Posted on 09/24/2007 7:00:11 AM PDT by Doofer
WASHINGTON – A well-known evangelical leader opposed Dr. James Dobson’s criticism of presidential hopeful Fred Thompson, pointing out the candidate’s conservative views and his potential to win the ’08 election.
“He (Thompson)’s obviously against same-sex marriage. He doesn’t support quite the same constitutional amendment that some of the others of us do, but he’s been talking with us about it, and has been moving closer and closer on the amendment,” said Bauer, who is president of American Values, according to OneNewsNow.
“So I hope that we can, as a movement, be very wise about this, and not savage candidates that we may very well have to support in 2008 if they’re running against Hillary Clinton.”
Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Colo.-based Focus on the Family, wrote in a private e-mail last week to friends and supporters that he will not support Thompson for president because he is too weak on key issues that concern the Christian right.
In particular, he criticized Thompson for not supporting a constitutional amendment that would prohibit gay “marriage” on a national scale.
Thompson, an actor and former senator, is against same-sex “marriage” but favors a softer stance, calling for each state to decide their own legal definition of marriage and forbidding states from imposing their marriage laws on other states.
“Isn’t Thompson the candidate who is opposed to the constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won’t talk at all about what he believes and can’t speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?” Dobson wrote, according to The Associated Press.
The prominent Christian conservative also blasted Thompson for his seeming lack of commitment to Christianity, highlighting the candidate’s rare expression of faith and for not attending church regularly.
“He (Thompson) has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent ‘want to.’ And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians?” wrote Dobson.
“Not for me, my brothers. Not for me.”
Bauer, however, defended Thompson as an evangelical favorite and predicted that he can still win the Christian support if he confirms his conservative stance, performs well in debates, and demonstrates ability to raise campaign funds.
“I think the one thing that almost every conservative Christian agrees about is that we cannot allow Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States,” concluded Bauer.
According to the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll, the race for the 2008 GOP nomination is highly fluid, with Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, and Fred Thompson virtually tied at 24 and 19 percent, respectively. Not far behind at 15 percent is Sen. John McCain of Arizona while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has 7 percent.
In contrast, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has a clear, across-the-board lead in the Democratic race over Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois by 34 percent to 20 percent, roughly the margin she has enjoyed for months.
Hmmm... I’ve never read anywhere in the bible where it says that God’s children should not be involved in politics. Might instead we be accountable for the nation in which we live?
I think that was my point, thanks for noticing...
I’ve hinted at this before, but I guess I’ll say it directly now.
I support Hunter too but I don’t think it’s very productive for anyone to go around trashing the other candidates. (Except for Guiliani, Paul, and maybe Romney, I don’t know him well enough to know if he deserves the flack he gets, but the first two richly deserve their criticisms).
The others in the race are a perfectly acceptable alterantive to Hunter; if one goes around trashing the others, then it’s just needlessly burning a bridge, IMO.
Hypothetical: What are “you” (the general “you” not anyone specifically) going to do when “YFC” (your favorite candidate) does not get the nomination? Are you going to sit on your hands and be one of those 3rd party candiate pouters and not vote to keep the Beast out of office?
Probably not. You will hold your nose and vote. However, emotionally investing oneself in one candidate over another reduces your effective ability to convince others to do the same, when the need arises. And it will arise for some people, because obviously, only “one” can get the nod.
So going to other theads that are pro - YFHC (your favorite hated candidate) and wasting energy (AND bumping the thread!) trashing YFHC, you’re doing just that: Wasting energy you could be expending PROMOTING YFC, and making enemies in the process.
A loose-loose the way I see it.
There's a great quote!
I see Hunter’s 2% of supporters have weighed in on the thread.
derisive? It's entirely accurate as it reflects Hunter's on-going poll numbers and the fact his ahem, "supporters" posted their standard anti-Fred fare here.
But no matter, you are understandably touchy.
BTW, regarding "Hunter folk"....LOL!!
Maybe they are.
That was very well put.
How about getting the government out of marriage altogether? Why does the state have any jurisdiction over family relationships in the first place?
I don’t worry about DH’s numbers. The Lord will put who He wants in office. I pray it’s done by Grace and not by who we deserve though.
Because a marriage contract is a legal contract that not only affects the family unit, but also taxes, living trusts and wills, property ownership, etc.
I used to like what I heard George W Bush said too; only problem is that I never heard him talk about "open borders" prior to his election. I never knew he wanted to open our borders and allow wholesale subversion of our Laws and National Sovereignty.
I want to know, clearly and unequivocally, what Fred's Platform is before I will offer him my vote (much less my financial support)...
Thanks,
I can say Amen to that!
Therefore, this is just another media attack on fred.....and nothing less.....duh!"
ditto
It is apparent that the 3 or 4 hours total of actual lobbying took place before the wording was changed to allow open doctor-patient communication.
The DP is seriously thinking of cancelling his membership over this.
No, they are not. I think I speak for many of my fellows when I suggest that there are only two candidates that are worthy, those being Hunter and Tancredo.
if one goes around trashing the others [...]
Pot, kettle, black. To suggest that any faction here is above talking smack implies one's own bias. The only two factions that seem to be largely in agreement are the Hunter and Tancredo camps.
Probably not. You will hold your nose and vote.
'08, meet '06...
emotionally investing oneself in one candidate
This comes up often, and I take particular offense to it's condescending nature. It suggests an illogical view, that there is no real reason to be supporting Hunter, that I and others are just a bunch of hand-wringers. The reason I support Hunter has little to do with emotion. It has everything to do with principle.
To compromise those principles leads to destruction, and is largely the reason we are in the trouble we are in today.
You will hold your nose and vote.
I will not vote for any of the so called "top tier" candidates, period.
What needs to be understood is that the various factions here are a rough example of what will happen in the election. The vast majority of voters will not even begin to look at the candidates until a month or so before election time. The same issues that we argue incessantly over will be presented to joe-voter without the benefit of debate or asterisk.
All the MSM has to do is mention that Fred has lobbied for pro-choice and and (im)properly spin his defense of his actions and... viola! Instantly, a full quarter of the right-wing base will be done with Fred. The same can be done with Immigration and Border, and with McCain-Feingold.
The same problem exists with Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Huckabee, though maybe not on the same issues.
If for no other reason, we must offer up a candidate as spotless and true to conservative principles as possible to avoid such pitfalls, or risk suffering defeat.
I suppose that the billing entry on 5/29/02 could be for work Thompson did regarding the "gag order" for the doctors. That is a long time after the wording was changed to billing date but lingering matters happen.
I'm sure from the perspective of the abortion activists, the gag order was still in effect for non-doctors. Thompson was working for the abortionist well into August 1992. Let's not pretend that deSarno loved Fred's company so much that she paid $250 an hour just to engage him in idle chit-chat.
Thompson could clear up the matter.
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.