Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/" target="_blank">http://politicalticker.blogs.c nn.com/</a> He's not running, but dadgum iff'n he was, he'd ban abortion and gay marriages. What a tool. Here's what I want to see. A candidate who doesn't play to the fears of the extreme right or left. This country has so much more confronting it than whether or not someone gets an abortion or Joey marries Larry. Talk to me about the economy, health care, gas prices, terrorism, the budget, immigration, or international relations. If all you're going to push and/or hype is crap like abortion and gay marriage, don't freakin' waste my time or yours.
Originally Posted By friendofdd >>>Here's what I want to see. A candidate who doesn't play to the fears of the extreme right or left.<<< You will, SPP. It will happen right after it is known who the two candidates are that survived the primaries. They will immediately ignore the extremes and pose as centrists. One never knows who we have until they are in office and it is too late.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <He's not running, but dadgum iff'n he was, he'd ban abortion and gay marriages.> That's not exactly what he said. Working to overturn Roe Vs Wade would not ban abortions, and passing an amendment that would prevent states from recognizing gay marriages from other states would not ban gay marriage.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Any of this make sense to anyone? “I don’t think that one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage or allowing gay marriage and have another state be required to follow along,†Thompson told CNN’s John King in an interview Friday. Thompson added that the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion “was bad law and bad medicine.†As for when he will jump into the race, the former Tennessee senator said "shortly." “We are going to be getting in if we get in, and of course, we are in the testing the waters phase,†he said. “We’re going to be making a statement shortly that will cure all of that. But yeah, we’ll be in traditionally when people get in this race."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Any of this make sense to anyone?> Considering it's pretty close to what the majority of Americans believe, I'd guess yes.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder What I really find disappointing about Thompson is that he's one of the few strong personalities in the mix. He projects well, and appeared to have a backbone. I figured him to be kind of a maverick, not toeing any particular line. Then he discovered the concept of pandering for votes and pimping himself to the money of the far right. I can't even watch him on Law and Order anymore.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 “I don’t think that one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage or allowing gay marriage and have another state be required to follow along,†Since no other state has been required to recognize Massachusetts' same-sex marriages, this does seem like pure pandering.
Originally Posted By ecdc Thompson has to look conservative even though he has a trophy wife. He was part of Hollywood long enough, there's some skeletons in his closet somewhere.
Originally Posted By ecdc SPP, do you think Guliani meets your description? I know he's not all that likeable to some, but he strikes me as largely uninterested in the culture war topics that so many conservatives get off on. That said, I haven't followed his campaign. Why should I vote/not vote for him? What are the thoughts out there?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Then he discovered the concept of pandering for votes and pimping himself to the money of the far right.> So are you saying he used to be pro-abortion and for federal recognition of gay marriage? I haven't seen any reports of that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Since no other state has been required to recognize Massachusetts' same-sex marriages, this does seem like pure pandering.> He's not in favor of pursuing a constitutional amendment under the present circumstances.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So are you saying he used to be pro-abortion and for federal recognition of gay marriage? I haven't seen any reports of that." I'm saying that for someone who isn't even announced as a candidate yet, he's already got his wetted finger out in the wind to make sure he knows which way to tilt.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "SPP, do you think Guliani meets your description? I know he's not all that likeable to some, but he strikes me as largely uninterested in the culture war topics that so many conservatives get off on." Right now, Guliani bothers me. While I like his abortion stance, that's not my litmus test. I want him to come down with some sort of solid policy as it relates to terrorism and the Middle East. That said, if it wasn't for 9/11, we wouldn't even be talking about him now. He was not a very good mayor, not at all, but he did rise to the occasion when the city and even the country needed it. He seems too anxious to be President right now, and that also bothers me. But your right, he does seem like he would refuse to be drawn into some high noon showdown about gay marriage and abortion. That part appeals to me.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I will say this about Giuliani- he was one of the better U.S. Attorneys in my lifetime.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Since no other state has been required to recognize Massachusetts' same-sex marriages, this does seem like pure pandering.>> <He's not in favor of pursuing a constitutional amendment under the present circumstances. > Really? That's not in the original link. In fact the original link said he would "push for a constitutional ammendment." So did you read elsewhere that he doesn't favor one now? And if that IS so, then why even bring it up? It does seem like pandering.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<He seems too anxious to be President right now, and that also bothers me.>> That doesn't bother me a bit. Some of our best presidents (like Slick Willy) were very anxious to be president at a time when others were uncertain of what they really stood for. The great thing about candidates like that is that they are very pragmatic. They are not bound to any particular philosophy, but are willing to make the changes needed to make things WORK. Give me a competent pragmatist over a committed zealot any time!!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm saying that for someone who isn't even announced as a candidate yet, he's already got his wetted finger out in the wind to make sure he knows which way to tilt.> How do you know he wasn't already tilted that way?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Really? That's not in the original link. In fact the original link said he would "push for a constitutional ammendment."> Well, this is CNN we're talking about. It's not inconceivable that they would leave out a qualifier that would make a conservative seem more reasonable. <So did you read elsewhere that he doesn't favor one now?> Yes. The official word from his campaign is "Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage." <And if that IS so, then why even bring it up?> I don't know. Maybe because he was asked a question. I hear that happens to candidates, on occasion.
Originally Posted By jonvn The thing about Rudy that is really in his favor is that when he needed to, he did his job competently. That would be a big step up from the crowd we have now.
