him... I can go with any number of other GOOD CONSERVATIVES... Huckabee and Gingrich both come to mind as excellent choices... As long as Thompson chooses a compatable conservative - NOT A COMPROMISE!
My thoughts exactly, I love Tancredo and what he stands for. He is perfect, absolutely has flawless policies, I like him better than Fred. Huckabee, Brownback, and Newt are good guys too, but Tom is the best.

BTW, in reference to Schwartsenegger - I don't think he is qualified legally to run in the VP position... As an immigrant he cannot hold the office of President - That makes the VP slot for him incompatable with the law in the event that the president comes up missing..
I think if he was VP and the president died, the speaker would bump up to the top spot. I don't know or care though, as I do not want Arnold anywhere near that high up.

[PrezLeefun]

I would like it to be Condie.

[Suzie]

I didn't really know the elder George Bush when Reagan picked him. But then I was rather young and didn't follow such things.

[noncom]

I didn't really know the elder George Bush when Reagan picked him. But then I was rather young and didn't follow such things.
Reagan didn't concern himself with such trivial matters as getting elected to office. He was interested only in having a running mate who was as ideologically pure as possible, because he understood the voters would demand that. After all, there's no reason to assume that voters would rely on the things that only one of the candidates happened to say, just because he happened to be the one who was running for President.

[MrSanity]

Actually Rudy Giuliani is worse. Arnold vetoed gay marriage, Rudy is a supporter of it. If Rudy was Govenor, that would be easy to figure out what he would do if given a decision to make on a Gay Marriage bill.Rudy claims not to support the sodomist marriage policy. Is there any solid proof that he does, or ever did?

[MrSanity]

I think it would be good if Thompson ran with a promising politician rather than a CEO.

All too often, it's easy to picture this current presidency without a right-hand man.

[Republican_Legion]

Rudy claims not to support the sodomist marriage policy. Is there any solid proof that he does, or ever did?

And his parading at gay pride parades/events, being rated and respected highly by gay groups doesnt give you an idea ?

All he has to do is say he doesnt support it and you believe that filthy pig who married his cousin and donates to planned parenthood ?

Hmmm werent you the one who a month or 2 ago said Rudy was all OK but before that you were 200% against him but suddenly flip flopped ?

The rudy defense crowd is just too funny and flip floppy.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I didn't really know the elder George Bush when Reagan picked him. But then I was rather young and didn't follow such things.
At that time, George H.W. Bush was the only logical choice as Reagan's running mate. The theory that some put forth that Reagan was forced to choose Bush by the Republican establishment is false and doesn't hold water. Reagan was his own man and he wasn't about to succumb to such pressure, even if there was such pressure.

[Naturalized-Texan]

And his parading at gay pride parades/events, being rated and respected highly by gay groups doesnt give you an idea ?
MrSanity asked for "solid proof," but you failed to provide it.

[Republican_Legion]

MrSanity asked for "solid proof," but you failed to provide it.

We dont need proof on Barry Bonds using sterioids but most are sure he did use them. There doesnt need to be proof on Rudy.

Sorry I dont share the same softness for Rudy that some do.
BTW there is proof he attended those events and proof he married his cousin.
I am not gonna post it in every rudy thread because someone asks.

Your next post I am betting on will be something like "Thats BS" or "Put up or shut up"
And for saying that DF will step in and snap at me rudely and expect me to be polite after it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

We dont need proof on Barry Bonds using sterioids but most are sure he did use them. There doesnt need to be proof on Rudy.

Sorry I dont share the same softness for Rudy that some do.
BTW there is proof he attended those events and proof he married his cousin.
Again, MrSanity asked for "solid proof" and you failed to provide it. The fact that he attended those events is irrelevant because he was doing so due to his position as Mayor of New York. And there is nothing wrong with marrying a cousin, unless it was a first cousin. If you had been involved in researching genealogy as long as I have (about 30 years), you would see that marrying one's cousin, 2nd cousin and beyond, is quite common.

