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 ...
Abortion is even more of an abomination, frankly.
Not to worry. On the taxes and spending issues, Fred is very much a fiscal conservatism.
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT: Passage of the joint resolution to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget by the year 2002 or two years after ratification by the states. Rejected 65-35, March 2, 1995. Fred supported the amendment.
LINE-ITEM VETO: Passage of the bill to provide the president with the ability to veto individual line items in an appropriations bill, targeted tax breaks in a revenue bill, or new entitlement spending. Approved 69-29, March 23, 1995. Fred supported the bill.
TAX CUTS: Gramm amendment to the budget resolution to provide tax cuts similar to those provided by the House, including a $500-per child credit, a reduction in the capital gains tax rate, an expansion of IRAs, and the elimination of the marriage penalty in the tax code. Rejected 31-69, May 23, 1995. Fred supported the amendment.
BALANCED BUDGET ACT. Passage of the bill to balance the budget over seven years, by reducing projected spending by $894 billion and cutting taxes by $245 billion. Approved 52-47, November 17, 1995. Fred supported the bill.
TAX LIMITATION: SConRes 57 (CQ Senate Vote 128), FY 1997 Budget Resolution. Exon (D-NE) motion to table (kill) the Kyl (R-AZ) amendment to express the sense of the Senate that fundamental tax reform should be accompanied by a constitutional amendment to require a supermajority of Congress to approve a tax increase. Motion agreed to 59-41, May 22, 1996. Fred opposed the Exon motion.
SOCIAL SECURITY TAX DEDUCTION: SConRes 57 (CQ Senate Vote 140), FY 1997 Budget Resolution. Ashcroft (R-MO) amendment to allow a tax deduction for the Social Security payroll tax and to offset the costs by decreasing discretionary and mandatory spending. Rejected 43-57, May 22, 1996. Fred supported the Ashcroft amendment.
MAINTAINING BUDGETARY FIREWALLS: SConRes 57 (CQ Senate Vote 147), FY 1997 Budget Resolution. Domenici (R-NM) motion to table (kill) the Bumpers (D-AR) amendment to abolish the "firewall" between defense and domestic discretionary spending. The "firewall" provides an essential defense against liberals’ attempts to shift funds from defense accounts to non-defense domestic discretionary accounts. Motion agreed to 57-41, May 23, 1996. Fred supported the Domenici motion.
TAX CUTS: SConRes 57 (CQ Senate Vote 151), FY 1997 Budget Resolution. Domenici (R-NM) motion to table (kill) the Feingold (D-WI) amendment to eliminate the $122 billion provided for tax cuts over six years. Motion agreed to 57-43, May 23, 1996. Fred supported the Domenici motion.
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT. SJRes1 (roll call vote 24). Balanced-Budget Constitutional Amendment. Passage of the joint resolution to propose a constitutional amendment to balance the budget by the year 2002 or two years after ratification by three-fourths of the states, whichever is later. Three-fifths of the entire House and Senate would be required to approve deficit spending or an increase in the public debt limit. A simple majority could waive the requirement in times of war or when the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent national security threat. Rejected 66-34, March 4, 1997. (A two-thirds majority vote of those present and voting is required to pass a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.) Fred supported the amendment.
FUTURE DEFICIT SPENDING PROHIBITION. SConRes27, FY 1998 Budget Resolution (roll call vote 83). Ashcroft (R-MO) motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Lautenberg (D-NJ) point of order against his amendment to require a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress for passage of any legislation that increases the deficit after FY 2002. Motion rejected 41-58, May 22, 1997. A three-fifths majority vote (60) of the total Senate is required to waive the Budget Act. (Subsequently, the chair upheld the Lautenberg point of order and the amendment was defeated.) Fred supported the motion.
TAX CUT/SPENDING FREEZE. SConRes27, FY 1998 Budget Resolution (roll call vote 90). Domenici (R-NM) motion to table (kill) the Grams (R-MN) amendment to require the $220 billion Congressional Budget Office revenue windfall be applied to deficit reduction and tax relief, and to freeze non-defense discretionary spending. Motion agreed to 73-27, May 23, 1997. Fred opposed the motion to table.
