7 Responses to “McCain - Thompson?”

1. Kevin Mc Donald Says:
   February 7th, 2008 at 2:03 pm

   I like it! Scott Ott’s article was right on. Fred as V.P. is a good choice. Not only would he good balance to the ticket, but given Mc Cain’s age, he might even become president.

2. Jim Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 11:12 pm

   As much as I like him, I don’t think that Fred has the energy for it! Someone like Jeff Sessions from Alabama,Jim DeMint from South Carolina, DuncanHunter from California or even our own John Ensign. What we need to truly fear is his picking someone like his super buddy–Lindsey-ACLU-Graham as his VP or even as his Attorney General! Of course, he once explored the possibility of his running on a ticket as VP with a Democrat ( or even switching parties) –what is to stop him from another one of his wild -reach across the isle- ideas and pick Teddy- Chapaquidic -Kennedy to be his VP? We are in for a real rough time for the next four years–no matter what party wins!

3. Stan Bjonerud Says:
   February 9th, 2008 at 6:41 am

   No, McCain - Romney would be far better as Romney brings business, financial and organizational skills to the office. Further he was a Governor so has executive experience.

   Thompson was a Senator as is McCain so brings no diversity to the job. Thompson was also a lobbyest and that’s an area that need to be controlled and their influence reduced.

4. Frank Master,MD Says:
   February 9th, 2008 at 7:18 am

   I think John Ensign would be a terrific pick as Vice President.Only problem would be that of having two candidates from adjacent states in the SouthWest instead of the balance of an Easterner with McCain.

5. John Fridell Says:
   February 9th, 2008 at 11:46 am

   Since the country is going to suffer if either the liberal McCain or a liberal Democrat is elected President in November, wouldn’t it be better for the Democrats to take the rap for it rather than the Republicans?

6. Dianne Says:
   February 10th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

   Strongly Disagree w/Thompson.
   Hard as they try to make Ron Paul supporters a bunch of nuts, Ron Paul would be the best running mate for a man who has thrown Conservative Principles to the wind.
   It would show we conservatives Mc (the guy who voted amensty when America said NO MORE, who joins with the likes of Kennedy/Fienstein) is serious aout upholding ‘Conservative’ principles.
   We need to save John Ensign for President, he is President material and we are going to need him.

7. Steve Says:
   February 10th, 2008 at 4:28 pm

   One of the ideas being advanced (and it seems credible given the much greater number of “democratic” primary voters than “republican” primary voters) is that “conservatives” are staying home from the primaries because none of the candidates represent their views. Can somebody please explain to me why we protest by not voting instead of voting for a third party? Who cares if you do not vote. It makes no rational statement at all (except that you do not care and are lazy). If even a marginal raise in third party votes are noted (assuming that they would really get counted), it would place a great fear in those who buy elections that people may actually be taking back control of their Government. These campaign donaters must be rich people (especially the “bundlers” which seem to be plentiful on both sides), so what makes people believe that anyone is in favor of helping the poor people, except to throw them some scraps to get them dependent on the central government in a slave-like subservience? Here are some thoughts I would just kick around:

   Payments to Social Security are not being saved, so why are people told that this system will be viable by every candidate? (answer: the candidates are lying).

   Everything I hear is trying to convince us that campaign spending equates to free speech. All campaign spending equates to is buying elections, yet our Supreme Court backs the money=free speech mantra. Why aren’t candidates speaking out on this issue? (answer: there are no candidates who support free speech, only controlled, bought electorates and the Supreme Court no longer listens to the Constitution).

   All increased spending on education has gotten us over the last 60+ years is less-trained kids compared to the rest of the world. Why does every candidate advocate more spending when it is obvious that this approach makes things worse for the educational system? (answer: “think of the kids” makes voters melt and candidates do not care about any future results besides keeping their jobs)

   The point is this: None of the slate of candidates will “change” anything. NO EARMARKS: The Pelosi lie. NO SPECIAL INTERST INFLUENCE: The Obama lie. HEALTH INSURANCE EQUALS HEALTH CARE: The Clinton lie. BIGGER GOVERNMENT EQUALS SMALLER GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN OUR LIVES: The McCain lie. TRUST ME BECAUSE I AM OF THE CHRISTAIN FAITH: The Huckabee lie (the biggest of all). The fact is that we have fallen for the oldest trick in the political book: Listen to what I say, not what I do. I know that our demise is probably a cast iron cinch since I see no evidence of the general electorate adopting objective thought, but I would feel very bad if I did not at least try to change a few minds.

   Please stop the madness. We still have not repealed the Constitution, so there is a chance, but I doubt if enough people can be convinced in time. Nevertheless, I still am optimistic because I cannot believe we would throw away the opprotunity afforded us by our founding fathers.

Leave a Reply