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 ...
50 definitions for marriage. That’s insane. Marriage is a federal issue! Do we have to reregister as being married when we move state to state?
>>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.<<
Given Thompson’s screwball voting record in the Senate, I have my doubts. Thompson seems to take the dogmatism of federalism and lets it run ahead of common sense.
That is why Hunter has his “Right to Life Act”. To define the unborn as living human beings due 5th and 14th amendment protections.
>>>The goal is to get the federal government out of our lives as much as is necessary and let our local governments respond with what’s best for us locally.<<<
Until a federal court shows up and send the whole thing crashing down...
Should the issue of slavery be turned over to the states? Abortion is a lot like slavery in that it is apparent that only a constitutional amendment will end the barbaric procedure once and for all. Abortion isn’t an issue that should be left to the dictates of the states.
That should be the primary concern. And, Thompson is the only candidate right now that is a conservative that can beat the RINO.
The federalism of Thompson is a tad overblown. How’s this for federalism...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1898585/posts
>>>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.<<<
You’ve never done that, eh? Nope, not ever.
*rolls eyes*
Do you mean the smears, innuendo, and falsehood that came from the Libertarian blogger whose only "ax to grind" was against the Social Conservatives, or the smears innuendo, and falsehoods that came out of Fred's own mouth?
If I can find this stuff, never fear that the Clintons have it in spades, and the MSM will hawk it without any spin from you or I.
No.
Disagree? Link it.
As much as I hate to point this out, your fantasy that the US Constitution prohibits murder is simply incorrect. There is an obvious distinction between the state itself executing people and the state allowing private actors, e.g. abortionists, to do so.
The sad fact is that many states allow infanticide, such as partial-birth abortion; or euthanasia in some circumstances.
Not any more. The PBA was upheld.
Fred Thompson’s Dissembling About His Abortion Record
By Eric Kleefeld - June 6, 2007, 3:17PM
Here’s a key moment from last night that has gone entirely unnoticed: GOP Presidential hopeful Fred Thompson, who didn’t participate in the debate but was interviewed on Fox News aferwards, dissembled badly about his abortion record to Sean Hannity.
Thompson claimed to Hannity that he’s “always” thought Roe v. Wade is “wrong.” In fact, he’s supported it in the past. More after the jump.
Here’s the key excerpt from Thompson’s interview with Hannity:
HANNITY: One is when you checked a box in 1994 when you were running for Senate, where you — the box said, “Abortion should be legal in all circumstances for the first three months.” That wasn’t your voting record, interestingly. Did you make a mistake checking the box?
THOMPSON: I don’t remember that box. You know, it was a long time ago, and I don’t know if I filled it out or my staff, based on what they thought my position was, filled it out.
But here’s what the deal is on that. I’ve always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision, that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states. When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway.
Got that? Thompson said clearly that he’s always opposed Roe v. Wade and that he thinks states should make these legal decisions.
But that clearly wasn’t his view at all in the past. As Media Matters pointed out a few days ago in a slightly different context:
“In fact, on July 29, 1993, the Memphis Commercial Appeal reported that Thompson, then running for a Tennessee U.S. Senate seat, said during an interview that he “supports the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.” In an October 21, 1994, article, The Washington Post similarly reported that “both” Thompson and his Democratic opponent in the 1994 Senate race, then-Rep. Jim Cooper, “believe in legal abortion.”
We’ve double checked those quotes in Nexis and they’re all accurate.
Now, it’s possible that Thompson is genuinely against Roe v. Wade, and is or was pro-choice to some extent but ultimately thinks or thought states should have the decision-making power. On the other hand, his public pro-Roe v. Wade stance in the 1994 campaign is plain to see.
So when did Thompson stop supporting Roe v. Wade, and why? And will the media let Thompson keep saying that he’s “always” been against Roe v. Wade without calling him on it?
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/06/fred_thompsons_dissembling_about_his_abortion_record.php#more
Mitt Romney supported Roe v Wade and abortion on demand for over 30 years. You can’t wipe that out in two years. Especially under the circumstances.
In 2005 Mitt Boy had an epihany and suddenly became pro-life. That epihany had to do with Mitt`s decision to run for President. Political expediency has always been a hall mark of Mitt`s adventures into politics.
Romney will not get the GOP nomination.
God help us all if he somehow does!
Fred wants to resurrect Reagan's Executive Order #12612, which ordered each government entity look at ways to adhere to the Founder's ideas of original intent, aka. federalism.
"A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected."
~~~ Fred Thompson, LINK
President Reagan`s Executive Order #12612: Federalism: October 26, 1987:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to restore the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution and to ensure that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Sec. 2.:
(a) Federalism is rooted in the knowledge that our political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government.
I think not.
That might not be so big a barrier to some of these people. Slick Willard himself has no problem lying outright about Ronald Reagan.
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.