NANNY STATE TAX CUTS. S949, FY 1998 Budget Reconciliation (roll call vote 139). Gramm (R-TX) amendment to eliminate the requirement that the $500-per-child tax credit be invested in a tuition program or education individual retirement account, and let parents make their own decisions on how to use the tax credit. Rejected 46-54, June 27, 1997. Fred supported the amendment.
INFLATION INDEXING. S949, FY 1998 Budget Reconciliation (roll call vote 159). Allard (R-CO) amendment to require that capital gains be indexed for inflation. Rejected 41-57, June 27, 1997. Fred supported the amendment.
TAX CUTS. SconRes86 (roll call vote 55). McCain (R-AZ) motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Lautenberg (D-NJ) point of order against the Coverdell (R-GA) amendment. Coverdell's amendment would reduce cut taxes by $195.5 billion over five years by raising the income thresholds for the 15 percent and 28 percent tax brackets. Motion rejected 38-62: R 38-17, April 01, 1998. A three-fifths majority vote (60) of the total Senate is required to waive the Budget Act. (Subsequently, the chair upheld the point of order, and the amendment fell.) Fred supported the motion to waive the point of order.
SOCIAL SECURITY PERSONAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS. SconRes 86 (roll call vote 56). Roth (R-DE) amendment to express the sense of the Senate that the Senate Finance Committee should in 1998 report legislation that would dedicate the federal budget surplus to the establishment of Social Security "personal retirement accounts." Adopted 51-49, April 01, 1998. Fred supported the amendment.
TAX LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT - Passage, H.J.Res. 37 (Roll Call Vote No. 90). April 15, 1999 - Passage of the joint resolution to propose a constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds majority vote of the House and Senate to pass any legislation that increases federal revenues by more than a "de minimis," or insignificant, amount. The exact definition of "de minimis" would be left to Congress. The resolution was rejected 229-199, 15 Apr. 1999. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting (286 in this case) is required to pass a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. Fred supported the resolution.
TAX CUT PACKAGE - Passage, HR 2488 (Roll Call Vote No. 333). Passage of the bill to reduce federal taxes by $792 billion over 10 years. The measure would reduce individual income tax rates by 10 percent over a 10-year period, contingent upon annual progress in reducing interest on the nation's debt. It would reduce the "marriage penalty" by increasing the standard deduction for married couples to double that for singles; cut the capital gains tax rate for individuals from 20 percent to 15 percent for property held for more than one year; gradually lower the corporate capital gains tax rate from 35 percent to 30 percent by 2005; reduce the estate and gift tax rates until they are completely eliminated in 2009; accelerate the phase-in of a 100 percent deduction for health insurance premiums for the self-employed, and allow all taxpayers to deduct health care and long-term care insurance if employers pay 50 percent or less of the premium; increase the annual contribution limit for Education Savings Accounts from $500 to $2,000 and permit tax-free withdrawals to pay for public and private elementary and secondary tuition and expenses. Bill passed 223-208, 22 July 1999. Fred supported the bill.
TAX CUTS, S.Con.Res. 101 (Roll Call Vote No. 68) The Senate defeated an amendment deleting all tax cuts in the Congressional Budget Resolution. The vote was 44-56, 7 Apr. 2000. Fred opposed the amendment.
FISCAL 2001 BUDGET RESOLUTION – Adoption, H.Con.Res. 290 (Roll Call Vote No. 79) The Senate adopted a five-year budget plan that includes $147.1 billion in tax cuts. The vote was 51-45, 7 Apr. 2000. Fred supported this budget.
GAS TAX SUSPENSION – Cloture, S. 2285 (Roll Call Vote No. 80) The Senate failed to limit debate on a bill that would suspend the 4.3 ¢/gallon federal gas tax surcharge from April 15 through Jan. 1, 2001. If the national average gas price reached $2/gallon, the remaining 14.1 ¢/gallon federal tax would also be suspended. The vote was 43-56, with 60 votes needed, 11 Apr. 2000. Fred supports efforts to lower the gas tax.
MARRIAGE PENALTY TAX – Cloture, HR 6 (Roll Call Vote No. 82) The Senate failed to limit debate on an amendment that would essentially eliminate the federal tax penalty on married couples. The vote was 53-45, with 60 votes needed, 13 Apr. 2000. Fred supported this effort to lessen the marriage penalty.
ESTATE TAX REPEAL. HR 8 (Roll Call Vote No. 180) The Senate voted down an amendment that would have maintained the “death” tax while easing its effect in some cases. The vote was 46-53, 13 July 2000. Fred supported the amendment.
