Evangelical leaders aren’t rushing to Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign as they had earlier indicated they would. The leaders are having doubts about whether Thompson really does share their views on social issues and whether he has the stomach to survive a tough campaign, the Associated Press reported.
Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America, questioned Thompson’s commitment. “When you really take a stand on issues dear to the heart of social conservatives, you’re going to shed some blood in the process,” he said. “And so far, Fred Thompson’s political career has been wrinkle-free.”
Of particular concern to some evangelicals is whether Thompson supports a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. “At one time, he said he was against it,” said Mathew Staver of the Liberty Counsel. “Then he said in June he was for it. So if now he’s saying he’s against it, to me that’s a double-minded person. And that would be a real concern for religious conservatives.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
54 Comments
Evangelicals cannot understand anything but black and white. I don’t like Fred Thompson because of the sum of his political career and the cherry on the top of this sundae is that I don’t even like Fred Thompson in the movies or on televsion.
Thompson is just another B actor trying to use his so-called celebrity power to become president. We tried that once with Reagan and all we got was a clothes horse wife and a senile old man that thought ketchup was a fruit.
Again, thank you for your concern. I can’t explain how touching and moving it was when Vaughn told me about it. In short, nothing etched in stone, at this oiunt, but all looks promising ! Thanx, darlin’ !!!
Ok, so Fred dosen’t hate gays enough to satify the religious right. But wouldn’t it be cool to have a president named FRED?
As one of those Radical Right Wing Religious Concervative Evangelicals…
I will be supporting Fred Thompson.
I couldn’t care less whether or not he supports the Amendment to ban homosexual marriage.
Who cares what so-called evangelicals want? They are mostly religious nutcases that have rbought alot of misery and ruin to this country. We need to marginalize these folks as much as possible. And, no, I do not mean all- or even most- Chiristians fall into this category. Many of us love God but keep our religious preferences in our hearts, our homes and our churches where it belongs. We don’t try to use the government to force our version of God on other people who may not share our views. It is kind of funny that conservatives rant and rave about “radical Islam” over there but support “radical Christianity” over here.
TO:maidmarion
Your comments about president Reagan show how much you know about anything!!= NOTHING
Posted by: You just don’t get it do you
Sock puppets already today?
Good! Looks like Thompson has my vote. :)
Did any of you watch the values voters debate last night? I tried and listened for over half an hour. Talk about bigots and nut cases! WOW! The Republicans better hope Thompson doesn’t join those who claim to be Evangelical leaders or they have more problems than previously identified in the 2008 elections.
“Talk about bigots and nut cases! WOW!”
The ghosts of terry, joe and fred?
Heheheheheheheh. Even the evangelicals much cringe when they see themselves portrayed by these candidates.
Vote for bigotry! Vote for hate! Vote for theocracy!
I say flush ‘em out, and let’s get ‘em to show their true colors even MORE often. THAT ought to surely seal their defeat.
So Fred won’t grovel to the hard-core “religious” right?
Sounds like another plus for Fred.
You know what I miss? The Christianity that I grew up with that discouraged judging others and warmly accepted everyone, even the “sinners”, with love and compassion.When did it all change? Today being Christian seems to mean that one is arrogant, intolerant, and willing to condemn to hell anyone who doesn’t share their belief system.I grew up Catholic..and I NEVER heard any priest say that Jews, homosexuals, etc. were going to hell if they didn’t repent and accept Jesus as their savior…never. We were taught to accept and love everyone, no matter how flawed or wrong we perceived them to be, because it was wrong to judge others. THAT was the Christian thing to do. It was never about condemning others under the facade of trying to “save” them.Today’s Christianity leaves such a bad taste in my mouth, that when I hear someone proclaim their “Christianity” I automatically want to turn a deaf ear to anything they have to say because the proclamation is usually followed by some angry, arrogant, and intolerant opinion or put down.
Why did this happen? It’s no longer the faith that I loved and grew up with.
You said it all Mary! Nothing to add except I also miss those days when love and respect for humanity seemed to be the backbone of the Church.
That’s 2 posts in 2 days by the Eagle attacking Thompson.
The Liberal Socialist Democrats have a deep fear of Thompson.
Since the Eagle praised Hillary in a post yesterday with her rollout of her Hillarycare plan (the timing obviously to deflect from the Clinton Campaign Crisis), will the Eagle soon have a post about The Clinton Campaign Crisis?
$900,000 in money from fugitives and counting. $1.8 million plus $40 million still to be accounted for.
Or will the Eagle try and sweep Hillary’s trash under the rug?
“Or will the Eagle try and sweep Hillary’s trash under the rug?”
Posted by: Max
Pssst… Max, Hillary is the next president of the U.S.A. Get used to it.
Maybe, get your hypertension meds ahead of your need.
And to be clear, I hate the continuing Bush/Clinton bipolar illness our country has had for far too long. I had hopes for a viable other candidate besides Hillary. I am not seeing that at this time.
Didn’t Fred do legal work for planned parenthood? That cat sit well the RR
Why are they called Evangelists or Religious Right when they are really “Jesus Killers”?
