Is his campaign over before it has begun, or is there a significant voting bloc that could get him elected? I have to admire his forthrightness, even if I disagree with him completely. Is this the way for the Republicans to maintain control of the White House?
Ignore. Reporting duplicate post.
My Father doesn’t expect him to declare, he thinks he’s just fundraising so he can influence the vote and gain favors. That being said, the President doesn’t have such powers to do those things.
Fair enough. My title was inexact. From the link :
“Banning” and “Pushing” for a ban are indeed two different things, but both speak to the purpose of the candidate. Can he win with this as a platform?
It’ll definitely appeal to his base in a way that Giuliani and Romney cannot hope to. I don’t know about win though. He’s a good traditional conservative candidate, if he got the nom, he might be able to win. Basically if he can take his party, yes I think there is a chance he can win.
Well, banning gay marriage has pretty much been proven a winner amongst the electorate.
Over-turning Roe v. Wade is less obviously popular, and even a lot of conservative candidates usually talk about “not appointing federalist judges” and the like rather then specifically mentioning Roe v. Wade. We’ll see how explicit Fred remains during his actual campaign.
I listened to the interview and while I found the sound quality of his accent bad, I think you’re misrepresenting him. His responses were quite canny and subtle. He said that Roe v Wade was a bad judgement and bad law. That’s not the same as saying he’d ban abortion. He didn’t say he’d ban gay marriage, he said that it shouldn’t be covered under ‘full faith and credit’. He was then positive about pushing constitutional amendments but I think those have little chance of passing.
Typical politician, really. How sad.
My link was a direct quote from the text of the article. Any misrepresentation is not mine.
Didn’t people who voted for Dubya pretty much think he would push for those two things as well?
I thought he dropped out of the race.
Also note that only Congress can ban gay marriage or abortion. And note that overturning *Roe *would not ban abortion. It would also be the best thing that could happen to the Democrats, since there would be a huge backlash.
Except of course in those states which have trigger laws, and those states which have laws pre-dating Roe already on the books that would become enforceable in Roe’s absence.
Maybe in a few states. But don’t be so sure that those laws would stay on the books very long. Look what happened in South Dakota recently.
I really don’t think overturning Roe would change much, other than give the Democrats a big boost in the following election. Those abortion-phobic states tend to have very few (like 1) abortion clinics now.
Congress can only ban gay marriage in territory where it has plenary power (Federal territories, Washington DC, etc.) A nationwide ban on gay marriage requires a Constitutional amendment.
That’s the other Thompson!
The fact that even in the face of Roe there are ballot initiatives put forth to ban abortion without health exceptions is supposed to be reassuring? Rather, that suggests that if Roe is overturned there’s going to be a feeding frenzy of right-wing agitators and other zealots scrambling to shove anti-abortion laws through state legislatures.
Again, the fact that access to abortion is so limited is suppose to reassure me that Roe isn’t necessary? The United States has hounded abortion clinics to the brink of extinction in these states, making it unavailable in practice to poor families and those unable to travel out of those states, so this somehow signals that the support of the law isn’t necessary?
As others have noted, saying he’ll work on something or push for something is a vague enough agenda that he can pretty much claim to have met it at any level of actual activity. It’s not like Thompson has an LBJ-like record of getting actual legislation passed.
No. The ballot initiative was to remove the law banning abortions, not to ban abortions.
I don’t really care whether you are reassured about anything, especially since you don’t even live in this country. I’m just saying that abortions are pretty hard to get in some states now, so banning them completely in those states doesn’t change things all that much. People will just go out of state to get abortions. And most people in the US do want abortions to be legal. We might even see a constitutional amendment passed to protect abortion rights if *Roe *were overturned.
That’s pretty much meaningless, since as far as I know, the general decision is that it’s not covered.