GAS TAX SUSPENSION, HR 8 (Roll Call Vote No. 183) The Senate voted no to suspend the entire federal gas tax of 18.4 ¢/gallon for 150 days. The vote was 40-59, 13 July 2000. Fred supported the suspension.
TAXATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS, HR 8 (Roll Call Vote No. 188) The Senate voted to reduce the percentage of Social Security benefits that are taxable from 85 percent to 50 percent, which was the level up until 1993. The vote was 58-41, 13 July 2000. Fred supported the reduction.
ESTATE TAX REPEAL – Passage, HR 8 (Roll Call Vote No. 197) The Senate vote to phase out the “death” tax by 2010. The vote was 59-39, 14 July 2000. Fred supported the bill.
2001 INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS. S. 420 (Roll Call Vote No. 21 ) Sessions (R-AL) motion to protect individual retirement accounts from limitations imposed during bankruptcy proceedings. The bill was defeated (61-37) Fred supported this bill.
2001 BUDGET RESOLUTION CAPPING SPENDING. H. Con. Res. 83 (Roll Call Vote No. 98 ) Adoption of the final version of the Budget Resolution, calling for approximately $1.35 trillion in tax cuts through fiscal 2011, including a $100 billion stimulus package. "Discretionary" spending was capped at $661.3 billion. The bill was passed (53-47) Fred supported this bill.
2001 CAPITAL GAINS TAX RATE REDUCTION. HR 1836 (Roll Call Vote No. 115 ) Gregg (R-NH) motion to allow consideration of his amendment to the tax cut bill. His amendment would provide for a temporary reduction in the maximum capital gains rate from 20 percent to 15 percent, to stimulate the economy. The bill was defeated (47-51) Fred supported this bill.
2001 TAX CUT BILL HR 1836 (Roll Call Vote No. 170 ) Adoption of the final version of the tax cut bill, reducing taxes by $1.35 trillion through 2010 through income tax rate cuts, relief of the "marriage penalty," a phase-out of the federal estate tax, doubling the child tax credit, and providing incentives. The bill was defeated (58-33) Fred supported this bill.
Caps on Government Spending. HR 4775 (Roll Call 133) The motion would extend for five years caps on federal spending and establish other procedural controls on federal spending. ACU supported this budget discipline measure, which failed on a 49-49 vote (60 votes were required) on 5 June 2002. The bill was defeated (49-49) Fred supported this bill.
Death Tax Repeal Permanent. HR 8 (Roll Call 151) The motion would make the repeal of the estate or death tax passed in 2001 permanent. ACU supported this effort, which received a 54-44 vote majority on 12 June 2002, but Senate rules require 60 votes under the Budget Act. The bill was defeated (54-44) Fred supported this bill.
Don’t mistake my disappointment with his refusal to promise to not raise taxes with the idea that I don’t think he is a fiscal conservative as proven by his record.
I have never thought.
I am just disappointed that he did not take the plunge and make the promise.
Yet this is a blogger with some credentials:
*Note - Eric Dondero is the Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus, and served as the RLC's first National Chairman from 1990-93. He also served as Senior Aide to US Congressman Ron Paul from 1997-2003. He is currently CEO of MainstreamLibertarian.com which covers news of the libertarian Republican movement on a daily basis.
Would you deny that he said this as quoted:
"Government should stay out of it... The ultimate decision must be made by the women... Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own." -- Fred Thompson, July 1994
Because it sounds pretty pro-choice to me, federalism notwithstanding.
If you attack Fred for his support of federalism, you gonna have to attack Reagan too.
I need do no such thing. I am against killing babies, not federalism.
So, yeah, sorry, it's not a constitutional issue, it's a legislative one, and honestly, persuing a constitutional amendment solution simply leads to a path where we'll follow Europe into an ever expanding document as people add everything they can think of.
Divorce isn't in the constitution. Congress can decide tomorrow not to recognize divorce, and there's no constitutional method, short of ammending it, to change that. There's nothing in there saying a person can destroy a baby, there's no constitutional amendment saying that you can't murder someone - let's stop monkeying around with a document activist judges are completely ignoring, and instead go after the activist judges.
