[2ndDivisionVet]

Hahaha! Ignore the polls and just write any rumor or criticism that you see. If Fred were going any faster, he'd already be the nominee and only running against Hillary.

[norwaypinesavage]

Slow Start? What planet are these guys from?

[festus]

Its Newsweek. If they EVER publish a positive article about any GOP member other than McCain let me know..... ;-)

[billorites]

Good heavens!

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.

[FreedomPoster]

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.

[counterpunch]

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?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

They don't call it Newsweak for nothing.

[nonliberalyouth]

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.

[LibFreeOrDie]

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.

Who appointed Weyrich and his Arlington Group the kingmakers? Conservative "leaders" shouldn't be so eager to diss conservative candidates to the liberal press.

[maine-iac7]

Creative journalism at it's best - they conveniently left out that Fred is for the Federal gov't to keep it's nose out of STATE'S RIGHTS = aka FEDERALISM/FREDERALISM -

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

[chaos_5]

instead backing a broader amendment that would bar states from imposing their laws on other states

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!".

[davidlachnicht]

ditto! < Click Me, Get Stuff!

[FastCoyote]

Newsweak - That’s where I get all my information from.