Skip to comments.Evangelicals turn on Thompson
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 doesnt belong to or attend any church and wont talk about his faith.
It was Thompsons 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 ...
Ping to the latest.
Sorry, we’re not Europe who has a telephone book for a proposed constitution. This does not rise to the level of constitutional necessity. And who knows how a liberal judge would twist even the simplistic wording, if they think that the 2nd applies only to state militias.
Duncan Hunter all the way. I can sure vote willingly for Thompson if he gets the nomination, though.
“Thompson’s refusal to back a nationwide ban on gay marriage has irritated potential supporters.”
If those “supporters” want a federal nanny, they can vote for other liberals and see their dreams to fruition.
That he doesn’t wear his faith on his sleeve or use it as a political tool is actually refreshing.
Oh, and he is correct on the proper role of the federal government/legislation in something that is NOT within its jurisdiction.
Maybe it’s just me, but from the Politico, something about this story smells really bad...(just plain stinks of a plant)
St. Paul took the message of Christ to pagans and heathens of all kinds, realizing that God must change people inside out. The government of Rome was in power, and there was no real hope of changing it, except from the bottom up. Thompson can’t be as bad as a Roman emperor, can he?
As far as know one prominant evanglical leader, Dobson, has come out against Thompson. And I lost a lot of respect for Dobson on that. If he doesn’t like Thompson then just talk up the guy he does like. Climbing into the mud slinging political pig sty is no place for a Christian.
Once again, so many so-called “conservatives” who love big government so long as it furthers their agenda but are quick to whine when it doesn’t.
“Sorry, were not Europe who has a telephone book for a proposed constitution.”
Thank you. I am in no way in favor of using our Constitution to define words that people have known the definition of since the dawn of civilization because it is politically expedient.
Another reason I want Duncan
Well, he kind of asked for it, didn’t he?
This is not a proper question for the National government. Unless the USSC takes it upon itself to rule one way or the other.
Is he the best we've got among the frontrunners? Most certainly.
The only one better would be Duncan Hunter, but he's having difficulty getting traction.
We did? Guess I should have made it to our Monday night meeting.
It’s impossible to win the Presidency with the positions advocated by the religious right.
Even he didn't make a public pronouncement. He wrote a private e-mail that got leaked to the press.
Gary Bauer seems to have problems with Dobson... not Fred!
They certainly won’t back his “highness” Mr. Romney either-I’d rather back Fred; than that Liberal.
But Weyrich said that after Thompson told members of the group this summer that he supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, the conservative leaders became concerned when they started seeing media reports indicating Thompson didnt support the measure. Thompson came back again to make his pitch to the group this month and confirmed that, because of his federalist views, he would not back the amendment.
Also, it has been part of the GOP platform as well.
Wednesday, Aug. 25, 2004
NEW YORK Republicans endorsed an uncompromising stand against gay marriage Wednesday.....A panel made up largely of conservative delegates approved platform language that calls for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and opposes legal recognition of any sort for gay civil unions.
thats what worries me.
At least Fred isn’t dropping like a stone in the polls, like Mitt.
Dropped 10 in NH.
I support Duncan too, but this is a pinheaded reason to oppose Thompson. We are voting for someone to defend the Constitution, not for the priest-in-chief.
The American Spectator says Dobson is in the tank for Newt.
I truly admire Duncan Hunter. He and Mitt Romney agree on more issues than do Hunter and Thompson (i.e. FMA, border fence, tort reform, Human Life Amendment etc).
Yes. You were supposed to bring the quesedillas.
I said that the day Dobson’s email was leaked.
Surely if two thirds of the country voted in favor of it and congress ratified it I’d be willing to bet Thompson would sign it.
You are good. You had the scoop first, then.
#####I am in no way in favor of using our Constitution to define words that people have known the definition of since the dawn of civilization because it is politically expedient.#####
The problem is, without the FMA, activist left-wing nanny judges will eventually strip every state in the union of their power to define marriage. This will be followed by stripping churches of their tax exemption if they fail to sanction same-sex “marriages”. What libertarian type conservatives are forgetting is that Loving vs. Virginia and the subsequent Bob Jones ruling have ALREADY federalized marriage law.
Many on the religious right don’t understand conservative principles about the proper (limited) role of the federal government either.
Well, it's Dobson's fault that I forgot. That guy never emails the agenda like he's supposed to! I swear, somedays I wonder if I should just join the Calvinists.
There is not much distance from some of America's home grown fanatics and the ones of the middle east. Believe what we believe are we'll kill you.
This is untrue. The only person who turns on Fred Thompson is his wife Jeri.
Of course. Newt is in the forefront of the defense of marriage. He's had, what, three himself?
If all 50 states ban gay marriage i don’t think it would bother him a bit.
####Surely if two thirds of the country voted in favor of it and congress ratified it Id be willing to bet Thompson would sign it.####
Presidents don’t sign constitutional amendments.
I am not committed to supporting Fred — CFR makes me pretty disgusted, really — but I can recognize that this is a lightweight, over-the-top hit piece.
Agreed. Thompson has a PAST. So does Guiliani. Hunter is the great hope.
Hey, I've seen some evangelettes who could turn on me, er, turn me on.
Puh-lease. It’s more along these lines: a few “evangelical leaders” are miffed that their agenda is not bowed to and genuflected before (wait—that’s Catholic) and, so, rail on Thompson. Some of their followers will fall into lockstep. More of them, though, will look at Hillary and then at Thompson and then over at the “leaders of evangelicalism” and then shake their heads over the Pharisaical boneheadedness and pull the lever for Thompson and save the country from The Beast.
I just remembered that Dobson had Newt on his show to make a clean confession of all his marital messes.
Naturally Dobson wants access to the White House. I don’t think he would get much if Thompson won.
They sure want to be a voice in the upcoming election, but what have they done to earn it? IMHO, not much.
“The problem is, without the FMA, activist left-wing nanny judges will eventually strip every state in the union of their power to define marriage.”
So the activist “evangelical” right wing should beat them to the punch? No thank you.
Unfortunately, its also impossible to win the Presidency with anything resembling the positions advocated by the U.S. Constitution.
The title alone tells you it’s a hitpiece. Not “some evangelicals” or “many evangelicals,” just “evangelicals.” The reader is invited to assume it is “all.” Not true.
Further, what do the WashPost rejects care about the marriage amendment, except to use it as a wedge issue among conservatives?
Don’t be such a sucker.