[Timberwolf]

Again, MrSanity asked for "solid proof" and you failed to provide it. The fact that he attended those events is irrelevant because he was doing so due to his position as Mayor of New York. And there is nothing wrong with marrying a cousin, unless it was a first cousin. If you had been involved in researching genealogy as long as I have (about 30 years), you would see that marrying one's cousin, 2nd cousin and beyond, is quite common.
Well, that explains Arlen Specter, Chucky Schumer, Gerold Nadler, Henry Waxman, Cynthia McKinney, Al Franken, Lincoln Chaffee.....

:biggrin:

[Suzie]

I need to read more about the first Reagan election. I guess the most I remember was the whole Carter thing with the hostages. Our local paper had the number of days they had been held in the top corner every day. Then here comes Ronald Reagan, if kids my age saw that and they weren't republican after that there is something wrong with them. :lol: I was in my Junior high English class when Reagan was shot, I remember that. And I remember how stupid I thought the Carter "put on a sweater" speech was.

Ahh the formative years. Praise the lord, Ronald Reagan helped me follow the road to political sanity. :D

[Beowulf]

I would like it to be Condie.
Sorry, Prez, but I couldn't support Condi for anything higher than where she is now after she pledged U.S. aid to the Palestinians in the form of $50 million. Smart lady but to me is just a "Yes, Woman" to her boss, George Bush.

[Lazarus]

I remember the first Reagan election clearly... Bush Sr. was the main candidate standing against Reagan in the primaries and the debates and campaign speeches clearly showed the vast difference in their policies and beliefs - Bush was definitely of the CC Pub crowd and was severely opposed to Reagan's philosphy and proposed policies...

I also recall being UNpleasantly suprised that Reagan chose Bush as his VP once he had won the primary... With all due respect to Tex, I disagree with Tex's assertion that he was not pressured into the choice... I believe that is precisely what happened and the choice was made to try to "heal" the party... IOW, it was a compromise... It was widely discussed at the time and many believed it was the right choice for that reason... I didnt...

Luckily for America, Reagan was a strong leader and ruled the roost in his administration, and thus Bush marched in lockstep with Reagan's plan... Reagan listened to all arguments when making a policy decision, but his final decision was LAW, and Bush wisely subordinated himself to that...

Bush drifted back to his globalist position after he won the presidency on his own (actually on Reagan's coattails, I should say)...

Personally we dodged a bullet that time because Reagan was such a strong personality... I believe Thompson also posseses strong leadership, but I dont like to test the theory on such a critical situation... No More Compromises - He doesnt need it to win...

Thompson should go with a solid conservative and America will come to him in droves...

[Lazarus]

Sorry, Prez, but I couldn't support Condi for anything higher than where she is now after she pledged U.S. aid to the Palestinians in the form of $50 million. Smart lady but to me is just a "Yes, Woman" to her boss, George Bush.Agreed... Miss Rice has proven to have solid diplomatic skills, but as I have said more than once, that is a far cry from qualifying her to be President...

What we know about her is that she is articulate, calm, and clear-thinking - and she is staunchly loyal to George W Bush... That alone removes her as a candidate for me... I can no longer strust anyone closely associated with Bush...

Additionally, we know nothing about her beliefs on all the other very important issues and threats that this nation faces... All we know is that she is Bush's voice to the world on foreign policy...

In truth, as much as I may respect her personally, I firmly believe that Fred Thompson should NOT recycle any of the central figures from Bush's administration - possibly even going as far as replacing the entire cabinet outright...

I want to see Thompson demonstrate a new start and a new STRONG direction on all fronts...

[noncom]

Luckily for America, Reagan was a strong leader and ruled the roost in his administration, and thus Bush marched in lockstep with Reagan's plan... Reagan listened to all arguments when making a policy decision, but his final decision was LAW, and Bush wisely subordinated himself to that...

Bush drifted back to his globalist position after he won the presidency on his own (actually on Reagan's coattails, I should say)...
OK, first of all, you do realize we're talking about the Vice Presidency here, right? Don't get me wrong: I'm not impugning buckets of warm spit in general, but this whole Cheney "co-presidency" crap is a historical aberration. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that a Vice President will have any significant influence on administration policy.

