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 ...
Fix'd
I see what you did there! XD
Well, can you post it for me again. I have not seen it and would like to see the proof.
Once again, I could not find any support for your assertion by googling.
Thanks.
Fred is not pro-choice and never has been, that is simply a lie that has been disproven over and over again on FR.
The NRA loves Fred and hates Hillary, so Fred easily gets all the gun vote.
Tax cuts WILL be important, count on it!
Hillary may haul out the bible, but no one that isn’t already in her camp will buy it and the Religious Right will still vote for Fred over the beast...en masse.
Just because Lindsay Graham got hammered because of his Shamesty support doesn’t render the ACU rating meaningless. Ducan has a 92, that is damn good and it is not lessened because Graham got near that but wussed out on Shamnesty......no logic there at all.
Fred was wrong on CFR...oh well....I guess then I better support someone who hasn’t got a chance and then sit out the election when Fred gets the nod so Hillary can march right in.......yah great logic there for a conservative...LOL!
“So you believe Hillary will run on a pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-war, pro-states rights, pro tax-cut platform?”
Yes, she will! If you will remember, Bill did just that. Do you remember “abortions, legal but rare”?
How about the middle class tax cuts? Of course he discovered after working harder than ever before in his life that we couldn’t do that.
Clinton was real eager to prove himself worthy of using the military, remember him claiming to call out the Arkansas National Guard as evidence of his military prowess?
So yes, Hillary will do the same thing. It won’t convince anyone here she is conservative but it sure will convince many in middle America that she is and the main stream media will assist anyway they can.
That is why we need a bona fide conservative running and not the “I’m a conservative because I am running for president” types. All four of the leaders in the polls right now fall into that camp. THe Clinton machine will make mincemeat of them.
There is one real conservative running that would give them fits, but he can’t win because the weak kneed among us are too scared to do something bold and daring. They would rather play it safe. Unfortunately, dull and safe may get the nomination but will lose the big one.
Unfortunately, dull and safe may get the nomination but will lose the big one.
***Bob Dull was the Safe bet at the time
There you go again with your misleading smears.
You have no knowledge of the legal background preceding and proceeding from Roe.
Before Roe, the states banned abortion.
After Roe, the states were forced via the federal judiciary to allow abortion.
There was never a Constitutional protection of the unborn. In early America, one out of every four children was expected to die in childbirth. One of every ten mothers was expected to die in childbirth. Abortion was first devised as a medical procedure to extract the unborn to save the mother, the child or both if possible.
Since Roe, the abortion procedure has been used to avert responsibility and to control population. It is mostly used to avoid economic hardship.
But prior to Roe, the states banned it and it was never a federal issue.
So if it was never a federal issue prior to Roe, why should it be a federal issue now? Under what amendment of the Constitution should abortion be banned? And what of mothers who have pregnancies that affect their life or the life of their unborn child? What procedures will be written in federal statutes to determine when and if an abortion is permitted? What tests must be performed? What assessments made?
To have the federal government involved in this decision making requires a new amendment. And it is an unnecessary amendment because it involves decisions and details that will be between a doctor and patient.
Should the federal government regulate doctors that are licensed to perform abortions? Who licenses such doctors? Presently it is the states, should that licensing authority be taken from them and given over to the federal government?
You should be able to see that the federal government should keep out of this issue. People that are opposed to abortion on demand will be sucessful at the state and local levels. They need not expand the federal government to reach their goals. What they do need is for the federal judiciary to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Exactly, the stupid party never seems to learn. Keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. Here is the pecking order in these liberal NE and Western states...
Politicians
Unions
Environmentalists
Liberal Media
Homosexuals
Illegal Immigrants
Criminals
Terrorists
IV Drug Users
Mentally Retarded
Transvestites
Military
Private Property Owners
Unborn Children
Gun Owners
Smokers
Taxpayers
Are you a Constitutional scholar? A Constitutional lawyer or jurist?
Do you know the history of the reciprocity clause? Do you know its context? Do you know how its application has been overextended?
How about the Uniformity clause? The Commerce clause?
Do you think the 14th amendment applies to abortion?
The point is that alot of federal law has been stretched to apply to situations that it was never intended to be applied to.
And what is the legal foundation that enables a return to original intent?
Federalism.
Go ask FDT your question. I should be nice but I’m not so I will say that I believe he will cut you to shreds over Constitutional history and application, but he will do it in a way that will be gentlemenly, leaving you inspired and in awe at having been dressed down.
But do write your question on his website. I believe you will get your answer.
Did I say there WAS a constitutional protection of the unborn, you dolt? I’m saying there SHOULD most certainly be. Is the fetus a human life? That is the ONLY question that matters. For if it is, the constitution should provide full protection of that life, just as it does for those who have passed through the birth canal.