My point was, signing off on any pre-election promise really means nothing. You did give me an opportunity to post his actual voting record on taxes and spending while in the Senate. He also gets solid marks from the National Taxpayers Union.
Obviously this libertarian blogger has impressed you. Sorry, not this conservative. Fred`s remarks are what they are. You think what he said in a 1994 debate makes him pro-choice. You totally ignore his 100% pro-life voting record and his recent public remarks since coming out of retirement for his run for POTUS. If you want to run around slamming Fred and the Founders and Reagan, have at it. I think its a losing proposition.
Fred`s still gonna be the nominee.
Could they be angry because Fred dosen’t jump and shout.
My advice to the so called turned on Fred haters is to get a life.
I am not sure that every Evangelical feels the way of this author but you never know.
For sure, Evangelicals don’t have to vote for Fred if he is the candidate, they can vote for Hellary or stay home and help Hellary.
However, they might want to think twice about their stubbornness.
Because, once Hellary is elected she will turn her wrath on these misguided souls like a terrorist chopping off a Christians head.
I can see these churches being force to accept homosexual pastors in order to keep their tax status.
I can see churches not allowed to teach the bible as currently written because it is biased against sin.
Well just a few thoughts from a red state wannabe.
No, but I did stay in a Motel 6 last night ;)
It is with consideration of the Commerce clause, and the grave damage done in it's name that I posted my previous thoughts to you. Allowing a state to deny a marriage from another state may (in fact probably will) wind up having unforeseen repercussions. As a marriage is a contract in the eyes of the law, what other contracts can go wanting once the precedent is set?
Furthermore, one can suppose a set of circumstances where the SCOTUS can make yet another decree and put us right back where we are now, but with the added disgrace of a reciprocity clause bent completely out of whack by several years of lawyerly gymnastics.
It may not be as clean a solution as Fred might desire.
Do you think the 14th amendment applies to abortion?
Sadly, no I don't. Amendment 14, Section 1 begins with:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Obviously the first test is that one must be "born" for the amendment to apply. It is sad that it does not apply, and that the commandments written on the hearts of men would not prevent us from having to debate the subject in the first place.
And what is the legal foundation that enables a return to original intent? Federalism.
How I would love to agree with you, and I do for the most part. But the government has long muddled in the affairs of the church and the state, and I dare say, like Humpty Dumpty, it is almost impossible to put it back again.
Our laws were written by men of conscience for men of conscience. So much of what we debate today needed no law of governance, as such things were unthinkable crimes in the minds of the founders and their illegality was implied by the natural ordering of society.
It is not that I disagree with you, but that I think it cannot be done.
.
.
So do I vote for someone that has basically turned their back on God?
Nope...
No, I merely pointed out that he has credentials beyond simply being a blogger. His remarks are interesting as he cannot be considered a liberal, nor is he an MSM wonk, nor is he a social conservative. He even says he will happily pull the lever for Fred.
This all points to a lack of motive- It is not a hack piece on Fred, nor was Fred taken out of context.
If a source as benign as this one is not acceptable, one wonders what source you would accept as proof. Especially as his own words (out of his own mouth) on Youtube didn't seem to be proof either.
If you want to run around slamming Fred and the Founders and Reagan
Ooooh! The Founders too, now! You need to wrap yourself in the flag with a wreath of laurel on your head and fart the Star Spangled Banner in three part harmony as you say that remark, just for the affect.
Damnation..
Theology. condemnation to eternal punishment as a consequence of sin.
Really, does this matter now???
This was 12 years ago and everything that he has said and done since then points to a leader who is reliably pro-life.
What is your point and how does it relate to the candidate that we have in front of us today?
I said personal relationship. Meaning between that person and God. Not running around having to tell the world. I like Fred’s stance on this.
Not at all, but neither will I lower it.
Whether or not the statement was made 12 years ago is beside the point. The original post #299 stated that Fred has never been pro-choice. That is not true, as my reply #304 has indicated. Everything thereafter has been in defense of that reply which is proof on it's face.
If one wishes to suggest that Fred has changed his mind, that is one thing. But to state he has never been pro-choice is untrue and indefensible.
see #377
* "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you." Mat. 28:19-20
. . . and forwarding this one to my daughter, who is a die hard LOTR fan . . . .
Good one on Dick "Wormtongue" Morris . . . . and I gotta admit FDT SOUNDS like Treebeard . . . .
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.