Posted on 11/04/2007 9:16:50 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It hasn't been since the "social conservatives" laid claim to the sole right to define "conservative".
Welcome to Laura's Home on the Web
Thank You Thank you for participating in our Laura Ingraham poll. We appreciate your response! Please note that this poll is not scientific. Only one vote per poll per visitor is accepted. Click Here to View The Previous Laura Ingraham Poll Results or visit the entire Poll Archives Q: Who is best suited in the GOP to take on Hillary on the issue of immigration? Answer Percent Fred 34% Tancredo/Hunter/or Paul 23% Rudy 15% Mitt 15% Huckabee 13%
Republican Presidential hopeful, former Tennessee Sen., Fred Thompson, center, listens as he is introduced at a Politics and Eggs breakfast meeting with area business leaders in Bedford, N.H., Monday, Nov. 5, 2007.(AP Photo/Jim Cole)
FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
“Ironically his soothing persona seemed to lull Russert somewhat who wasn’t in his more confrontational mode with Thompson “
Interesting that it should be put this way. This is precisely one of the reasons I think Fred would be just what the doctor ordered for this country right now.
The armed citizens of that state.
Proof of the saying, “Perfect is the enemy of good.”
Reagan verbally supported the rights of the unborn. But I don’t see that he pushed anything legislatively or constitutionally to make a change. Fred has a method, based in federalism, to move forward. He also is poised to nominate judges that can reverse Roe V Wade and put the issues back at the state level where they belong. If you choose the vote against progress in hopes of perfection, you will, by your inaction, be responsible for the damage that a Hillary Clinton can and will do.
I hope you can live with that.
The states all held these rights prior to Roe-v-Wade.
The constitution says nothing about abortion. The powers are not specifically granted to the federal government ergo they are reserved to the states.
In fact what Fred is saying with his federalist answer is he thinks we should roll things back to where they were before Roe.
And at the end of the day that is what we want.
The problem is the courts are ignoring the constitution entirely, not that we simply disagree with which way they are inventing eminating pneumbras.
Have some faith in the voters of each state. Thats what the founders did.
Even in CA when the voters get to vote they don’t do too bad. Its the liberal courts that ignore the constitution that cause the problems.
I guess that Bill of Rights thing has now been entirely excised, eh?
I'm amazed at how many today can't discern the difference between putting the federal government back within the powers which are enumerated in the Constitution, ie true federalism, and the fundamental job of government: the protection and guarantee of the God-given and unlienable rights to life and liberty.
Two reasons I think Fred Thompson's federalism is phony:
1) Federalism does not mean that unalienable rights are alienable.
2) I don't see Fred calling for the dismantlement of any of the parts of the current federal behemoth which are not among the Enumerated Powers. Not even the Department of Education. Not even the National Endowment for the Arts. Etc.
The only way you can believe that is:
1) If you agree with Justice Blackmun, the author of Roe, that unborn children are not persons.
and,
2) That the word "posterity" has some other meaning than its dictionary meaning.
If Hillary Clinton gets elected, it won’t be because of me.
Compromisers have no legitimate grounds to blame those who refuse to compromise our most fundamental rights for the results of their own compromises.
Do you truly believe that it is a healthy thing for the future of the GOP to cut the heart out of the Reagan platform, as Thompson, Romney, Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani and Paul want to do?
Out of curiosity who do you support the most at this stage of the primaries ?
You either didn't read my post or you didn't understand it. Either way, not much I can do about it. If you think a vote for Hillary is the same as a vote for any of the great unwashed you mentioned, you are beyond trying to reason with. Me, I'll pick a guy who can make progress over one who will take away any hope of progress.
I hope you enjoy Nirvanna when you find it.
Your tactic of trying to put words in people’s mouths is an old one, and it’s pretty tired.
Again, I’ll ask: Do you think it’s healthy for the future of the GOP to cut the heart out of the Reagan platform?
Fred will come out on top.
I did no such thing. I did not attribute any words to you. I only pointed out the consequences of your decision.
Again, I’ll ask: Do you think it’s healthy for the future of the GOP to cut the heart out of the Reagan platform?
I don't really care what is healthy for the GOP. I care about what is healthy for the county. Reagan was an advocate of smaller federal government, strong national defense, and lower taxes. And yes, he was prolife. Thompson is clearly all of these. I think Reagan would approve of Thompson's approach on abortion. I think some of you guys not only want a result, but you want to be told your way to get it (amending the Constitution) is the best. The liars may tell you they are going to do that, but they can't. They can pay lip service to your position, then say something else to another group. Thompson's idea will eliminate the "right" to an abortion. That's the first step in any activity that results in progress on this issue. Beyond that, there are a lot of hearts and minds that need to be changed. Your tantrums do nothing to change them.
Finally, the President cannot change the Constitution. I assume people know that, but when I read positions like yours, it isn't clear what they expect the President to do, only what they expect him to believe. The biggest contribution he can make is the appointment of Supreme Court Justices who take a small government, original intent approach to interpreting the Constitution. Ultimately, that is the only way abortion laws will get changed. I am convinced that Thompson can and will do that. I see nothing to make me think otherwise.
There is nothing “federalist” about abrogating the God-given rights to life and liberty
I agree. I have been seriously concerned about Fred but listening to FRiends I have at least considered him but after the last couple days I just don’t believe I could vote for him for sure in the primary and in the general...maybe holding my nose but I am not even sure of that. If Duncan Hunter went third party, that would seriously be a tough decisison. Hopefully all this is moot and Duncan pulls this thing out. I truly believe that he can. Funny how FREEPERS listen to polls only went it is convenient.
” Two reasons I think Fred Thompson’s federalism is phony:
1) Federalism does not mean that unalienable rights are alienable.
2) I don’t see Fred calling for the dismantlement of any of the parts of the current federal behemoth which are not among the Enumerated Powers. Not even the Department of Education. Not even the National Endowment for the Arts. Etc.”
Duncan Hunter is.
Welcome to Free Republic. You are clearly a patriot! You support for Duncan Hunter is admirable!!!!
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.