Posted on 09/26/2007 5:49:53 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Fred's position on Roe v. Wade now is to see it overturned. Don't you think that's a good thing?
I do.
That much is obvious...
My mistake, that makes even more glaring given Mitt Romney’s record.
No, I doubt that any of the above will turn out the base, as I have said for some time.
BTW, Hillary is quite capable of running to the right of Fred. Not saying Fred is Liberal, but Bubba ran way to the right in his campaign, and so will his old lady. What will couter such a move to the right is a candidate who is so far right that he need not move at all, and has a record to back up his promises.
THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT TRUST. Lets back the candidate who is the most trustworthy, and has a record to prove it. Then you'll have a winner.
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;...
I don’t find it refreshing at all, we are living in a very politically correct world. It seems most of our people in Government don’t want to talk about that topic. How can it be refreshing that Fred just joined the PC crowd? Things have gone too far left. Personally, I want someone who is willing to get into the left’s face. As far as Hillary goes, ignore what she says about her church, she is an obvious fraud, she has sinister plans up her sleave and she will do and say whatever.
Let me take a wild guess...you were a “Dungeons and Dragons” guy 25 years ago. Be honest.
“Thompson’s pat answer for everything seems to be “Leave it to the states”. Perhaps he’s against a pro life Constitutional amendment, too - I mean if he’s consistent.”
It is time to be “consistent” on possibilities, Saundra.
Do you realize how hard/difficult it is to add an amendment to our Constitution ? I think that Fred, knowing how almost impossible this task would be, is not in favor of initiating this. Trying to get two thirds of the states to ratify this is or would be very difficult. However, if two thirds of the states ratified the
proposal that a legal marriage is only between a man and a woman, he would be for it in a heartbeat.
I just read what Jeffrey said. He's wrong! I posted to you that Fred received the endorsement of the National Right to Life group in both 1994 and 1996. His 100% pro-life voting record got him a 0% rating from NARAL.
What you're attempting to do with these pot shots at Fred, is to any raise doubt in the minds of Fred`s supporters. No matter how small. That is petty and cheap.
No, he is not wrong. Do you want me to show the proof, yet again?
Many will "write in" (as will I) or will stay home.
You are either purposely or not purposely, missing the point. Have a good night.
Post whatever you like, creep!
That's the raison d'etre of the whole thread. Smear and lie, spread rumors and innuendos, talk about how "it's been reported" and "I'm trying to find proof."
It's extremely sleazy.
LOL. That’s an intelligent response. Must come out of frustration supporting a guy who is gonna tank.
“Francis. For the third time now, “nobody here is arguing against Article V, that anything — ANYTHING — can be added to the constitution given that the correct procedures are followed”.
You are either purposely or not purposely, missing the point. Have a good night.”
Free , I think it’s his “big-font” head — the letters and all...
So you believe Hillary will run on a pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-war, pro-states rights, pro tax-cut platform?
LOL!
Fred has an ACU of 86 and Duncan, who I assume you support has a 92. Not much difference. And Duncan has virtually no chance of the nomination.
Its going to be Rudy or Fred, get over it. You will be voting for Fred in the general election.
Speaking of extremely sleazy, look who just showed up!
You don't have one...
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.