Posted on 09/10/2007 8:59:56 AM PDT by pissant
Thompson said Friday he will not support a federal gay marriage ban. Thompson thinks the states should decide. Thompson did support the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. What year did Fred catch his Federalist infection? I see a pattern here. Like the recent flip flopping on Laura Ingraham's show about S-27. Like his questionnaire answers on Abortion where he wrote-
"Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy."
Fred did vote pro life, but that statement and many others bother me. I prefer a consistent candidate who is not selling Kool Aide to appeal to both sides. A man with a solid 26 year record of votes and floor speeches.
"I firmly believe that marriage is one of the most important social institutions we have and that it is central to promoting family values and raising children in a healthy environment. It is for this reason that I cosponsored and voted in favor of H.J. Res. 88 (Musgrave-CO), which proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Numerous studies indicate fathers excel at reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls, while mothers provide emotional security and read the physical and emotional cues of infants. I firmly believe that children need the unique influence offered by both a father and a mother"~Duncan Hunter
PING
Just think what would happen if Roody Doody gets the nomination.
Fred Garvin: Male Prostitute
I’ll take Fred over Rudy if that is my only choice, in a heartbeat. But as long as Hunter is in, he’s the guy. No nuanced answers, no flip flops, no explaining away a liberal past.
Um... the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to define the conditions of election and qualifications for their own members.
Uh, the constitution specifically tells congress what it must do to amend it. If they had the power to define conditions, then they would NOT need a constitutional amendment. That’s weak.
If Duncan doesn’t get in the double digits on Real Clear Politics I’ll have to go with FRed.
Excellent.
Hey pissant. Off subject a bit, but have you watched the three different Duncan Hunter TV interviews this morniing prior to the hearings with General Petreaus? Fine, distinct and positive statements by Rep. Hunter in all three. He has a firm grip on reality.
IMO any Republican OR Democrat who claims to be a Conservative will vote for Duncan Hunter. The RINOs and Commies will not.
Unfortunately, the Establishment has thrown FDT into the fray as today’s Ross Perot. Now that he is running, he cannot hide behind anything, try as he may.
We all know where you stand, why not give it a break?
Article I, sections 4 and 5. They should be able to do it legislatively, though I can where some might not interpret the language that way.
As long as Duncan supporters tactics is to try to tear down other candidates, Duncan won't get any serious consideration.
>Yet another reason I will have to hold my nose and vote for FRed.<
And what reason is that?
....he states as Fredheads heap scorn on his opponents.....
I saw what Rastermaster posted from the networks. Excellent exposure. And I don’t think Fred is a Ross Perot. He’s in the GOP mix, and plans on winning the nomination. I have plans to derail that and get a better man nominated. :o)
Important related points here:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1891610/posts
Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter in the 104th Congress
Interesting topic and keywords Pissant.
Only one was my keyword. LOL
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.