Posted on 01/10/2008 9:13:54 PM PST by Jay777
Thompson exposes Huckabee as the liberal he is!
(Excerpt) Read more at stoptheaclu.com ...
What has Fred left out?
“GOPyouth” wrote: “I’m curious as to what the pro-Huckabee evangelicals think about Hucakbee taking nearly $40,000 from Novo Nordisk. They are all about researching with embryonic stem cells.”
I think the same thing about that as I do about the NEA endorsement:
“When a man’s ways are pleasing to the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him” (Proverbs 16:7).
Lord, helping people by forcing others to fork over the help is not a conservative plan. And it’s not exactly compassionate. It’s not even Godly. Huckabee is on the par of Jimmy Carter.
President Reagan’s principles are timeless. And as apropos today as when I was a child. Less government is better. Ever heard of John Locke? Thomas Paine? Reagan was old, but he wasn’t that old. His principles came from the philosophies of folks several centuries ago. Maybe they were ahead of their time. Or maybe Reagan was a throwback. I’d rather think that the philosophies are as applicable today as they were 200+ years ago. Fred gets it. But what do Americans know of freedom anymore?????
Fred Thompson has a 100% pro-life voting record. In this case, his deeds may definitely mean more than his spoken word. He says that he is a federalist and believes Roe vs Wade is wrong and was wrongly decided. He believes it should be overturned and per the constitution the issue would return to the states. I believe that if Roe vs Wade is overturned, most states would re-enact their prohibitions on abortion. I don’t think Fred needs to worry about his record in this regard.
Lets see, even though unpopular, President Bush has run the war as he wanted, he's gotten two conservative SC justices confirmed, he got the tax cuts he wanted and in the last year showed that he was in charge and that the Democrat controlled congress was impotent. And you call this "getting his butt handed to him politically"?
No, we conservatives don't want someone like Huckster who can out-Clinton the Clintons. Maybe you would have better luck selling this tripe on a liberal forum.
The Social Conservatives (The Christians).
I respectfully disagree on that one.
“Mensius” wrote: “Get it. 100% pro life. 100%.”
Senator Thompson’s efforts to pass McCain-Feingold were vehemently opposed by pro-life organizations, but he blew them off. The NRLC admitted they endorsed him because of other candidates’ perceived lack of “electability” at the time.
“Mensius” wrote: “Actions speak volumes.”
So do words.
Disagree all you like. Watch the video. Fred specifically mentions two of the three legs of the Reagan Coalition.
On the federal level, as president, Fred Thompson’s only power regarding abortion would be to appoint conservative justices to the court. I think his championing of Chief Justice Roberts through the United States Senate was a pretty good example as to how he would yield that power as president.
Moderates, equally palatable to both sides of the isle are the usual champions of judges- Those known for their compromises.
Like it or not, Fred's plan to reduce the number of abortions is a helluva lot more effective than the pipe-dream plan of getting a Constitutional amendment passed.
And when I say pipe dream, I'm specifically referring to crack. It ain't happening ANYTIME soon in this country.
If you overturn Roe, which he supports, you automatically will reduce the number of abortions.
By logic, you are saying Fred Thompson would have championed Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Hardly. Darth Vader Ginsburg was appointed by a Democrat.
It is a matter of fact that moderates from both sides shepherd their respective appointees through the process. How would you expect someone from the hard right camp to have any influence over the left (and visa-versa)?
It is not in Thompson's favor that he was such, or at least not if he is supposed to be a Conservative.
The court is the route to get less abortions in this country, and the justices he supported will help get us there.
I was talking about the video in the OP of this thread. Whether intentional or not, Fred mentioned two of the three legs of the Reagan Coalition, omitting the third leg, that of the Christians. A rather awkward mistake when beating up the Christian's candidate, wouldn't you say?
Like it or not, Fred's plan to reduce the number of abortions is a helluva lot more effective than the pipe-dream plan of getting a Constitutional amendment passed.
Unlike others, I am willing to see Roe v. Wade overturned. That would be a major victory, no doubt, even though it would not stop abortion altogether. But Fred's outright opposition to the RTL Amendment did not endear him to the Christian masses.
I am against Fred on the Marriage amendment however. His solution is not workable, and I don't see how states can be protected from the marriages made in other states, nor do I admire exclusions from the reciprocity clause, which might open another can of worms.
>>>>Agreed....SO SEND FRED SOME CASH...!
Sheesh! Quit bugging me; I already sent money tonight on another thread.
Letsmake it a LIVE link, though.
Fred was pro-choice back in the day, btw. Didn't want that to go by, as your post seems to be denying that by implication.
That doesn't bother me so much as it was long ago. He still intends that abortion remain legal in the cases of rape, incest, and life-of-the-mother though, which I must oppose.
“Fred specifically mentions two of the three legs of the Reagan Coalition.”
While I disagree that Thompson doesn’t consider the evangelical pillar important, his support by the other two pillars beats Hucakbee’s support of only the evangelical pillar.
“I think his championing of Chief Justice Roberts through the United States Senate was a pretty good example as to how he would yield that power as president.
Moderates, equally palatable to both sides of the isle are the usual champions of judges- Those known for their compromises.”
