Yup. Moonbat journalists always spit when they write.
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 ...
Did George W. Bush ever say that abortion should be illegal?
George W. Bush is also pro same sex unions.
Did you vote for Bush?
Better yet what candidate for ‘08 is talking about making abortion and same-sex marriage illegal for the whole country?
Hunter has announced that he will not run for re-election; his son is going to run.
All those names on your list are very good. I forgot about Santorum...I like him a lot, he is young, photogenic etc. And Watts would be good too, especially if Obama runs. A lot of possibilities....RUN FRED RUN...
Not eloquently, but yes.
Now it's time to elect someone who can lead the full effort to a total ban.
And, no. I did not vote for Bush in the primaries. We need to do better this time around.
Is that a defense of Thompson? Sheesh.
At least two, Tancredo and Hunter, appear to be on the right side of both issues. A few of the others have it correct on marriage.
That aside, obviously anyone who cares about protecting marriage and life needs to be forceful and diligent in holding all candidates to account. An unarticulated demand will always be swept aside by politicians, particularly those who would rather talk about the virtues of bipartisanship and "reform."
With a provision that it need not be recognized by other states. That is a small federal government solution, and I think it makes a lot of sense. If you don't want gay marriages in your state, you should make that known in state elections. If you do want them, you should make that known too.
No it wasn’t in defense, I just hadn’t heard about any candidates running that were talking like that.
I personally didn’t know Hunter and Tancredo’s views on those issues.
I like Hunter and Tancredo both, but I think Tancredo sometimes go over the edge and says some things that hurt him, like what he said about Miami ect.
Hunter on the other hand is strong on a lot of things, if Thompson for some reason does not get into this race, I will vote for Hunter. Hunter needs to get his name out there better though, I would have really liked it if Hunter would have gone after Pelosi for her illegal trip to the middle east to meet with the terrorist. I wish he would have called for her to step down.
Yup. Moonbat journalists always spit when they write.
Traditional marriage was understood as so vital to our national survival that the original Republicans named it alongside slavery as one of the two purposes of the Republican party.
That understanding then shaped the destiny of a number of new states admitted to the union. They were forced to outlaw polygamy as a condition for statehood, because anything contrary to traditional marriage would be a destructive force to society.
Thank goodness the federal government ended polygamy.
Now it's time to close the Pandora's box of extending marriage or marriage-like status to homosexuals or any other non-traditional group.
As in many other instances too myriad to list, the fed gov, with the blessing of the SCOTUS, has overstepped its authority.
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.
Interesting how your first and second points are at odds. If the fed gov already has the power, why amend the constitution? it's such a long, tedious, and difficult process. Why bother with all of that when congress can just pass a law?
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.
The absence of a federal prohibition does not equal constitutional protection. You're either lying or stupid. Take your pick. If the fed gov remains silent, the states can go either way. Just like what would happen if Roe were overturned. Some states would be pro abort. Others not. We don't have a union so we can all be bossed around by Washington DC. We have a union because we're supposed to be better off by pooling together in areas of defense, commerce, and infrastructure. That's all.
Are you kidding me? Rick Santorum as a potential president? Yeah right. Watts? I don’t even know who “steele” is. I mean, granted, we’ve had dopey Veeps before, but i’d like to think the guy could handle the presidency if called upon. The guys you mention are lightweights, and hell, Santorum couldn’t even win PA. What good is he?
As I said, the federal marriage amendment would clear up ambiguity.
We already have federal legislation protecting marriage (Defense of Marriage Act), but we all know it could be overturned by a runaway Supreme Court. The Court has already set the precedent for forcing polygamy and gay marriage in Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003). It's just a matter of time.
The only other solution is to elect executives who understand the separation of powers. Such executives would refuse to carry out any unconstitutional, Massachusetts-style dictates from the court. (That excludes Mitt Romney from our consideration.) Ideally, this is the way to go. All judicial activism stems not from tyrants on the bench, but from the other branches who enable the judicial tyrants to control them.
The absence of a federal prohibition does not equal constitutional protection.
You missed the point. Fred wants constitutionally-protect state diversity on this subject through amending the Constitution. He would remove the full faith and credit clause from being applied, and clear the way for states to define marriage for themselves or grant marriage-like arrangements to homosexuals.
That's not only unnecessary, it's dangerous.
You're advocating for the dissolution of the union. A majority of Americans, including myself, have no interest in being politically-allied with Sodom or with Baal worshipers who sacrifice their children on the altar of convenience.
Note...McCain opposed it, not Fred Thompson.
From what you provided that Fred Thompson said is that states can, as many already do, have civil union laws but it shouldn’t be forced for any other state to recognize said union.
I still see nothing that Fred Thompson said on the issue that isn’t a conservative federalist position.
Your mileage may vary.
And he hasn’t even announced he’s a candidate! Only that he’s considering!
Check him out on You Tube. There are great clips of him, and he comes across so natural and down to earth. Not a phoney bone in his body, nothing scripted, everything straight from his harddrive with no mental editing or self-censorship.
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.