And even if you do want to "blame" Bush Sr.'s Presidency on Reagan, so what? His four years were mediocre, but only because we compare him to Reagan. Bush Sr. was still better than any other president in the past 60 years - not exactly the end of the world there. And the next 16 years of squandering Reagan's legacy fall entirely on OUR shoulders. Reagan's VP choice helped accomplish the only thing that mattered at the time: getting Reagan elected - everything else was caused by our lassitude, not by Ronald Reagan's VP choice.

Barry Goldwater's VP choice, William E. Miller, may well have been the most conservative Vice Presidential candidate in American history. He was his generation's equivalent to Newt Gingrich. There is no doubt in my mind that he made the conservative wing of the Republican Party feel very, very good about themselves. But none of that matters today, because he didn't do the ONLY job of a Vice Presidential candidate: getting his boss elected.

[Rhino]

OK, first of all, you do realize we're talking about the Vice Presidency here, right? Don't get me wrong: I'm not impugning buckets of warm spit in general, but this whole Cheney "co-presidency" crap is a historical aberration. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that a Vice President will have any significant influence on administration policy.True, but if the President becomes incapacited, these 'compromise' candidates could be our death knell.

[Lazarus]

...And even if you do want to "blame" Bush Sr.'s Presidency on Reagan, so what?...No... I never said I "blame" Reagan for Bush... Nothing of the sort... Bush is wholely responsible for himself...

But as Rhino pointed out, we ran significant risk by having a RINO in the backseat when Reagan was president... And that is a risk I dont care to repeat...

Especially since its not necessary... Thompson is gonna win this race by virtue of his own strong leadership - There is no need to compromise with the RINOs... When Thompson wins the primary, the RINOs will conform or not but they are not the power in this election - WE are!

[noncom]

True, but if the President becomes incapacited, these 'compromise' candidates could be our death knell.
Sure, nominating someone like Hillary Clinton would be a huge mistake. But that's not what we're talking about here. If four years of Bush Sr. didn't kill us, I think it's safe to say that two years (or whatever) of somebody else like him won't either. If (Heaven forbid) the worst came to pass, we would all need to get off our asses and deal with it THEN - during the following primaries. But betting everything on the worst-case scenario is a recipe for defeat.

I hate to break it to you, but the current election is by no means in the bag. We need to worry a lot more about getting our candidate elected, and a lot less about shoring up a long-term dynasty.

The fact that we don't like moderate Republicans doesn't mean that they don't exist. They may not be the hardest-chargers in the world, but their votes count as much as anyone else's.

There aren't many good things to say about moderates, but they have ONE saving grace: they are ridiculously easy to mollify. Throw these people the tiniest bone every once in a while, and they'll follow you around like lapdogs. But if you shut them out completely, they'll get pissy and leave. And we can't afford that.

[Rhino]

Good points, all. But you have to remember that the Republican base was disappointed in the lack of a conservative running for office. Assuming Thompson wins the nomination, it will be solely because of his conservative stance. Putting a RINO on the ticket would likely alienate much of the base in the same way the current crop of candidates has. While one can say that a RINO may definitely have more appeal to the fence sitters, the same holds true for what you said earlier. Even the fence sitters know that a Vice President won't have any significant influence on administration policy, so the effect of a RINO on winning the election is debatable.

[Lazarus]

...There aren't many good things to say about moderates, but they have ONE saving grace: they are ridiculously easy to mollify. Throw these people the tiniest bone every once in a while, and they'll follow you around like lapdogs. But if you shut them out completely, they'll get pissy and leave. And we can't afford that.Hey, I already nominated Giuliani for Director of FEMA - What more do they want? Just think of all the warm fuzzy feelings they'll get when the next Hurricane hits and Giuliani puts on his FEMA cape and saves the day...

There! That's my bone... If that's not enough, we'll make Romney the ambassador to Utah...:whistle:

[Longhorn_Platinum]

noncom:
Barry Goldwater's VP choice, William E. Miller, may well have been the most conservative Vice Presidential candidate in American history. He was his generation's equivalent to Newt Gingrich. There is no doubt in my mind that he made the conservative wing of the Republican Party feel very, very good about themselves. But none of that matters today, because he didn't do the ONLY job of a Vice Presidential candidate: getting his boss elected.