Tom:
IIRC – Fred’s firm did some legal work for Planned Parenthood. I don’t know if Thompson did any of it himself.
Frankly it wouldn’t matter anyway; a lawyer in no way endorses a cause or a client when he does legal work. His ethical duty is to advocate a legal position on behalf of his client.
“Frankly it wouldn’t matter anyway; a lawyer in no way endorses a cause or a client when he does legal work. His ethical duty is to advocate a legal position on behalf of his client.” True, GMC, but a lot of folks don’t understand this I have found.
I will be supporting Fred Thompson.
Posted by: Nathan
What does fred stand for?Other than being the lazy canidate, has he ever talked about details?
VT, GMC – you are right. Look at how people react to the defense attorneys who have to represent people like Rader or the Carr brothers.
the Eagle attacking Thompson.The Liberal Socialist Democrats
the Eagle praised Hillary
will the Eagle try and sweep Hillary under the rug?
Posted by: Max
lolyou must take notes from your daily dose of oxy, no not oxy, i mean daily dose of the truth and the only truth by rush who is sooo strong to stand up against the left wing leanings of the media who are socialist slanting in their attacks on the followers who are the real people who are supporters of the truth in the united states against hollywood, tree huggers, gun controlers, clean water sissys, femi nazis, baby killers, etc.mini max ur a legend in your own mind.go back to fox news, they love you over there on the dark side.
Fred’s firm did some legal work for Planned Parenthood.
I don’t know if Thompson did any of it himself.
of course fred hasn’t done anything.
aahhh
i mean fred hasn’t done anything wrong.
or is he just another rich lawyer who works for both sides if they pay him enough?
“Frankly it wouldn’t matter anyway; a lawyer in no way endorses a cause or a client when he does legal work. His ethical duty is to advocate a legal position on behalf of his client.”
wowflip flopin fred has ethics??
of course when you are a hired gun, a lobbyist, you sell out to whoever pays you.
fred’s a lawyer who is a sell out.
ask fred about his $400 haircut.
fred has a cute daughter.
why don’t his wife appear with him in public??
VT, GMC – you are right. Look at how people react to the defense attorneys who have to represent people like Rader or the Carr brothers.
Posted by: Ben
funny stufflolyou make believe that someone forced fred to lobby for planned parenthood.
he was a lobbyist not a public defender.
i would think you would know more about the law after watching LaO.
it’s creappy how you repukes latch on to someone you know nothing about, except for some lame p.r.
It seems to me that former Senator Thompson is appealing to the traditional, politically conservative “Goldwater Republican” sector by his actions. The calculus here, it appears, is that either the Evangelical vote won’t be that big in the upcoming election, or it will go to the GOP by default.
Wait until some 527 group runs print ads and TV spots featuring what Richard Nixon had to say about Fred Thompson concerning his role as investigative counsel for the Senate Watergate committee.
From the Associated Press: Nixon was disappointed with the selection of Thompson, whom he called “dumb as hell.”
Obi Wan, by publishing the comments of Nixon, the 527 group would likely end up creating more votes for former Senator Thompson, don’t you think?
VT
Assuming that Hillary! is the democratic nominee, evangelicals won’t stay at home; they’ll turn out to vote against her. How many? Hard to say, but a great many. So I suspect that the evangelical vote will go to the GOP.
More interesting is that Fred doesn’t seem to think he needs to court that block to get the nomination. Or is it so simple as he WON’T pander to them, counting on mainstream conservatives to support him?
We’ll see. So far, he’s hardly been a gangbuster campaigner. And voters in NH and Iowa expected to be courted.
Yes, GMC, that was the alternative point I was trying to make earlier.
And, yes, the Iowa and New Hampshire folks definitely expect to be courted.
On a bit of a resigned but head-shaking note, it seems a bit incredible that this thread is up on September 18, 2007……
Thompson wasn’t the only GOP candidate to sit out last night’s Values Voters Debate. Giuliani, Romney and McCain were also absent. There were empty podiums with their names on them and audience members addressed questions to the missing candidates. Seemed like the of course unanswered questions were to get on the record some of the areas these candidates didn’t garner favor of this audience. And, they (several of the leaders) promised those missing they would not win without the support of this group. It was said almost like a threat. So, given the choice of voting for a GOP who won’t pander to them will they vote at all?
Yeah.
linda -
If the dem nominee is Hillary!, probably. She will drive many to the polls just to vote against her.
GMC – maybe we can get Sam to run as a third-party candidate and “Nader” Thompson if he gets the nomination.
Hillary will likely need a 3rd Party candidate in order to win the election.
Bill couldn’t win without a 3rd Party candidate, I doubt if Hillary could either.
Ben
1) Given that I would drive across a desert, in the heat, without water, and crawl over cactus to vote against Hillary!, why would I want to do that?
2) For lots of practical reality reasons, third parties in American politics are simply not viable. The best they can generally do is serve as a spoiler, ala Nader or Perot. And it is an interesting question, even if purely academic, if Bill would ever have been elected had Perot not been in the races.
