“The “value voter” supporters of Huckabee just might get what they apparently want....Rudy/Hillary.”
No, in my opinion you are wrong. As a “moral values voter” I would simply like to see Senator Thompson move more to the right on moral issues. He needs to become a strongly outspoken opponent of the homosexual agenda...and stop using his “federalism” as an excuse not to be. I believe him already pretty solid on opposing abortion.
A pledge to veto any homosexual rights/protection legislation would be a nice start. A pledge to work to keep homosexuals out of military service...and public service would also be a nice touch.
Finally a clear cut pledge to appoint only SCOTUS nominees that are originalists (meaning they interpret the constitution and ammendments based on their original intent, and don’t add to or take from that) would also be great.
However, if you just want to blow off “value voters” as irrelevant and not heed their concerns, then if Hillary gets elected because Guiliani gets the nomination....then blame yourselves not us. We clearly warned you what we intended to do. If you (meaning Senator Thompson)want our votes, then meet our perceived needs....even if you don’t agree.
IMHO, that way things are shaping up Huckabee has the best chance to stop Guiliani.
If you have read Thompson's record and position on moral issues and don't think they are "conservative" enough than you are not a "moral values voter", you are a marginalized fanatic. If you don't believe in Federalism, than take it out on the Founders of our Country who wrote the Constitution based on this principle. The fringe, on both sides, might have enough numbers to affect the nomination process. Hillary has way too much of a lead for it to effect her. The radical theocratic vote might have enough numbers to deny the nomination to a conservative, like Thompson, and throw the nomination to a true liberal, like Guiliani. It will then be liberal against liberal, Guiliani against Clinton. The fringe religious right does not have anywhere near the numbers to deny the presidency to Hillary if Rudy is the Nominee. Hillary will be president. The extremists will get their wish, an extreme president. Unfortunately it will be an extremely liberal president.
Sola, I think a lot of us Thompson fans agree that a Giuliani nomination would be a loser for everyone. I also think if Giuliani gets the Republican nod because "values voters" like yourself (quick to equate Libertarians with Libertines and willing to sacrifice the root concept of "Liberty" to justify imposing their self-righteous vanity on those less "righteous") split the primary vote between Hunter, Thompson, and Romney -- a demonstrated big-government nanny-stater who has shown himself spineless when faced with organized agendas to normalize homosexuality, his moral uprightness and stellar good looks notwithstanding --
... then blame yourselves, not us. Your pride and mulishness will have installed Giuliani, not ours -- because neither are at work in the way we view the role of government with regard to free people.
Pledges and people who demand them annoy me because such pledges can only placate vanities. Past ACTIONS are much more valuable than pledges. I'd love it if Fred was more outspoken against the homosexual agenda, but I also know he would be being inconsistent if he attempted to bring the Federal government to bear on any of it, and that's why I like him.
I KNOW that Romney wasn't outspoken against the homosexual agenda (let alone leftist environmentalism, another important issue in which Thompson has consistently impressed me) back when he was Governor and endorsed a Youth Gay Pride event. I read recently that Fred once voted AGAINST a move to prohibit employers from discriminating by sexual orientation -- in other words, that it's okay for an employer to fire a worker because that worker is too flamboyantly gay. Thompson did something a heck of a lot better than make a pledge -- he acted on his commitment to a core principle that normalizing homosexuality is WRONG. Pledge THAT.
American federal government should not be used to enforce any but the basic and agreed-upon morals -- those forbidding murder, theft, perjury, slavery, breach of contract, abuse. These are problems of real criminality that can truly be addressed by laws.
The trend to normalize homosexuality and to force all taxpayers to fund abortions is NOT a problem of criminality, it's a problem of social values complicated by government coercion in the name of "compassion." You can demand pledges and laws to shake your finger in the noses of the less-righteous until you're blue in the face, and all you'll accomplish is more strife. Instead, we should all be pushing for politicians who advocate the rights of states to deal with these things as their residents deem proper, and things will sort themselves out better than an entire Federal government's brute force. Things better left between God and sinner than between politician and freedom will stay that way.
Thompson is who you should be pulling for, for Pete's sake!