Campaigning makes all the candidates look like tools, IMHO. Fred managed to speak on topic, rather than bash for the most part. I fear a vote for anybody else is a vote tallied strictly to limit another candidates options. This election especially seems a messy one. It's too bad...

Shawn

VERY disappointed... :(

I sincerely hope the Republican nominee does choose him for VP.

Given Fred's stance as the "only true conservative," I can't see him endorsing another candidate or agreeing to be anyone's running mate.

A Statement from Fred Thompson

"Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."

Yes, but remember, warrot-man, Gypsy has "Powers!" :lifter
It may well come to pass!

Holly!

You may have a point there...but one never knows. If called upon, and it's the "right" candidate, perhaps he'll consider it.

He did endorse McCain against Bush in 2000, so he may dso it again. Given the remaining field I just don't know what to think. Romney scares the bejeezus out of me. He is worst than Kerry with his Flip Flopping. Huckabee is even worse. The whole Constitutional Ammendment thing totally turned me off. Guliani doesn't have a chance in hell as far as I am concerned, he just has too much baggage. McCain, what do I say about McCain other than he is a megalomaniac. But given the other options, that is the one I find myself leaning towards now that Fred is gone.

Homer Simpson: Get out, you vultures! Even you, Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson: But I was in "Die Hard"!
Homer Simpson: Hah! Die Hard *2*!
Fred Thompson: *Hangs head in shame, leaves.*

I agree with your selection, however I don't expect more from McCain than we got from Bob Dole in '96.

McCain broke the faith and turned his back on his brothers. He won't get my vote. Ever.

Then get used to hearing "Madame President...", followed by a shrill, bitchy, whining response.

TR

Not much of a choice. I guess I'll vote for "none of the above."

I'm trying to get my head around who on the Democratic side I'm most comfortable with in the White House if it comes to that, and I'm pretty sure I've made myself very clear on Hillary - but I can't get past the fact that of the three, she seems the most stable. Can someone talk me down off that ledge? It really bothers me.

Huckabee lost me in Iowa if he hadn't lost me before on his immigration and crime background as I believe bigotry is bigotry no matter if it's directed at a religion, race or gender.

I'm scared to death McCain is going to pull a Howard Dean because he's just that volatile. I'm also very unforgiving after reading Enormous Crime and watching the Amnesty Bill debacle.

Guiliani has dropped off the planet and has far too much to prove.

I'm back with Romney 100%. I REALLY hope if he's nominated he'll ask Fred first and that Fred will be in the mood to say yes. I've said it a bunch of times before but I think the Romney/Thompson ticket would rock and would certainly make up a lot of Romney's weaknesses.

Romney has twice the number of delegates that McCain does at this point. I doubt McCain will get the nomination. If he does, the shrilly bitch will win.

LOL! Mine too. "I Like Mike"

I don't see that he's flip-flopped on issues. He's grown and reconsidered various topics. He hasn't said a word that I haven't heard before either at home, social functions or Church.

I was raised Morman and there is no way I will vote for Mitt Romney. I know full well what the Book of Morman says. Either he lied in order to be Gov of Mass or he's lying now. It doesn't matter to me which one it is. The man is not being true...to anyone least of all God.

This election reminds me of when the Republicans rolled out Dole vs Clinton. The Dems have the Presidency I am afraid. The way this politcal system works, nothing gets done anyway, so I am quite sure they cannot do much damage in 4 - 8 years.

It's impossible for me to get my arms around the fact that she might win. Just listening to her makes my skin crawl and the fact that people really believe that she can do anything for this country astonishes me. :confused:

I think that you are underestimating the threat.

The damage done by the first Klinton regime, particularly with respect to our global posture and the Chinese, is only being felt now. And that was with a Republican Congress after the first two years.:rolleyes:

A Dem Congress and a Dem in the White House will seriously damage our individual rights, our fiscal stability, this nation's security, and will jeopardize the future of our children, if not ourselves.

TR

"I think that you are underestimating the threat".

I couldn't agree more. Our freedom of speech for one and many more rights is already being threatened. I can't imagine what will happen if you have a democrat Whitehouse and congress.

Just an opinion, Sir, but the damage done by our insistence on invading Iraq could also have long lasting effects to our global posture. I am not disagreeing about Bill Clinton's weakness as a CIC. I am saying that the danger of either side leading this country is both underestimated and overestimated. I trust neither of them. Just because the Blues are leading, the Reds cry the world will now cease to exist, and vice versa. It is getting old. JMO. YMMV.

I wouldn't make that assumption just yet. Unsurprisingly, there are quite a few people who would vote republican just to ensure Hillary doesn't win the Presidency.

She might actually be the unwitting ticket to a Republican victory.

