Skip to comments.GROUP HUG (Fred Thompson meets with the Arlington Group)
Posted on 09/29/2007 5:32:04 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Earlier this week, former Sen. Fred Thompson met privately in Washington, D.C. with senior members of the Arlington Group, a coalition of social and religious conservatives. The meeting, according to Arlington Group members present, included members who had previously met with Thompson at a private meeting in the spring, prior to Thompson's speech before the Council on National Policy.
At the meeting this week Thompson answered questions and discussed his views on social issues, as well as his own faith, for more than an hour.
"He's impressive, and a number of us want to help him," says a member of the Arlington Group who was present. "The group itself can't endorse, but I sense that a majority of the major players here will help Senator Thompson. From a social conservative's perspective, he's the most electable of the bunch, and he made it clear that he would not disappoint us if he were elected. He'll work with us to accomplish our goals."
Most critical to the members, according to an Arlington Group staffer present, was Thompson's more in-depth explanation of his position supporting a Constitutional amendment barring gay marriage, but not the one most members of the Arlington Group have been supporting.
"It doesn't go as far as many of us would like, but it goes a lot further than Rudy Giuliani, and he's got a much more solid record on the issue than Mitt Romney. It gets us closer to where we need to be. I am satisfied," says another religious leader at the meeting.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Yes, since you asked....
“It doesn’t go as far as many of us would like, but it goes a lot further than Rudy Giuliani, and he’s got a much more solid record on the issue than Mitt Romney. It gets us closer to where we need to be. I am satisfied,”
Question. How do you figure a statement like this helps “assuage” religious conservatives? Are you suggesting that we should settle for and be “satisfied” with a ‘moderate’(some would say RHINO) outcome, rather than a conservative outcome on this issue?
It is the Congress and state legislatures that pass constitutional amendments, not presidents. The Arlington Group needs to focus on them if they’re serious about the issue.
It looks like our chances of keeping Rudy out of the White House, keep improving.
Question. How do you figure a statement like this helps assuage religious conservatives? Are you suggesting that we should settle for and be satisfied with a moderate(some would say RHINO) outcome, rather than a conservative outcome on this issue?
Answer: No candidate is completely 100% to everyones liking. One backs the most conservative candidate running who at least has a reasonable chance of winning the nomination and general.
Any other course is quixotic and self defeating.
Surely you’re aware that Congressman Duncan Hunter is stuck at around 1% in the polls. Have you ever heard the Voltaire quote: “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”? Senator Fred Thompson is, by far, the most conservative of the three top-tier GOP candidates (Rudy, Mitt and Fred) and will help us get where we want to go rather than dreaming of a “perfect” conservative candidate that won’t be nominated or elected president. Don’t you agree?
Why is it considered a RINO outcome if homosexual marriage is not forced on citizens without their having a right to vote on the issue? Or not forced on them by judicial edict after having voted against it?
Fred knows that a Constitutional Amendment will be demagogued by the homosexual activists, and will be bogged down waiting for ratification. In the meantime, it would only take a vote of the Congress to allow States to refuse to be bound by the Full Faith and Credit Clause, so as to not have to recognize the validity of homosexual 'marriages' from a different state. He could also support legislation that would bar Federal Judges from messing with State legislation regarding marriage. That way, those States that have passed legislation allowing only one man-one woman marriage, are not in danger of some activist Federal judge overturning it.
If the candidate is conservative enough in almost every other issue, yet is still ELECTABLE, because he would be satisfactory for conservatives as well as some independents, why would that not be acceptable to religious conservatives? They most assuredly wouldn't want a Democrat in the White House.
Mitt Romney has the right views on the issues, but they feel that he doesn’t have a solid enough record? And Thompson does? These people need to pull their heads out of the sand. Hillary Clinton will eat Thompson alive in a general election. Especially during the debates. This man has a hard time coming close to knowing the issues well, imagine him going one on one with Hillary. Mark my words he will never be president. If republicans are foolish enough to nominate him we will be throwing away the presidency.
Fred voted for the DOMA and believes marriage is meant for one man and one woman.
From the article:
"In the end, Thompson's position would bar judges from changing the definition of marriage, and he said that he would be supportive of a Constitutional amendment if we were able to get it passed. What I came away from the meeting with was that, first, he is one of us, and second, he will actually work with us and use the bully pulpit of the presidency to help us and our nation's culture."
Have you seen Hillary in the debates?
She is terrible, Her staff must be idiots for not having coached her, she couldn't debate a footstool.
On the upside, unlike Romney, Thompson has a stronger record on guns and abortion.
At this point, Fred is the only Republican who can beat both major liberal candidates running, Rooty and Hillary. And I don't see that changing.
Perfect usage of the word flatulence!