I don’t care which is the Republicans win the nomination. Frankly I don’t see any of them being hard to beat next year. Huckabee might be a little difficult but he does not have a chance in hell of winning the GOP nod anyway.
GMC – I think Bill would have been elected. As I watched the polls see-saw with Ross entering, leaving, and re-entering I saw him take more from the challenger than from the incumbent (but not by a lot). Remember, Perot was neither ‘right’ nor ‘left’; he was just ‘out there.’
I contarst that to 2000 with nader, clearly on the ‘left’ of Gore and therefore taking his little slice from Gore. In the two states that Bush carried with significantly less than 50% (FL and NH) I believe that made the difference.
I agree with you that the third is a spoiler; that is why I’d love to see one on the right!
agree with you that the third is a spoiler; that is why I’d love to see one on the right!
Posted by: Ben | September 18, 2007 at 04:56 PM
i would not like to see a spoiler on either side. We need either a legitimate 3rd party candidate, one who has some chance of winning (my personal favorite), or a clear cut choece of candidates. Muddying the waters with a 3rd party candidate just, well, muddies the water
Clarifiacation – I was referring to 1992 above. In 1996 Perot really wasn’t a factor; he had marginalized himself.
Thompson can win just on huge voter turnout over the illegal wetback issue. Hillary and the other dems are downright treasonous on the issue.
180*
180 – isn’t it the Republic administration that is pushing this immigration thing?
LJ
The problem is that in American politics, for lots of structural, historical and practical reasons, a third party can rarely be anything BUT a spoiler, and certainly not on a national level.
If you don’t like your options, in this country your remedy is to work within the respective parties, not abandon them. As much as we may dislike the parties we have, they are what we have, and we have to work with them. Change comes from the inside. The trick, of course, is to get inside the institution, to change it, without becoming part of, or captured by, the institution. That is VERY difficult.
LJ, I would disagree with GMC if you are truly disgusted with your voting options then by all means find a politcal party that shares a majority of their views with yours whether that is Libertarian, Reform, Green, Constitution what ever, choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. The lack of choice mostly stems from the major parties putting stumbling blocks in the way of Independant/third parties in regards to ballot access, debates etc.
“”"180 – isn’t it the Republic administration that is pushing this immigration thing?”"”
Yeah. They have done such a great job of securing the borders that they deserve 4 more years to try and figure it out!
Conservatives are becoming Doubting Thompsons?
And why ae we even attempting discussions with the evil Troll Gul Dukat?? I am all out of Troll Peanuts for today….
If you want someone who isn’t religious, why not just vote for a democrat who is afraid of religion. Or are the American people so far away from God they don’t care who they vote for?
Tom Paine
That’s certainly part of it. But the biggest factor is that the American political system is made up of single member, winner take all districts. There are no rewards for anything other than winning, thus it is difficult to build a party.
Whether I think that is a good or bad thing is irrelevent. It is. I must deal with the system as it is, rather than tilt at windmills.
The problem is that in American politics, for lots of structural, historical and practical reasons, a third party can rarely be anything BUT a spoiler, and certainly not on a national level.
If you don’t like your options, in this country your remedy is to work within the respective parties, not abandon them. As much as we may dislike the parties we have, they are what we have, and we have to work with them. Change comes from the inside. The trick, of course, is to get inside the institution, to change it, without becoming part of, or captured by, the institution. That is VERY difficult.
Posted by: GMC70 | September 18, 2007 at 06:01 PM
LJ, I would disagree with GMC if you are truly disgusted with your voting options then by all means find a politcal party that shares a majority of their views with yours whether that is Libertarian, Reform, Green, Constitution what ever, choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. The lack of choice mostly stems from the major parties putting stumbling blocks in the way of Independant/third parties in regards to ballot access, debates etc.
Posted by: tom paine | September 18, 2007 at 06:23 PM
I actually agree with both of you. How can that be? I am dissatisfied with either major party. I think they are so entrenched, they they offer little in the way of representation. I think they are both corrupt, and seek only power for their own, and I don;t mean those ordinary citizens that subscribe to either one. I think that building a third party is the only way to make a difference. I think there are many, and they are small, and most seem to be of a single issue nature, though I have not researched a lot of them.
However, for those very reasons, and some mentioned above, it is imperative to get anything done, one must work within the system, and try and effect change, from the bottom up. Not an easy task, but one that has been done before. Of course, being on the bottom means all the weight of that which you are trying to change is pushing you down. Not necessarily even malicously, just because it is. It exists, and bodies at rest tend to stay at rest. And thre is indeed a danger in getting caught up, in compromising here, to accomplish that. Pretty soon, you are compromised, and ineffective. Happens everyday. In fact, I think many politicians of both parties enter politics to make a change, and then make compromises, and then are compromised. And then, just fodder for the true powers that be.
SOlution, work both the independant party to make it stronger, and work the national parties to make them better. Maybe?
Hmm, Fred has James Dobson upset; maybe I’ll take another look at him after all.
http://tinyurl.com/26vlek
Gosh, you mean fred just wasnt bigoted enough for dobson?
I’m shocked. SHOCKED, I say!