Let's take these errors in Dobson's thinking one at a time.
opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage - Freds belief in Federalism lends itself to bigger government is not necessarily better for everyone. There are some pretty smart people in all the states that can make these kind of decisions without Federal oversight. As a matter of fact, it's much easier to correct a mistake at the state level than it is at the Federal level.
favors McCain-Feingold - Fred has addressed this on many,many occasions. The influence of unaccounted for corporate money promotes what in the real world amounts to bribery. Campaign Finance was an effort to control that, and since it has not worked out as planned, Fred thinks it should be scrapped.
won't talk at all about what he believes - This is confusing. Beliefs in what? Type of government we should have? Religious? Fred has made numerous statements about a variety of subjects from guns, Immigration, to Federalism and Taxes. To me this sounds like Dobson is pandering for some personal attention to commit his support.
and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail - Amazing. Since he has neither met or seen Thompson on the campaign trail, how can he make a judgement like this? It shows disrespect and complete foolishness.
All in all, Dobson has shown himself to be uneducated and mis-informed. Whether this is intentional to garner some 'butt-kissing' for support is probably more the reason for the email.
~ BUMP! ~
I disagree strongly about marriage. It is so fundamental to society that it trumps federalism. It is more important that our government itself, so it should be an Amendment. I think the Founders would agree, if they could even contemplate a society so self-destructive and perverse that it allowed homosexual marriage in law.
Marriage is permanent, it is unlike every other social arrangment and contract at law in that respect, so every homosexual couple in the United States could travel to a single state that allowed homosexual marriage and be “married.” I understand the Thompson idea of an amendment that makes states not obligated to recognize other states laws regarding marriage . . . but that doesn’t undo social destruction and one of the final nails in the coffin of the traditional family.
So I’m with Dobson on a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage and not Thompson. I disagree with some of your other points but don’t feel as strongly about them and want to see more of Thompson before I make up my mind.
I don’t agree with Dobson’s tactic however your absurd regugitation of the do nothing position of Federalism alegedly espoused by Fred Thompson DOES NOT HELP his campaign.
Marrige IS a federal issue. Hiding his head in the sand with an absurd and non-credible federalist position is about as valid as rudy guiliani’s position that the second amendment is a local issue.
Teh Federal Marriage Amendment codifies the common law. IOW it keeps what has been the law of the land since before the consititution.
The Federalist BS better be dumped FAST because it IS A DEALBREAKER. This position puts him on par with the kook ronpaul.
Now in addition Fred Thompson has weaseled on this so he actually has had TWO position on the Federal Marriage Amendment cited here on FR.
Those of us who actually practice law can see right through the legal BS espoused by these candidates.
“Fred’s belief in Federalism lends itself to bigger government is not necessarily better for everyone. There are some pretty smart people in all the states that can make these kind of decisions without Federal oversight.”
Pistol, it appears you simply don’t understand the marriage issue. Voters in over half the states have now approved state Marriage Protection Amendment. Almost all state laws define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
A Marriage Protection Amendment to the Constitution is the solution to the threat against states’ rights, not the threat.
The threat is this: five members of the U.S. Supreme Court some day, inevitably, rulling that it’s unconstitutional for any state to limit marriage to only one man and one woman, thus overturning all state laws and all state oonstitutional amendments to the contrary in one fell stroke.
The solution and protection against that threat is for the U.S. Constitution to universally define marriage as one man and one woman.
That’ll handle the coming demands that polygamy as well as so-called homosexual “marriage” be legally recognized and incentivized and financially subsidized by the government.
Pistol: “...won’t talk at all about what he believes...Beliefs in what? Type of government we should have?”
Dobson’s talking about Fred’s religion, what Fred’s religious beliefs are, what his “profession of faith” is, if any.
Dobson’s not stupid, Pistol. Like every other rational person, he’s fully aware that Fred is talking about “what he believes” politically. In fact, one of Fred’s stated beliefs — his opposition to the Marriage Protection Amendment endorsed by the RNC national platform — is another point Dobson raises against him.
“...and can’t speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail - Amazing. Since he has neither met or seen Thompson on the campaign trail, how can he make a judgement like this? It shows disrespect and complete foolishness.”
Another ridiculous statement, Pistol, with no offense intended. I’ve never met Fred either, but I’ve watched C-Span presentations of his full speeches to the American Legion, for example.
I was pretty sympathetic to Fred initially, but was disappointed that he was very surprisingly NOT eloguent or moving in his speeches. Very folksy and warm and likeable in one-on-one interviews and such, but certainly no Ronald Reagan or even close on the stump.
So I’m fully capable, as is Dobson, of making a judgment as to Fred’s speaking abilities, having never met him and never seen him live — which shows neither “disrespect or complete foolishness.”
It shows simply that I have a TV and the Internet, I know how to use both, have ears to hear, and a mind with which to make judgments.
Fred woulda had me til he nosedived on constitutionally protecting marriage. You don’t agree that that one issue oughtta be a sole determinant? Hey, ain’t it great it’s a free country? You get to decide on whatever basis YOU choose.