Kinda crummy of “team Thompson” to say that “I’m afraid CNN story you linked mischaracterized Thompson’s comment on gay marriage” in the linked article. Weather he said what he actually meant or not, Thompson definitely answered yes to the “would you actively push for a anti-gay marriage amendment” question in the linked video. He then went on to talk about the “full faith and credit”, but he never went back and corrected his statement about supporting the gay marriage amendment. Seems rather childish to blame CNN for reporting what he said rather then what he now claims he meant.
I dont quite get it why he’s spinning at all. He seems intent on playing to the knuckle-walking Bible-thumpers (meaning no disrespect to genuine troglodytes in the audience…) Which means he has to be dead solid on those issues, a wink and a nod ain’t gonna get it. Once he’s solid there, he may make a few gestures to the sane center, but not until.
None of this makes much sense.
“No,” yourself. The very first line of your link: “A ballot measure that would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota was rejected on Tuesday.”
Later in your own link: “The Legislature passed the law last winter in an attempt to prompt a court challenge aimed at getting the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the nation.”
I lived in the United States until a year ago. In a few years’ time it’s entirely possible I’ll be living in the United States again, depending on the vagaries of the job market. Whether you like it or not U.S. policy affects me. So spare me your condescension.
That is, I’m sorry, asinine. That’s like saying that repealing the laws against stealing from poor people wouldn’t change all that much; after all, it’s not like they have anything to steal.
If Roe does get overturned, it will be poor families living in those states…families that don’t have the time or the resources to go doctor-shopping across state lines…that will get screwed. And you want to toss them over the rail in the hopes of getting a constitutional amendment? Do you honestly expect a constitional amendment legalizing abortion to pass two-thirds of the House and Senate, let alone the states, anytime in the next freakin’ decade? No Republican would ever…ever…be caught voting for such an amendment, and the Democrats can’t even get 60 votes in the Senate for cloture right now. And for this you want to throw out Roe?
Yes. I read it and listened to the interview and he doesn’t say that he’d ban abortion. He doesn’t say that he’d ban gay marriage.
From the opening paragraph:
Any misrepresentation is most certainly yours.
Yes, and the very next sentence says: “Instead of filing a lawsuit, however, opponents gathered petition signatures to place the measure on the general election ballot for a statewide vote.” Opponents put it on the ballot to overturn the law.
Well, perhaps when you move back here, you’ll be more up on the news stories like that one and you’ll actually understand them instead of misrepresenting them. The ballot initiative was in reaction to the legislative ban.
It’s asinine to state a fact? Interesting…
Frankly, I haven’t said anything at all about what I want. I’m just stating what I see will happen. And if Roe gets overturned, it’ll be once of the best things that could happen to the pro-choice movement-- it’ll usher in a Democratic majority in Congress and in many states that hasn’t been seen in years. In fact, the Democrats might not have to rely on very many of the pro-choice Republicans (there are some of those, you know) to pass such an amendment. Your analysis is static, and doesn’t take into account the reaction of the voters if *Roe *were overturned.
I did indeed. My apologies.
To me, he’s just another ambulance chaser-and a Washington insider to boot. I don’t see this guy doing anything spectacular; much less be an effective leader. Does is acting stint make him a good candidate?
Yea, I heard all the hype and so tuned in to one of his interviews on cable TV ready to be impressed (I don’t watch L&O, so I didn’t really know who he was). I came back pretty under-whelmed. His overly laid back persona seems too much like ambivalence, and what he actually had to say about various issues were pretty boiler plate.
“This election cycles Wesley Clarke” seems the best prediction I’ve heard for F. Thompson. Putting an actor up for election seemed like a good idea to Repubs dissatisfied with their current candidates, just like putting up a General did to Dems in 2006.
You’re right, I had not seen that. My apologies.
Charming. Moving on.
