Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
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.
Three things about Dobson’s comment.
First, it was private. That might have been an IRS thing, to distinguish him from his organization. But more likely it was a privately expressed opinion, and he hadn’t yet really made up his mind to speak out. It’s not like Dobson to leak emails. That’s not his M.O.
Second, Dobson is one of those guys who is a purist. If he makes up his mind that a defense of marriage amendment is the only way to go, then he casts out anyone who tries to seek the same ends by a different route.
Third, or to come at that second point from another direction, it’s not that Thompson supports gay marriage. He opposes a constitutional amendment for prudential reasons, because he thinks it’s not the best way to reach the goal. Maybe because he knows it won’t pass, and therefore is merely a distraction; maybe because it makes a federal issue out of what should be a state issue. But it’s clearly wrong to say that Fred MUST support passage of the amendment or else. It’s not unreasonable to argue that there are better and more workable ways to pursue the issue.
For instance, of course “marriage” is between a man and a woman. It has been in every language and culture for the past 2000 years, and thousands of years before that. What, do we have to amend the Constitution every time the leftists arbitrarily change the language? That could involve thousands of amendments. To dignify this stupidity with a constitutional amendment is to dignify the agenda-driven leftists’ manipulation of the language.
We will only escape this trap by electing or appointing honest judges, who will grant that when the Constitution or common law say “man,” for example, that means “human being” first and “male of the species” second, as it has done for thousands of years until the language was reconstructed by leftists. The same with “marriage.”
We don’t need no stinkin’ amendment. The law is already clear. We need honest judges, politicians, reporters, and school teachers, who will stop playing these manipulative language games.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
You must be extremely perceptive, since no one else seems to have noticed this!
Actually, the lobbying - such as it was - happened during the administration of the first President Bush in 1991.
There were probably quite a few groups interested in freedom of speech that found unusual common ground on the same issue, a “gag order” that went too far.
The intention was to prevent referral to or support for abortion, but it was worded to prevent any kind of counseling about abortion at all.
I was a Family Medicine resident training in San Antonio at that time and was happy that the law prevented my teachers from pressuring me to refer patients to abortionists. It also restricted abortion in the clinic and hospital.
However, we were specifically told that besides restrictions on referral and abortion itself, we couldn’t *discuss* abortion, even with patients who asked about it.
The dilemma was that patients sometimes told me that they were going to get an abortion if their pregnancy test was positive. I was restricted from describing abortion procedures or talking about the consequences, and certainly couldn’t counsel them against it.
I handled it by explaining the Federal restrictions, and changing the subject: describing the beginning of life at fertilization and the early development of the baby and where her baby was in that development, and letting them hear the baby’s heart beat if they were far enough along. However, I risked censure by my Department and whatever penalties were in place.
It’ll be interesting to see who Tony Perkins, the current Presidemt of the Family Research Counci, decides is okay to represent religious conservatives.
James Dobson is obviously in the New Gingrich camp. After Newt`s open confession to Father Dobson, he’s in like flynn. Barf!
Does anyone know how the following have come out in support of which candidates....
Jerry Falwell.... deceased, but had he made in announcements or indications.
Pat Robertson.....
James Dobson......
Here’s another one for your profile page list.
You’re a lying sack of crapola.
Have a nice day.
They are both good men who do good work. I don’t know of any two people in this world who agree on everything, do you?
It’s long, but please see my explanation in post #64
Fred is just fine by this Christian Conservative!
Idea for Dr Dobson (whom I like) why doesn`t he run for President?
IIRC, Pat Robertson is backing Rooty Toot.
Yeah, Dobson can say whatever he wants, but Bauer should shut up.
Baptist ping
This may be the only time I have ever disagreed
with The Good Doctor.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/26/fred-thompson-and-spencer-abraham-bad-combo/
Really? What about Michelle?
Does she too??
Why don’t these people just preach the Gospel and stay out of politics?!?!?
I see Hunter’s 2% of supporters have weighed in on the thread. Typical.
Those are fun, especially this one.
So you know that initially the language would have caused enough controversy to cause the first President Bush to change the wording.
And now, we know that you know.
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.