Will do. Stay tuned, I have to dig it up again.
BREAKING NEWS 09/26/07
“LONG BEACH, Calif. - Republican Mitt Romney, who once said donating to his presidential campaign would be a nightmare, told an audience Wednesday that the millions he is pouring into the race keep him free of special interests.
The former Massachusetts governor made the pronouncement amid a five-day California swing that includes 11 fundraisers. Romney also said he would likely contribute more to his campaign before the fundraising quarter ends Monday, although he declined to say how much.”
“To date, the venture capitalist has contributed $9 million to his campaign, nearly a quarter of his overall contributions.
“I don’t like the fact that money has such an impact on politics, but this to me is a reason I’m investing at least as much as everybody else — probably a little more,” Romney told about 200 people in an airport hangar.”
“Meanwhile, a new CNN/WMUR-TV poll in the early voting state of New Hampshire showed that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has pulled into a statistical dead heat with Romney, with Romney garnering 23 percent of the vote and Giuliani 22 percent. In July, Romney had a clear lead, 33 percent to Giuliani’s 18 percent.”
“One questioner asked Romney what he thought about his father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, saying in 1968 that he had dropped his support for the Vietnam War despite being subjected to “a brainwashing” by U.S. generals during a tour of Southeast Asia. The elder Romney suffered amid misguided questions about his mental health.
Mitt Romney said: “He didn’t mean, literally, `brainwashed.’ It was a metaphor, an expression, to suggest we weren’t told the truth. ...He said to me, `In politics, being right too early is always a mistake.’ But he didn’t care. He was right too early.”
I know that William Bryan (d. 1925), who was a three-time Democratic candidate, and Wilson’s SoS for a time, was a progressive, and he believed in a graduated income tax (which I don’t), but I sure love to read about his life. It is because he was a very open Christian who was never afraid to voice his faith. He lived it out more fully than any other man in the political arena, at least more than any other I can find.
I am a free enterprise man, and would line up with Fred Thompson on federalism. I am not a Bryan progressive by any means. But I believe that our nation could make a lot of mistakes in the economic sphere and survive. I believe we could have all of our economics correct, and ignore the “soul” of the nation, allowing moral perversion and degradation and the demise of the family, and we will certainly not survive.
I believe we need a free market that respects our borders and our national sovereignty — we need a patriotic free market, not a one-world free market system. We need moral government that understands and respects America’s founding heritage in a Christian world view.
Just was taking a glance at this thread, and what should I see but Petronski resorting to ad hominem.
The rules are right there on the FR homepage. Do they apply to you, or did you get a dispensation?
Disclaimer:
Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience.
Well, I guess if it’s only in my mind, we have nothing to worry about then. The problem is that I am not that unique a person. If I am thinking it so are a whole lot of other folks. Middle of the road nominees do not move the masses to the polls to vote. Most people need a compelling reason to get to the polls, they need something to vote for, someone to get excited about.
You can see by the general disgust so many are having with the current top four candidates that the Republican party has a real problem on its hands. The disgust is very real.
I welcome the fact that you resort to calling names. It shows others your true colors.
The fact is that abortion is sometimes necessary for the life of the mother, the child or both. It’s been that way always.
Unborn life is not protected because it cannot be separated from the life of the mother. It requires a doctor to determine the health of the pregnancy, not the federal government. Doctors are licensed by the states, not the federal government.
Abortion on demand is what you are likely addressing, but you are falling into the fallacy that since abortion on demand is bad, all abortion is bad, therefore the federal government should ban all abortion.
But then your true intention is not to learn about the legal underpinnings of abortion. Rather your intention is to smear Fred Thompson in any way you can.
Like I told you in earlier threads, Duncan Hunter could do better without the likes of you.
Your pathetic claims that Fred Thompson was once prochoice with links to video and audio of Fred Thompson show that Fred Thompson never NEVER said that a woman has a right to choose. Therefore, he was never prochoice, period, end-of-story.
http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/...
I guess then I better support someone who hasn’t got a chance and then sit out the election when Fred gets the nod so Hillary can march right in.......yah great logic there for a conservative...LOL!
I am indifferent to your sarcasm, but more to th point:
What I do is of little concern, but there are MANY in the Christian Right. They are a majority of Republican voters (40m of 60m [+-] Republicans in the last election). They are "values" voters, and a good share of those vote their conscience. They (as I) will not give their vote to someone not worthy of it.
Every stinkin' time the political junkies are the majority in the primary and try to move the party leftward in order to get the win. Then the general comes around, where the base far outnumbers the political junkies, and the base is nonplussed. go figger. Your bravado sounds a bit like whistling to me.
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.