She might actually be the unwitting ticket to a Republican victory.[/QUOTE]

That same thought has crossed my mind.

You mean our insistence on fighting those bent on destroying our culture and freedoms in their own lands versus in ours? :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, the way things seem, those of us who realize this, are in the minority.

When explaining this concept to my 6 year old (he was asking why dad was going off again) he totally got it. He's totally onboard with the whole - "take the fight to them" thing. Why is this such a hard one for others to grasp?

Sadly, this very well may be true in some parts of Our Country.

But, to those fighting in this War:
Please know that there is a huge majority here in the mid-western United States that supports Your efforts!
We get it...and Thank You All for keeping us safe from oppression.

No matter who is CIC, we 'round here will always support Our Troops.

Holly

I never said I disagreed with fighting them over there. I said - in reference to our posture in the world - invading Iraq was not our best move at the time, nor our only one. We rushed. I am not even sure that is even debatable anymore. It just isn't.

You're right, waiting over a year for ineffective UN intervention to never take place was far too little time; hell, 12 years if you want to go back to GW1. :rolleyes: So, that point "isn't even debatable anymore" according to who, you?

I think its hard to argue that the US isn't considered a world leader, whether you gauge that through power, influcence, economics, or what have you. Leadership means that you don't often do things to get others to like you, you do them because their the right thing to do, regardless of whether its popular.

Prior to all the UN legal/not legal war nonsense, wasn't Iraq in violation of the cease-fire agreement made during the Gulf War?

Weren't our aircraft engaged by their ground-to-air defenses repeatedly?

After 9/11, the political will existed to address some problems in the world which probably should have been addressed 22 years earlier.
Saddam was on the short list.

Politicians do what politicians do.

If Bill Clinton had taken similar action for similar reasons during his tenure, the media would still be extolling him as the greatest CIC ever. :rolleyes:

I'll pass on the kool-aid.

Not a big fan of Koolaid myself. (How many people today understand the reference? :munchin )

I've had to explain it a few times, mostly to people only about 2 or 3 years younger :eek:

Well, everyone with first hand experience is dead... :D

Funny thing is that Clinton is the one that signed the bill passed by Congress calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein. Just never followed-up on it.

Waiting another year, after waiting 12, would have meant what? What is the absolute worst that could have happened? What did we allow to fester? An idiot dictator that could not a) feed his people, b) that did not have the army to threaten Israel or the US, and c) was playing keep away with weapons he never had. We did not need to go into Iraq. We WANTED to. That was a piss poor decision that was obviously not well thought out. We went through that idiot's army like shit through a goose. The fastest run over that much ground in fooking history. The man was a moron. Yet we never thought what to do next. Why? Because we rushed through this decision with political capital in hand, and an enraged (yet uninformed) electorate fired up and raring to go. We never had a plan after his ouster. Maybe if we were not in such a hurry we would have avoided so many deaths.

Leadership means you do not act on impulse. You use patience, think through all potential actions, and gather support and intelligence. You can be the richest, most powerful, conniving, influencial SOB in the land. But some cunning Special Forces Team will cut you down in a second. I don't care how rich and powerful you think we are, our brain drain in government says otherwise.

It is quite sad that not even on this board can a discussion take place about our shortcomings in leadership. I am not second guessing for the sake of bashing. I am second guessing because now, after almost 5 years, it would have been nice if our leaders thought of something, any-fooking-thing, after the invasion. They had no plan after chopping off the head because they rushed the decision. Basic Ranger Handbook shit.

They were in violation for 10 years. 9/11 made him more in violation? Saddam was on the short list? Jesus H, don't ya think Bin Laden made a shorter list? Ayman al-Zawahiri? I do not buy into the theory that fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan was the best strategy. Why, because more jihadists fled to Iraq from Afghanistan? Shit, while we're making progress in Iraq, we're losing ground in Afghanistan.

The political will that "existed" was misunderstood, misinterpreted, misused and misspent, IMO. I could think of a lot of ways we could have spent that captial. I sure as shit would not have wasted the Global Capital and Good Will as quickly as we did. That was a fooking colossal mistake. No getting that moment back.

This seems to be your main point.

I'm listening.:munchin

IMHO, the decision to invade Iraq was brilliant. Coming right after Afganistan, it put the world on notice that state sponsored terroism would not be left unchecked. Looking at Lybia's capitulation and North Korea's recent exit from list of states sponsoring terrorism, progress seems to be made.

Lybia?

Lybia -- Case Study in Fighting State-Sponsored Terrorism

"Libya’s agreement to take responsibility for the Lockerbie Pan Am bombing, to renounce terrorism and to set up a $2.7-billion fund for families of the victims did not receive the attention it deserved. It was part of a successful campaign against state sponsored terrorism that produced measurable change in an individual and a nation’s foreign policy."