Posted on 09/15/2007 5:46:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
For months, social conservatives have viewed Fred Thompson as a Reaganesque savior in a dreary field of GOP presidential hopefuls. But the former Tennessee senator's early days on the campaign trail have left some prominent evangelicals underwhelmed. "I'm personally not that impressed," says Paul Weyrich, a veteran strategist who cofounded the Moral Majority.
One sticking point: Thompson's stance on a same-sex marriage ban. On the trail, he has declined to endorse a constitutional amendment blocking gay marriage, instead backing a broader amendment that would bar states from imposing their laws on other states. "The [marriage ban] approach has been tried in Congress, but can't even get a majority," Thompson told the Christian Broadcasting Network. That's not good enough for some on the right, and it has cost Thompson, at least for now, endorsements from members of the Arlington Group, an influential coalition of the nation's top conservative leaders. "It's a deal breaker," Weyrich told NEWSWEEK. A second Arlington member, who didn't want to be identified discussing private conversation, confirmed the hesitation. "Nobody wants to make a rash decision," the member says.
But it's not just policy that has people worried. Some on the right question whether Thompson is ready for prime time after a series of stumbles on the trail. In Florida, he seemed unprepared for questions about Terri Schiavo, the brain-dead woman at the center of the heated 2005 right-to-die case. "That's going back in history," he said. "I can't remember the details of it." His poll numbers are still strong—the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll had him running six points behind Rudy Giuliani—but if he expects to get any closer, his memory isn't the only thing that will need to improve.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Slow Start? What planet are these guys from?
Its Newsweek. If they EVER publish a positive article about any GOP member other than McCain let me know..... ;-)
I wish Fred Thompson would demonstrate maybe half the enthusiasm and excitement about his own candidacy that folk here on FR do.
I'm his ideological soul-mate, more or less, but jeez I'm so far underwhelmed.
“Slow Start? What planet are these guys from?”
Nothing more than a poor attempt to redirect from the Hillary debacle.
Why am I a “social conservative”, when what I care about is an electable candidate who has a good 2A record and position?
These guys are idiots. Fred is in the lead after a week of campaigning, after declaring. If that’s a “Slow Start”, I’ll take some more.
The President plays absolutely no role in the Constitutional Amendment process.
So why do these mental wizards care what Thompson’s view is on a given pie-in-the-sky amendment that will never be ratified?
“I’m so far underwhelmed”
Anyone in the field above 2% in the polls that is overwhelming you?
I thought one poll still had him behind Guiliani by quite a bit....ABC or something?
Still, I recall another poll with him ahead and in first place.
Click on the link “Fred Thompson” and read the threads if you want a different picture of Fred and his “enthusiasm” about his candidacy. Then click this: https://www.fred08.com/contribute.aspx?RefererID=c637caaa-315c-4b4c-9967-08d864cd0791
Thanks!!
Yeah, busting onto the scene as the front-runner in the polls following your announcement is such a slow start. Thompson should just withdrawal now. The again this is “News”week. This sort of idiocy is be expected.
Who appointed Weyrich and his Arlington Group the kingmakers? Conservative "leaders" shouldn't be so eager to diss conservative candidates to the liberal press.
norwaypinesavage wrote: “Slow Start? What planet are these guys from?”
Planet “Liberal”
The issue belongs to each state to decide and the "backing a broader amendment that would bar states from imposing their laws on other states." - meaning that if a state allows gay marriage, and another doesn't = gay ' marriages' from one state cannot be imposed as legal in one that does not.That's a whole different thing than this cr*p piece trying to imply he's not against same sex marriage.
He's for returning our rights to us in our own states, folks. He's for us being able to have a say in our states, not for the Federal Gov't deciding for us. Have we become so used to and dependent on the Federal Gov't (unlawfully) nullifying our States Rights that we can't see the Forest for the trees?
Read news stories not only between the lines, but for the lines left out.
States Rights mean not cherry picking which laws we want to decide for ourselves and which we want Big Daddy Washington to decide for us = it means we take the RIGHT and the RESPONSIBILITY for making our own state laws...The question is, are we grown up enough to do it? Do we really want our Constitutional Freedoms back? This may be our one last shot
Guess not, just more fun to trash and b!tch eh?
Sadly, no.
I'd love to be seduced too. And I'm pretty easy.
From where I sit here in New Hampshire nobody sets my heart a twitter.
Personally, I think this is a much better idea. I don not support gay marriage, not at all, I don't even like civil unions. With that said, I don't think the Constitution should ban it. I think Fred is right on the money with this idea. Those weirdo states that want to have gay marriage, let them have it, but don't bring it to a state that says "hell no!".
I also disagree about the federal marriage amendment issue - we need a standard national policy on such nonsense as the existence of "marriage" between anyone other than a man and a woman that is not vulnerable to activist liberal judges. A state-protective amendment may work for those states that don't want it, but leaving policy on the federal level open will eventually result in tax policy and other govenmental give-aways that favor homosexual relationships. If I read it correctly, an FMA would do the same thing as DOMA, protecting the separate rights "reserved for the states" and allow those that want it to nail their own coffins, but would also vaccinate the government at the national level from ever granting such rights to unnatural couples.
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.