It’s asinine to claim it “wouldn’t change all that much”. I imagine the people in the affected states would think it changes quite a bit. The fact that they have so little access to abortion now makes what access they have more valuable, not less.
The current administration has all but gutted the fourth amendment, stampeded willy-nilly into Iraq, outed covert agents for political reasons, appointed buffoons and pandering charlatans to every level of government, and pissed American credibility on the world stage down the toilet. The resulting tidal wave of outrage swept the Democratic party to a five…count 'em…five-seat gain in the Senate in 2006. You really think that the loss of Roe would propel them into another eighteen seats, to push them up to the necessary 67?
And let’s not even talk about Republicans. Their record of moderate Republicans when it comes to actually voting against the Republican base on key issues is, shall we say, weak.
And your analysis ignores the stampede of lobbyists and politicians that will be screaming for abortion bans at every level of government, state and federal, the instant Roe is cast aside. Every Republican politician will finally have an issue where they can promise red meat to their base and…for a change…actually follow through at no cost to themselves. And every Democratic politician will be forced to explain why they’re in favour of killing babies on prime-time news.
Public opinion in swaying to the pro-choice side, yes. But since when does public opinion of the nation as a whole actually matter, compared to the public opinion of well-oiled and voiciferous lobbies determined to get out the vote on their side? There are still plenty of pro-life voters out there, and the chance to slam through their own laws will energize them tremendously.
Whatever. I’ve gotten off-topic and more acrimonious than I intended; I don’t think I’ll be posting to this thread again although I’ll continue to read replies. My apologies.
Thompson was dogged about establishing a precedent for true federalism while he was in the Senate: he voted against even good or necessary laws if he felt that they weren’t the province of the federal government, but instead somethign the individual states needed to take care of.
Any politician who is willing to take a stand like that is going to be hugely attractive to the business and libertarian wings of the party. The fact that the states (left or right leaning) tend to be less willing to enact gay marriage proposals or allow abortions appeals to many members of the social conservative wing.
As an added bonus, the man speaks well, and has an air of command and control about him. Having a head diplomat seem to be in control of himself, and not wont to be a compromiser is a recall to the Reagan days. All Republicans idolize Reagan.
Oh, yeah, speaking of that: we like actors, too. When was the last Democratic general Prez? Jackson?
and pretty much anything else the fundie right would demand… this is news because…
Og speaks to you?
You right-wingers keep on thinking that! Best thing us Dems have going for us.
Heck of a lot better than your * candidates. *
Which major Repub candidates for President WOULDN’T work to ban abortion and prevent gay marriage?
Do you have any examples? Glancing at his voting record here, he apparently voted for the federal gov’t to prohibit flag burning, cloning (not funding of cloning, but the actual act itself) and partial birth abortions. I would think that a true federalist wouldn’t feel that any of these things were within Congresses ennumerated powers
The one who is leading in the polls right now-- Rudy Giuliani.
From that same site:
Fred Thompson is an outspoken and passionate supporter of “states rights”. He was often a lone voice in the Senate cautioning against the creeping effects of Federalism that overburdens taxpayers and state and local governments alike.
Thompson says, "Congress routinely passes laws and resulting regulations which are in conflict with state laws and regulations. These federal laws do not state whether or not they are intended to preempt the state regulations. Clearly, members of Congress don’t want their constituents back home asking why their state authority has been stripped. But Congress can have it both ways. They leave the legislation ambiguous, knowing that the federal courts will more often than not interpret the statute as preempting state law. I introduced a bill that essentially said, “Congress must state whether or not the federal legislation is intended to preempt the state regulation.” Period.
That’s what he says, but you suggested that he actually voted against “good and necessary” laws to follow a federalist philosophy. Glancing at his voting record in the linked site, I noted that he apparently has voted to regulate things that are unpopular (flag burning, cloning, partial-birth abortion), even though it seems to me that such regulations at a federal level aren’t consistent with federalism. What specific laws were you thinking of that FT voted against?