Posted on 05/30/2007 12:12:08 PM PDT by gpapa
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Former Tennessee senator and well-known actor Fred Thompson has taken the first step in what could be a full-fledged candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. Thompson will file paperwork on Friday forming saying he is considering an exploratory committee allowing him to start raising funds.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
maybe harder than liberals! ;o)
careful who you call a “weenie”
Thanks for the ping!
Thompson is not as pro-life from the standpoint of your questions above, the answer to which for all of them is likely a no. It is also doubtful he supports an HLA. He does not favor what he considers Federalism even in rare cases. I agree with you and Hunter and disagree with he and Romney here. I truly wish it were the reverse. It's not.
yes I did hear about his having I think Hodgskins Lymphoma, I hope I heard wrong!
Non-Hodgkin's indolent lymphoma, which, as far as I'm led to believe, is essentially the cancer you'd prefer to have if you're going to have cancer at all -- it's slow moving ("indolent") and generally responds well to treatment, though it is currently non-curable.
The way I see it, Hunter has exactly zero chance of winning if he goes the traditional campaign route -- that deck is completely stacked in favor of folks who have won a statewide office (Senator or Governor), because the "large segment of the party, organizations and funds" will eventually go to the best candidate who has shown an ability to win on that scale. Putting all of that energy and money into a candidate who has never even run for a statewide office, let alone won one, is too large of a risk when there are several other candidates out there who have shown the ability to win on that scale.
The comparisons to Clinton do not fly -- Clinton not only was elected Governor of Arkansas multiple times, he was also previously elected as the state's Attorney General once, albeit unopposed.
None of this is intended as a knock on Hunter himself; I am criticizing his campaign method, not the man himself. If he continues to try to run a traditional campaign, he has already relegated himself to failure. If he is indeed serious about wanting to win, he needs to take risks and do some original and unconventional things. Unless/until he does, however, the best he is doing (in my mind) is auditioning for VP or a cabinet position.
Killing over a million defenseless boys and girls a year, is nothing to sneeze at. It truly is the most evil act the United States of America and many other nations formally participate in.
How can we ever expect God to heal our lands while we are killing 1.5 million of His children every year in this country alone and then have the audacity of celebrating the evil act as a good right of women and even protecting the killers while they commit their killing by regulating the killing procedure. We are disgusting as a nation. Murder should be no person’s right.
Thank God, Fred is running and has the vision to recognize the evil this nation has been doing all the while deluding itself into believing it is a good nation that respects human rights and justice. It is all our responsibilities’ to defend the defenseless, every one of us.
How can we ever believe we are good people while we deny the sanctity of life and deny the justice which needs to be administered for these killings?
Matthew 15: 6, “Thus have ye made the commandments of God of none effect by your tradition.”
Deuteronomy
Chapter 28
Moral law is as relevant now as it was then.
What a ticket Hunter/Thompson! That would be great.
sounds like it aint gonna slow Fred down none! :o)
I second that thought! :o)
Romeny also made Catholic Charities adopt out to gay couples or get out of the adoption business, as far as adoption goes.
Catholic Charities got out of the adoption business.
“.. Clinton not only was elected Governor of Arkansas multiple times, he was also previously elected as the state’s Attorney General once, albeit unopposed.”
And despite being gov. Clinton only had 2% in October of ‘91, but he didn’t give up.
I don’t want the good guys to give up, either.
Hunter/Thompson 2008!
I suggest you get the full story on that Sun. It’s not quite the way you describe it.
“maybe harder than liberals! ;o)”
Many of us do fight harder than liberals, thank goodness.
Romney files ‘religious freedom’ bill on church and gay adoption
By Brooke Donald, Associated Press Writer | March 15, 2006
BOSTON —Gov. Mitt Romney filed a bill Wednesday that would exempt the Boston Archdiocese’s Catholic Charities from a state anti-discrimination law that says it must provide adoption services to gay and lesbian couples.
Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail to a friend
Mass. RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
More:
Globe City/Region stories |
Latest local news |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts The social services arm of the Roman Catholic Church has arranged adoptions for the state for about two decades and has placed 13 children in same-sex homes.
Last week, however, the agency said it would end its entire adoption program because state laws that forbid discrimination against gay couples run counter to church teachings on homosexuality.
Romney’s bill, “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom,” would exempt religious organizations from the state’s anti-discrimination requirements when providing adoption or foster placement services. He said the exemption would not allow discrimination based on race, creed, national origin, gender or handicap.
The Republican governor, who is a potential candidate for president in 2008, said he was concerned that the legal requirement that gays be given equal consideration as prospective adoptive parents violated Catholic Charities’ religious beliefs.
“It is a matter beyond dispute, and a prerequisite to the preservation of liberty, that government not dictate to religious institutions the moral principles by which they are to carry out their charitable and divine mission,” Romney said in a letter to House and Senate leaders.
He said Catholic Charities’ withdrawal from providing adoption services creates a void in the child welfare system.
“In this case, the needs of children must come before the rights of adults,” he said.
Romney has argued that exempting religious organizations from nondiscrimination rules would not inhibit gay couples from adopting because other agencies can meet their needs.
Arline Isaacson, the co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said Romney’s proposal was reprehensible.
“These kids need loving and nurturing homes and if the best match for them is a gay family, they should be allowed to have that,” she said. “When you start exempting from discrimination laws in one category, someone can come around and ask for it in another and another and another. Ultimately the kids are the losers.”
Most adoptive children in Massachusetts are placed by the Department of Social Services. Catholic Charities has placed 720 children in adoptive homes in the past two decades.
Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, a fellow Republican hoping to succeed Romney as governor, recently said she disagreed with the governor’s position.
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and Senate President Robert Travaglini, both Democrats, have said they would oppose Romney’s efforts.
Here’s where I got it from:
“Romney said Catholics should be able to “do whatever they want.” Really?
Then why did Romney:
Force Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts to hand out the abortion drug “Plan B” or close their doors?
Ignore the Catholic Action League who lobbied for a conscience clause so Catholic civil service workers wouldn’t be forced to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies? Romney’s position: Perform homosexual “marriages” or you’re fired.
Tell Boston’s largest adoption agency, Catholic Charities, they had to place vulnerable orphan children in the homes of homosexual activists or go out of business? Rather than bow to the Romney-enforced homosexual agenda, Boston Catholic Charities closed their doors. Even Michael Dukakis said Romney was wrong to force Catholics to violate their beliefs.
Force Catholics (and other pro-life people) to fund abortions in his (post-conversion) health-care plan that he’s so “very proud” of?
And what about Terri Schiavo, who Romney agreed should be starved to death? She was a Catholic, too. As Ronald Reagan said, “Facts are stubborn things.” Sit down, Mr. Romney. I don’t care whom you’ve paid to say nice things about you; you’re disqualified.”
excerpt http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55581
And thanks for posting your article, as I want the truth to come out, whatever it might be.
So which article is correct, TAdams8591? Our articles seem to conflict AT LEAST about the adoption issue.
Let me emphasize this part from the article I posted:
“Even Michael Dukakis said Romney was wrong to force Catholics to violate their beliefs.”
????
And then Romney does not seem to get it re: Terri Schiavo. I want a president who will protect life, like Hunter, Brownback, and probably Tancredo and Thompson would (& possibly others), too.
“What a ticket Hunter/Thompson! That would be great.”
Absolutely!
Bingo! ‘testily principled...holds positions based on his core beliefs’...that’s Fred in a nutshell, and voters will see this. All those dems who voted for RR, the entire South. Dems worst nightmare.
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.