Your signature and your ideolgy are in conflict. You want compromise with the left, yet you attack Rudy and Romney for blueifying the red states.
What the heck do you think “compromise” accomplishes?
Just more proof that Huckabee supporters are truly confused about what their party believes.
No it doesn't, but it is neither here nor there, as neither can win without the other, and neither is palatable to the other.
My signature is sarcastic, and I attack Rudy, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Thompson therein.
What the heck do you think “compromise” accomplishes?
Nothing whatsoever.
Just more proof that Huckabee supporters are truly confused about what their party believes.
I do not support Huckabee. I support Hunter, and I support the Reagan Coalition.
So now 2/3 is less than 1/3?
I’m sorry, but Huckabee voters are losing their minds.
I think you misunderstand what Reagan accomplished and the dynamics of his support.
The Christian Right outweighs the other two.
I’m sorry, but Huckabee voters are losing their minds.
No, they are voting their issues according to their hearts. That you would treat them so is unseemly.
So you don’t want moderate judges that look to compromise?
You are really confusing to debate with.
I would think that Hunter would want the type of judges that Thompson wants. Judges that don’t lok to penumbras and other nations laws for guidance, and judges that don’t try to write law.
I haven't misunderstood a thing. There are three pillars or legs to his coalition. "Small Government", "Strong Defense", and "Social Conservatism". Each must be satisfied with the candidate in order for there to be a win. Each candidate must stand upon all three legs. That is the Great Compromise, and beside that compromise, there should be no other.
“The Christian Right outweighs the other two.”
Again you assume that they support your candidate, which according to Hunter’s numbers is incorrect. Even taking the candidate that they have somewhat sided with, the majority of “religious” voters aren’t supporting one candidate.
“No, they are voting their issues according to their hearts. That you would treat them so is unseemly.”
Voting according to their heart is one thing. Refusing to pragmatically support the eventual winner of the GOP nimination if it isn’t Hunter or Huckabee is ludicrous.
Hell no. I don't know where you ever got that idea.
Thank you that was excellent if it wasn’t for some bully here I think Fred might be looked at differently.
Meaning because of the actions of a big bully here, it is hard to “See Fred” when being FORCED TO see Fred!
So you don’t want moderate judges that look to compromise?
“Hell no. I don’t know where you ever got that idea.”
What exactly did you mena in post #112 then?
It sounded like you wanted judicial compromise and moderate judges.
Roamer, sorry. After re-reading your post, I guess you are saying that Thompson is the moderate who is the champion of the judges.
If you think Thompson is a moderate then you haven’t been checking voting records.
I will give you that there is no candidate who matches Hunter’s voting record.
I do no suppose they support my candidate, I assume they do support Huckabee. Hunter's numbers have more to do with him being unknown than anything to do with his message.
Even taking the candidate that they have somewhat sided with, the majority of “religious” voters aren’t supporting one candidate.
True, but that majority is diffused between all the other candidates, where in Huckabee, it is nearly exclusive- Those supporting him are supporting him because he is Christian more than for any other reason.
Refusing to pragmatically support the eventual winner of the GOP nimination if it isn’t Hunter or Huckabee is ludicrous.
Well, I am not the pragmatic sort.
Huck's liberalism was exposed. He might have responded well in the debate, but he has been weakened.
“Well, I am not the pragmatic sort.”
So you must really hate politics then.
Not to anger you, but it is the take my ball and go home voters like you who give the Dems visions of sugar plumbs when they sleep.
And likewise, no offense to you, but it is your "pragmatism" that has given us a party so full of RINOs that they now unabashedly attack major planks of the party, and threaten to overthrow the Reagan legacy.
Allen has been an advisor to the Thompson campaign "almost" since the begining.
I'm not sure when he joined in, but it wouldn't be Allen.
Maybe it's Carl Rove!
This is one of the few issues that I disagree with Fred on. When Bob and Joe get married in Boston, then move to Texas and decide to get divorced, the constitutional issue will finally arrive. And when this happens in a few states, the Supreme Court will finally have to decide the issue.
I didn't forget. Did you?
Dobson used to be great. Now he's a too-big-for his britches dumbass who stuck his officious little snotlocker where it had no business being. He should have kept his yap shut with regard to politics. His defense of Bush's double-ought STOO-PID nomination of Miers was his shark-jumping.
Dobson and Huck-frigging-Finn can go get their own private island and have themselves a 24/7 cornpone-eating Kumbahyah-fest.
Whatever it taks to get them both the hell out of politics.
Nice try though...
Next....
The rumor is that tomorrow’s big endorsement for Fred will be George Allen.
It better be better than that. Allen is already supporting him so I don’t think it would be a big deal. I am thinking that only Rush or Dr. Dobson would be considered big right now.
I’ll bet the endorsement is the Club for Growth.
It won’t be them. They just had the guy from Pennsylvania (he ran for Senator but Bush backed Arlen) who is running it and he was touting Guiliani and Huckster. It did not seem to me like he would endorse him after that discussion.
We can't handle the truth. You're right. Huckabee is the clear winner here tonight. But don't tell the Thompson crowd that.
I agree with you guys. The Thompson crowd is just fired up because Fred didn't sleep through this one.
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.