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 ...
#####So, yeah, stick your fingers in your ears and go nah-nah-nah all you want, but the constitution is not the place to legislate.#####
What will be our options if (more likely, when) the Supreme Court uses the 14th Amendment to impose nationwide same-sex “marriage” on the entire country?
Uh . . . . no.
Mitt Romney has the right moral standing and is supporting their issues. Unfortunately, Mitt Romney has not been supporting their issues in a public way during his entire time in politics. People are going to wonder whether he's just supporting these issues now in order to get votes and whether he'd continue to support these issues in office. In addition, Mitt Romney's Mormon faith is a problem for people who have spent decades telling people that the LDS church is a cult. Personally, I like Mitt Romney, but the millions of religious conservatives who made sure that George Bush beat John McCain in the 2000 primaries are not going to coalesce around Mitt Romney.
Mike Huckabee has the right moral standing, the right religious background, and is the "second tier" candidate most likely to challenge the frontrunners. However, there are reports that Mike Huckabee has questioned the involvement of the federal government in the Terri Schindler Schiavo situation. Personally, I think that position speaks will of Mr. Huckabee, but many religious conservatives will make the Terri situation a litmus test. Mr. Huckabee will have a hard time getting their votes. His weakness on immigration and possible weakness as a big spender will also make some religious conservatives suspicious. I think he's most likely to get the most religious conservative votes, but those voters won't be as big a force in this cycle.
Sam Brownback is a natural fit for the religious conservatives, but even they realize that Mr. Brownback just doesn't have the right stuff to be leader of the free world. His credentials are better than those of Gary Bauer, but he's the Gary Bauer of this campaign. He's raised some money from the religious conservative community and will get some votes. Those votes won't be enough to make him a serious contender.
Duncan Hunter would be a great choice for the religious conservatives. He's strong on all of their issues and is a good man. Unfortunately, he's also very low in the polls. Unless he rises quickly, religious conservatives will see no reason to come together behind a candidate who seems so unlikely to win.
With no one capturing the movement, Fred Thompson can afford not to meet all of the demands of James Dobson and others like him. Fred Thompson's strategy will depend on winning the votes of average folks in the South who won't care a great deal about whether he goes to church or whether the Constitution specifically prohibits homosexual marriage. He'll also get the support of religious conservatives who aren't happy about his positions but see him as the best of the depressing alternatives to Rudy Giuliani.
Personally, I'd like to see Duncan Hunter become the next president even though I'm not nearly as conservative as he is on religious issues. My second choice would be Mitt Romney because he's been successful at running things and is not likely to be any more liberal in office than Fred Thompson will be.
Bill
Elect representatives and senators who do not believe that the federal government has all the answers, as well as conservative presidential candidates that will support constructionist judges. You know, like Fred Thompson who walked Roberts through the confirmation process and has certainly put his touch on the court so far.
Of course, that the 14th would be used to possibly impose same sex marriage on the nation is the prime example /why/ the constitution shouldn't be used as a place for legislation.
Newt kissed the ring. That makes him the Golden Boy.
Doesn’t matter that he has the self-control of a mink, apparently.
Well, I understand what you’re saying, and I’m not going to oppose Thompson because of this single issue.
But if our country becomes any more socially liberal, it’ll become pretty well impossible to keep us from turning into a total Swedish-style socialist nanny state with astronomical taxes and massive gun grabs.
you people seem to want limited federal gov't unless it's about your deep-seeded religious beliefs. then you want all sorts of federal laws.
i understand the judeo-christian values upon which this country was founded, but this is getting a little ridiulous. practice your religion and let others practice theirs.
this issue isn't about the church anyway! it's about the federal gov't recognizing or not recognizing gay marriage. i guess i just don't understand. maybe because no one can explain it in a cohesive manner.
Congress's approval rating is, what, 15%? Our country is not becoming more socially liberal, our legislators are, even on the conservative side, left of center. Not left of right wing, but left of center. Things will only be solved at the ballot box by raising useful representatives who also believe in the clarity of the constitution, who believe that the federal government doesn't hold all the solutions, and to get /them/ into office, we need to convince a lot of those who have gotten onto school boards to start running for state legislative offices instead of whining that the party won't support them.
Care to elaborate?
Interesting...so, are you a Republican? Because, if you're not a Republican then maybe you should butt out of the REPUBLICAN Primary. And if you ARE a Republican, maybe you should stick to candidates who support the Party Platform. Did you know that support for the Federal Marriage Amendment is in the Republican Party Platform? Thompson's view is in opposition to the platform. Maybe you should consider that. Or not, if you're not a Republican. And if you're not, then I don't know what you're getting all worked up over. You shouldn't be voting in our primary anyway. If you are, then maybe you should stick to the platform.
Speaking of Republican Party Platform planks, I find it interesting that Fred Thompson is reported to have fought to REMOVE the Ronald Reagan Pro-Life plank from the GOP Platform. No wonder evangelicals and others who are pro-life aren't exactly thrilled with Thompson.
Newt used to be my representative - I know better!
I’m missing why Christians need political leaders any more than African-Americans need leaders. I really don’t need these ‘leaders’ telling me who I should vote for. Ultimately, it’s all about fundraising, using a ‘cause’ whether it’s issue, race, ethnicity, religion. They (the ‘leaders’) are in the business of raising money
Being a faithful church-goer is not wearing your faith on your sleeve.
Umm, what of it? First of all, the party platform is generated each election cycle after the primaries have run, not before, so honestly, there isn’t a party platform at this instant. It’s this silly concept that the person running for president should have a say in it.
Second, what, I have to take some stupid loyalty oath to a document created by people I have zero say in their appointment? I’m a Republican, I’m a conservative, and couldn’t care less if it offends you or not.
I do not understand people being so upset about not having a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage. If there were an ammendment stating that marriage was defined as between a man and a woman, that still would not keep gays from having a marriage ceremony. It is just that their marriage would not be legally recongized. I know gays who have had marriage ceremonies to make a committment to each other, and they do not go running around asking that a constitutional ammendment be made to make their marriage legally recognized. Seems we are talking about two different ammendments. One banning gay marriage and one stateing marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Having a constitutional ammendment for these is not necessary. Marriage being defined as between a man and a woman should be a State’s issue. I really don’t care if gays have a marriage ceremony, but I do believe marriage is defined as between a man and woman. I just don’t understand people being so involved in these issues when there are much more important issues to worry about!
“Marriage being defined as between a man and a woman should be a State’s issue.”
That is Fred’s answer to every issue but we need a Constitutional Amendment in order to save our families from ruination.
Agreed, but using it as a campaign tool is.
“When you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Most assuredly, I tell you, they have received their reward.
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.