Evangelicals turn on Thompson

Politico ^ | September 26, 2007 | Jonathan Martin

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Thompson's refusal to back a nationwide ban on gay marriage has irritated potential supporters.

Fred Thompson is failing to meet expectations that he would rally widespread support from Christian conservatives, and he almost certainly will not receive a joint endorsement from the loose coalition of "pro-family" organizations, according to leaders of the movement.

Many religious conservatives, faced with a Republican primary top tier that lacked a true kindred spirit, initially looked to Thompson as a savior. But the former Tennessee senator has disappointed or just not sufficiently impressed the faith community since his formal campaign launch earlier this month.

While Christian conservatives once seemed willing to readily give Thompson the benefit of the doubt earlier this summer, when questions were raised about his lobbying for a pro-abortion-rights group, they are not willing to turn the other cheek anymore.

Even some on the religious right who remain sympathetic to Thompson are unhappy about his refusal to back a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and were unpleasantly surprised by his confession that he doesn’t belong to or attend any church and won’t talk about his faith.

It was Thompson’s refusal to discuss his faith that is likely to deny him any unified backing from the organizations that comprise the Arlington Group, the umbrella coalition of almost every major social conservative group in the GOP constellation.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Think you may have missed my main point.

You didn't write the Constitution...

---

That is our BOR is not to restrict we the people.

That isn't in Article V... READ IT...

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...

[puroresu]

I appreciate your willingness to discuss without rancor. I probably have more to say, but not tonight. I’m tired! :-)

Have a good evening!

[FastCoyote]

This is a pretty weak article, as was the Dobson hit. Who are evangelicals looking to instead of Thompson?

Giulani? That’s a laugh.
Insane McCane? Not a chance.
Romney? Who believes he’s on the path to becoming God? That’s real Christian.
Nutty Ron Paul? Not likely.
And as great as Duncan Hunter is, he has zero traction.

So this is just another tacky hit piece.

[dixiechick2000]

"How many liberals want to prevent queers from marrying?"

In Oregon's case...plenty.

In 2004, the gays put most of their resources into Oregon because it was their best hope to defeat a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. It was polling within the margin of error shortly before the election. However, those who voted for the ban came in at 57%, the lowest percentage of all eleven states where such a ban was on the ballot..

There must have been quite a few libs lying to the pollsters.

[Eric Blair 2084]

[puroresu]

No, judicial activism restricts the people. Properly ratified amendments are expressions of the people’s will.

[roamer_1]

so the only danger would be if they stay home en masse

08, meet 06. We forget so soon...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Pay attention... READ the freakin' thing!

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...

which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution

[sruleoflaw]

It’s impossible to win the Presidency with the positions advocated by the religious right.

WRONG: Please don’t tell that to Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. I don’t know how they won then.

[sruleoflaw]

It’s impossible to win the Presidency with the positions advocated by the religious right.

WRONG: Please don’t tell that to Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. I don’t know how they won then.

[pissant]

I guess I was referring to the politicians. the rank and file democrats are not nearly as leftist as the pelosi’s of the world.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Yep, I'm votin' for Fred...

[SoConPubbie]

OK, I googled it like you suggested, and all I could find was one unsupported(No News Accounts at all) statement by Terry Jeffrey of Human Events and your reference to Chuck Baldwin is just another reference back to Terry Jeffrey. BTW, Chuck Baldwin appears to be in the tank for Ron Paul and is a terrible writer. Lots of innuendo and opinion, without much supporting evidence.

Not much proof of lobbying against the pro-life plank if you ask me.

With regards to running as a pro-choice candidate, I googled that as well and there is no proof or evidence of Thompson or his campaign stating anything that could be construed as pro-choice in either of his Senate campaigns. None. He did state in a debate in his first campaign that he felt the Federal government should not be involved in the abortion issue in any fashion and that the decision should be left to the states and ultimately the woman, but that he felt that Americans would come to the right decision (implying anti-abortion) if left to make the decision on their own ( and of course I am paraphrasing). This approach is basically the approach he took in 1994 and 1996. After that there is no reference at all that I could find where Fred restates this same position.

His votes and his statements from that time forward show him as ever increasing in his Pro-Life position as evidenced by the following:

His statement that Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007)
His statement that he would Appoint strict constructionist judges. (Jun 2007)
His statement that he Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)


"That, and his core sponsorship of CFR legislation, would explain why, as far as I know, no pro-life groups have endorsed him."

With respect to that statement it is all conjecture because I don't believe the big Pro-Life organizations have come out and endorsed anyone. I know the National Right To Life committee has not and they endorsed Thompson in both of his Senate campaigns.

He has also come out strongly against Fetal Stem Cell-research. Which is a very good indicator of his Pro-Life position.

With respect to the CFR legislation he said earlier this year in an interview with the Wall Street Journal “we shouldn’t just take off the limits and have the full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything.”




Overall Spiff your position seems very biased and not very objective. Correct me if I am wrong, but you come across as someone who is willing to denigrate another candidate without much proof if you view him as a threat to your candidate, Duncan Hunter.

Duncan is my first choice on the issues. He appears to be spot-on from a conservative perspective, however, he does not have a chance to win the Primaries. He needs more exposure. In a perfect world, he should be the Republican Presidential nominee.

Thompson, is about 90% correct on the issues and he is electable. He would make a great President and would be much better on the Border and on the Fiscal issues than GWB has been.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>The President has the power of the bully pulpit, as I said previously. He can sway public opinion. Go, Mitt!!

The Bully Pulpit has nothing to do with Constitutional amendments. And Mitt isn't gonna be elected prez anyway.

A little history. In 1983 a Reagan style Human Rights amendment was voted down in the Senate. That was the closet we pro-lifers have ever come to getting the ball rolling on a right to life amendment to the Constitution. Even if the Congress voted for an amendment, it would years to get passed into law. We've only had 17 amendments in 220 years. The odds are against any amendment becoming law.

Fred Thompson believes that reversing Roe v Wade and ending abortion on demand as the national policy of the federal govt, and returning it to the purview of the states, will allow the people to have direct control over the abortion issue. Thereby significantly reducing the number of abortions performed. Right now, we the people have no control over the abortion issue. An activist liberal court took that right away in 1973.

[Doofer]

Direct your mouse to the banner below and donate!

[roamer_1]

90% of the evangelical right will vote for Fred Thompson because he is vastly better on the social issues than any democrat candidate.

Even using your estimate (which I find to be high), leaving 10% of 40m voters home is a 4m vote hit... You are O.K with that?

[Petronski]

Lots of innuendo and opinion, without much supporting evidence.

Just like this entire anti-Fred thread.

[Reagan Man]

Nice summary, except for one thing. Spiff is supporting Mitt Romney, not Duncan Hunter.

[dixiechick2000]

You’re right...the rank and file ‘Rats aren’t as leftist as the politicians.
But, they have to deal with their constituencies.

If they want to let gays marry, they will most likely pay the consequences.

[George W. Bush]

What would really be refreshing would be to see a candidate (or a president) who lives out their faith (the principles of their faith) in daily practice, day-after-day, week-after-week, year-after-year.

Are you nuts? It would scare the crap out of the entire population.