:unsmile: It's a bit of a stretch to assume that a liberal running mate could have gotten Goldwater elected.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Since Ron Paul has aligned himself with foaming-at-the-mouth, hate-America leftists like Micheal Moore, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, et al. by advocating surrender in the War on Terror, he has disqualified himself from any consideration by American patriots for any public office, including the one he is now holding. His failure to support our troops in a time of war is reprehensible, at best, and treasonous, at worst.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:moo: Wow, & Naturalized-Texan thinks that we never agree on anything.

[Little Bit Farm]

The following are my reasons:

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist.
Ron has never voted to raise taxes.
Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Ron has never voted for the Iraq War. - Because I know that the insults are fixing to start flying here, I am going to address the issue of the Iraq war. Here is my opinion: 1) Our policies in the middle east created the problem of Iraq. We installed Saddam Hussein into power and created a tyrannical dictator. Saddam is now dead. He has been removed. It is time to support our troops by allowing them to return to their families and friends back home. They have done the job they were sent to do, and have fulfilled the original congressional goals laid out for them.
Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay.
Ron has never taken a government-paid junket.
Ron voted against the Patriot Act.
Ron votes against regulating the Internet.
Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
Ron votes against the United Nations.
Ron votes against the welfare state.
Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.
Ron votes to preserve the constitution.
Ron votes to cut government spending.
Ron votes to lower healthcare costs.
Ron votes to end the war on drugs.
Ron votes to protect civil liberties.
Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform


Little Bit Farm

[Little Bit Farm]

Since Ron Paul has aligned himself with foaming-at-the-mouth, hate-America leftists like Micheal Moore, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, et al. by advocating surrender in the War on Terror, he has disqualified himself from any consideration by American patriots for any public office, including the one he is now holding. His failure to support our troops in a time of war is reprehensible, at best, and treasonous, at worst.

No you choose to believe that he is aligned with them because he agrees with them on a single issue, NT. However, a huge percentage of Americans agree with him.

Little Bit Farm

[noncom]

No you choose to believe that [Ron Paul] is aligned with them because he agrees with them on a single issue, NT. However, a huge persentage of Americans agree with him.
Either it's a huge percentage or it's a small percentage, and that percentage happens to be delusional. Either way, it would seem exactly the same to them, wouldn't it?

Seriously though: There are lots of candidates, and a significant percentage of voters, who want to "support our troops" in exactly the same way these nutjobs do. So I wonder why it is that liberaltarians never seem to go to liberal Web sites and suggest that Democrats simply change their stance on social issues?

[Naturalized-Texan]

No you choose to believe that he is aligned with them because he agrees with them on a single issue, NT. However, a huge percentage of Americans agree with him.arm
And that issue is BY FAR the most important issue facing this nation. Surrendering to the terrorists in the War on Terror, as Ron Paul advocates, would result in the slaughter of millions, if not tens of millions, of innocent Americans, including our children and grandchildren, in terrorists attacks that would dwarf the 9/11 attacks.

FYI, Congress passed a declaration of war against terrorism on 9/14/2001 - the vote being unanimous in the Senate and with only one dissenting vote in the House (a liberal wacko from San Francisco). Ron Paul voted for that declaration of war.

Ron Paul, and other nut jobs, pretend that the invasion of Iraq was not part of the War on Terror. The fact is that the invasion of Iraq was every bit as essential to winning the War on Terror as the D-Day Normandy invasion was essential to winning World War II. After all, Saddam trained, harbored, financed, and armed terrorists, including al Qaeda. In fact, there is strong evidence that several of the 9/11 terrorists were trained at Salman Pak, 12 miles south of Baghdad.

[Rhino]

No you choose to believe that he is aligned with them because he agrees with them on a single issue, NT.And he is aligned with them on this particular issue, which is what NT stated. To my knowledge, no one ever said he was aligned with them on other issues. I like Ron Paul on many issues, but on this one he is definitely aligned with the surrender crowd. While there are certainly other issues that he is right on, his stance on this particular issue is more than enough to make him unacceptable to me. I imagine that's what NT was trying to get across.

However, a huge percentage of Americans agree with him.That we should surrender in Iraq? Not hardly.