Iowa Caucuses .. Jan. 14, 2008. In fact MI selects a portion of their delegates about a week earlier than Iowa. So tell us how Mitt is going to slip into the top two? The voters generally aren't fooled by the candidates.
Hillary Clinton will never eat Thomspson alive in a debate. Fred knows Miss Hitlery from the Watergate hearings days. She will not best him in a debate. Her responses are always contrived and screechy, and there’s nothing she can do about her witchy voice. Nothing she can do about her witchy smirk. Nothing she can do about her witchy cackling. Whereas, Fred Thompson projects manners, common sense, and grace with his gravitas voice.
Well, some said John Kerry beat George Bush in the debates but Kerry didn’t win....
Not that I necessarily agree with your assessment of Thompson’s debating skills, but if that is your concern we need only look to the debates in 2004 to disabuse you of the notion that is a disqualifier.
MARK MY WORDS- Whether we win in ‘08 or NOT, we need a candidate that unites the base. It is the ONLY way to prevent a bloodbath at the local and state levels handing VETO/Filibuster proof majorities to the dems. At the very LEAST, Thompson can hold our usual ground and maybe provide enough coattails to regain some House seats.
THAT is my first priority. Winning the W.H. is my second.
If Rudy were the nominee, he’d jeopardize territory we already hold and is not in solid position to grab swing or blue states in return. It’d be Mondale in reverse. Considering how unpopular Hillary is, the defeats we’d suffer would be all the more stunning.
Romney commands unfavorable ratings that surpass Hillary’s already. Quite a stunning accomplishent considering she’s been in the national spotlight over a decade. he barely tracks 10% nationally and is already losing his hold on N.H. and Iowa. he’s catered to conservatives, but conservatives think he’s just saying what they want to hear. He won’t get the nomination, he can only hope to draw enough conservative votes from thompson that rudy squeaks by.
mccain’s problems are legendary. He’s spent years spitting on the base, in return the base will spit him out. In a General election he’d probably still command some Independent support, but the conservative support would diminish. Maybe not a blowout defeat nationally, but an anchor on lower ticket races.
hunter is well liked by conservatives...but has shown no ability to translate that to greater support nationally.
Tancredo, Paul and so on barelt register in polls and have their own baggage.
Huckabee has benefited from his position as a Governor in Arkansas and social conservative reputation. His position on the war, amnesty and big government will sink him as fast as he’s risen in the primary.
And, yes, Thompson has a solid conservative record. Note the word is “solid” not “perfect”. No other candidate breaking double figures can claim that.
IMO, it is your head that needs to rise above the sand and check in on reality, the only candidate that is even close to Rudy is Thompson. It doesn’t matter if you’ve pinned your hopes on another savior, thompson is the only one at this point that can beat him. Whether you think he can win the general election doesn’t matter anymore. If your candidate can’t even win the primary, newsflash, they can’t win the general election. So you have two choices. Thompson or rudy. rudy won’t win and he’ll be a drag on the lower ticket. Thompson may or may not win, but with him on the ticket we might make gains in the House and possibly regain our majority there.
I guess you knew the answer before you asked it.
Basically, you’re supposed to put your convictions aside for the good of the Party.
Let me guess.
You support Rudy.
That remains to be seen.
He ain’t doing too bad, so far!
David loves Hillary.
I agree completely. Well said.
Well...no elections have been held yet. If he is the nominee, I hope he wins.
True that! There are still several months before the first primary!
Brother, you said a mouthful!
It looks like our chances of keeping Rudy and Hillary out of the White House, keep improving.
If true, we will know if after a couple of debates. Until then, I’ll withhold judgment.
No, I don't agree. Nor do I agree with Voltaire: It is "good 'nuff" that is the enemy of good.
Nor would they want to be responsible for what is not in line with their principles.
But if they decided to stay home out of 'principle', they'll get a Democrat in the White House, which is even worse than any Republican they might reject out of principle. In a less precarious world, that might be ok, but there's WAY too much at stake. It's not abortion or homosexual marriage that is the major problem, it's standing virtually defenseless in the face of Islamic fundamentalism.
It is the Republican RINOs currently in office that are responsible (not complicit, but responsible) for shamnesty, for Treaty of the Seas, and for the NAU. How can one say that the Democrats are "even worse"? Even if one could plausibly consider anything "worse" than loss of sovereignty, rewarding these bastards with election will only encourage them.
The only faction not complicit, indeed, the only faction in opposition even before the outcry of the people were the far right Conservatives. to support any other is to invite more of the same.
How soon we forget.
You have got to be joking or smoking some premium Jamaican weed.
Give me a break. If Mitt's nominated, the Democrats will do to him what Republicans did to John Kerry in 2004. I can already see the videos and voice-overs, juxtaposing Romney's face with one of his positions. How much more money is Romney going to loan his campaign?