Posted on 05/06/2007 9:03:40 AM PDT by jdm
NEWPORT BEACH, California (Reuters) - It could be the defining role of Fred Thompson's varied career -- the reluctant politician who saves a foundering party, restores its conservative principles and keeps it in the White House.
For Thompson, the drama is real enough, even if the final act is uncertain. The former Tennessee senator, Watergate counsel and star of films like "The Hunt for Red October," has been exploring a potential 2008 Republican presidential run and is expected to make his decision known soon.
Thompson's possible candidacy, fueled by conservative dissatisfaction with the current crop of Republican candidates, has generated intense grass-roots interest and curiosity.
Thompson, who plays a district attorney on NBC's "Law and Order," already places third among Republicans in most polls, behind former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain but ahead of eight other candidates, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I don’t have a problem with his solution- at least it avoids the dilema of reciprocity between states.
You've got it all mixed up, Gelato. The federal gubmint is supposed to be limited to only those powers delegated to it by the states and the people. The question you should be asking is what constitutional right does the fed guv have to butt in? Show me that one.
That is a liberal position. It directly opposes what marriage defenders advocate.
His solution is worse than just leaving it alone. In effect, it constitutionally-protects gay marriage and polygamy among the states.
This is a recipe for the breakdown of the American republic.
First, the federal government currently exercises jurisdiction on marriage, by prohibiting a number of states from practicing polygamy as a requirement for statehood. The Supreme Court upheld the federal role over a hundred years ago.
Secondly, the people have the power to amend the Constitution as necessary. The kind of marriage amendment supported by defenders of traditional marriage clears up any ambiguity on this subject, and defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
Fred's solution here not only turns that idea on its head, but it creates constitutional protection for gay marriage and polygamy among the states. That is not conservative.
“And Romney has moved very strongly toward the conservative base on every issue, just not quite enough on guns yet.”
Translation: Mitt the FlipFlopper has NO CORE VALUES and is willing to “move very strongly” on any issue that makes him look more conservative, whether heartfelt OR NOT.
In other words, he’s our Slick Willy.
No thank you, buster.
I’ll take an authentic one(Fred) over a fake and a poseur(Romney) any day.
Fred Thompson is a master strategist who never lost an election and who is not content with just winning. He always wins with a margin of at least 20 points of difference to ensure a broad base of support during his term. He will get into this race at the right time so you need not worry. Rescue is on the way.
How about Duncan Hunter for Nancy’s job?
AMERICA FIRST...NOT PARTY ! THIS NATION is divided...we must have a strong leader to UNIFY this nation.
The DEMOCRATS have put party over our country. Please, as a Republican, I’m begging all Republicans and Conservatives to push for UNITY for this country by supporting strong Conservative leadership to unify this nation.
Fred Thompson is the man that can bring UNITY back to this country.
WALLACE: Gay rights.
THOMPSON: Gay rights? I think that we ought to be a tolerant nation. I think we ought to be tolerant people. But we shouldn’t set up special categories for anybody.
And I’m for the rights of everybody, including gays, but not any special rights.
WALLACE: So, gay marriage? You’re against.
THOMPSON: Yes. You know, marriage is between a man and a woman, and I don’t believe judges ought to come along and change that.
WALLACE: What about civil unions?
THOMPSON: I think that that ought to be left up to the states. I personally do not think that that is a good idea, but I believe in many of these cases where there’s real dispute in the country, these things are not going to be ever resolved.
People are going to have different ideas. That’s why we have states. We ought to give great leeway to states and not have the federal government and not have the Supreme Court of the United States making social policy that’s contrary to the traditions of this country and changing that overnight. And that’s what’s happened in a lot of these areas.
I don’t see anything there that isn’t solid conservative.
Almost fear and loathing....
He may be able to rescue the Republican party, but, at this point in time, only Christ can rescue the Republic.
Quite the contrary. Thompson clearly said he favors a constitutional amendment that would enable states to define the issue. This is worse than leaving it alone. It's a liberal position, and would create a constitutional right among the states to allow gay marriage and polygamy.
He definitely is against abortion...
On abortion, Thompson has said he opposes a federal role there, too, and would have the states decide whether life in the womb is worth anything.
Pro-life activists who believe in federalism take a different view. They point out that the Constitution requires all states to protect life and establish justice for our posterity. It is unfortunate that Thompson disagrees with that and even opposes a human life amendment.
Another troublesome answer Thompson gave in the Hannity interview was that "we ought to be tolerant of various views on this thing [abortion]." And, with shades of Rudy, he said, "We ought to do everything in our policy to discourage that. It's a bad thing."
"Tolerate" various views on killing babies? "Discourage that"? No. We don't want "bad" abortions to be "rare." That's Clinton-speak. We want abortion illegal, as our Constitution requires, so our nation can survive with God's protection and overcome this internal threat.
According to his most recent interview, Fred supports a constitutional amendment that would enshrine a state prerogative on marriage in our Constitution, at the very time when we need the opposite resolution.
Do you have a transcript for it?
Dial-up doesn’t get along well with youtube.
Every time they scribble a few lines on a Republican... it's always encased in spit.
Fred can attempt to restore. Obviously, conservatives have a lot of work to do to get back to principles and elect those who are willing to further that principle and support them.
Fred may be medicine for now, but the fact that a person like Rooty can carry so much clout in the party is a wake up call.
Conservatives can no longer be fat and lazy!
THOMPSON: As far as gay rights are concerned, I looked at this New Hampshire decision by the New Hampshire state legislature, and it concerned me when they passed a bill. Number one, this wasn't some renegade judge, this was a state legislature and they made a decision to support civil unions. I look at it, and it seems like it's really a marriage bill that gives you all the rights of marriage.
I believe in federalism. I believe, generally speaking, that the federal government ought to concentrate on the enumerated powers and do the things it's supposed to be doing, as it's not doing, as we were just talking about, in many cases, and leave other things to the states. Places of innovation and competition, welfare reform, came out of that exercise. But on something like this, you've got something called full faith and credit. I think what is going to happen now is that people are going to take these state laws and go to other places that doesn't have these state laws and strongly oppose them and say, “We deserve full faith and credit.” There’s an exception to that, the lawyers will tell you, except it’s contrary to a home state’s public policy, you know, they can get around it. I think federal judges probably are going to start saying, “No, the Fourteenth Amendment requires you that you to give them full faith and credit,” and you're going to have that situation going on around the country.
Therefore, I think that it's an appropriate subject for a constitutional amendment, but one that calls for leaving it up to the states to make these decisions themselves, but not giving full faith and credit. If you don't have it in your state, nobody else can impose it on you. It seems to me like that that’s a fair solution.
It's as close to gay marriage as you could possibly get. You may be interested that John McCain has similarly rationalized the New Hampshire bill under the same "federalist" argument as Thompson:
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.