Thompson doesn't hate gays enough for the Evangelicals' liking

Talk about single issue voting. With all the things that America has on it's plate to worry about right now, some voters are considering disqualifying a candidate who seems in most other areas to be quite reasonable, because he isn't anti-gay enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Article

Thompson told CNN in August that he supports an amendment that would prohibit states from imposing their gay marriage laws on other states. That falls well short of what evangelical leaders want: an amendment that would bar gay marriage nationwide.

---

Full story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20692638/

Newsflash: Single issue voting plagues the American voting system. :wall:

*sighs*

Those fools...this guy is the best of the top tier Republicans for their issues, and they might sit at home because he's not 100% 700 Club approved, and let someone much worse than him for their issues get elected.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

*sighs*

Those fools...this guy is the best of the top tier Republicans for their issues, and they might sit at home because he's not 100% 700 Club approved, and let someone much worse than him for their issues get elected.

CR

---

Agreed. It now comes down to will they hold their noses and vote for him (assuming he wins the candidacy), or just not vote at all. I believe the Christian right staying at home would mean you guys will surely have a Dem president. And I'm not too keen on that given the choice of Dems. I'd love to see Rudy make it, but Thompson is quickly becoming my closest runner up choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Agreed. It now comes down to will they hold their noses and vote for him (assuming he wins the candidacy), or just not vote at all. I believe the Christian right staying at home would mean you guys will surely have a Dem president. And I'm not too keen on that given the choice of Dems. I'd love to see Rudy make it, but Thompson is quickly becoming my closest runner up choice.

---

Frankly, I doubt there are enough people who are completely hung up on this one single issues (gay marriage ban amendment) to make much difference. I'm very cool to the idea myself. I'd rather see states handle it via amending their own constitutions one way or the other if need be, or even better, by simple legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Agreed. It now comes down to will they hold their noses and vote for him (assuming he wins the candidacy), or just not vote at all. I believe the Christian right staying at home would mean you guys will surely have a Dem president. And I'm not too keen on that given the choice of Dems. I'd love to see Rudy make it, but Thompson is quickly becoming my closest runner up choice.

---

Sorry, but given Rudy's attitudes towards the constitution and his 'Freedom is about giving authority to me' line mean I don't want him president.

CR

I'm actively terrified it's going to come down to he Hildabeast and "Every day is 9/11" Giuliani. If that happens, I may need to be held. Gently. And I'm going to need a blankie.

Compared to those two, none of the other candidates look that bad. Thompson is right, of course. A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is unnecessary and unproductive. It should be handled state-by-state, in the political arena. We are still nominally a Federal nation, right? States get to try things out on their own, right? Guys?

Wow.. Im more suprised to see that there are actually people who consider Thompson a valid candidate.. what is that about?!

Probably cause he doesn't spout off about conspiracy theories for why we attacked Afghanistan.

And he actually gets support in scientific polls. You know, the ones in reality, not on the internets.

CR

uh, name recognition of an "ACTOR" is meaningless, friend. That someone would vote for a professional pretender with no qualifying abilities in foreign or domestic policy is ludicrous. You should look into his time in the Congress.

Its sad that so many seemingly normal people believe the slop put out by the mainstream media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And he actually gets support in scientific polls. You know, the ones in reality, not on the internets.

---

The latest Rasmussen polls have Thompson in the lead. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

You should look into his time in the Congress.

---

I have. He has a pretty solid voting record.

Unfortunately Ron Paul is winning most of the straw polls. Too bad national polls are pretty much meaningless at this stage; like I said, name recognition from all the attention the corporate media is giving him, especially Fox Noise.

As for his time in Congress, he's proven to be about the laziest elected official in recent history.

Thompson, like I said prior, and his latest role is playing a conservative. Its he and other Big-Corporation Repbulicans like Bush who have hijacked the Republican party with this neo-fascist, neo-conservative agenda of war and industry.

Thompson spent more time in DC as a lobbyist than he did as a Senator.

His client list included Haitian tyrant Jean-Bertrand Aristide--the leftist murderer who called the United States "the great Satan" and defended "necklacing"—the gruesome torture of fastening a tire around a victim's neck, filling it with gasoline, and setting it on fire. Thompson's defense? "President Clinton supported Aristide too."

Fred Thompson is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. CFR is the liberal foreign policy Establishment personified. This is the club for Dean Acheson and Henry Kissinger wanabees.

Fred Thompson is a Big-Government Expansionist.

He's voted 14 times against the Constitutional right to bear arms.

He's voted to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

Fred Thompson has quietly voted for George W. Bush's massive expansion of Big Government's intrusion into American citizens' personal lives. Thompson voted, for example, to allow government eavesdropping on presumed innocent citizens through "roving wiretaps."

He was a key water-boy for one of the most unconstitutional pieces of legislation in American history—the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act. Apparently there's something "dirty" about grassroots lobbying—unlike his lobbying for billions in corporate pork and welfare.

"Fred Thompson the political actor is very adept at delivering his lines about the need for fiscal responsibility, putting an end to pork and corporate welfare, and the rest of the conservative litany. Fred Thompson the lobbyist and Washington insider, however, sees pork as a juicy way to make a living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Unfortunately Ron Paul is winning most of the straw polls. Too bad national polls are pretty much meaningless at this stage; like I said, name recognition from all the attention the corporate media is giving him, especially Fox Noise.

As for his time in Congress, he's proven to be about the laziest elected official in recent history.

Thompson, like I said prior, and his latest role is playing a conservative. Its he and other Big-Corporation Repbulicans like Bush who have hijacked the Republican party with this neo-fascist, neo-conservative agenda of war and industry.

Thompson spent more time in DC as a lobbyist than he did as a Senator.

His client list included Haitian tyrant Jean-Bertrand Aristide--the leftist murderer who called the United States "the great Satan" and defended "necklacing"—the gruesome torture of fastening a tire around a victim's neck, filling it with gasoline, and setting it on fire. Thompson's defense? "President Clinton supported Aristide too."

Fred Thompson is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. CFR is the liberal foreign policy Establishment personified. This is the club for Dean Acheson and Henry Kissinger wanabees.

Fred Thompson is a Big-Government Expansionist.

He's voted 14 times against the Constitutional right to bear arms.

He's voted to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

Fred Thompson has quietly voted for George W. Bush's massive expansion of Big Government's intrusion into American citizens' personal lives. Thompson voted, for example, to allow government eavesdropping on presumed innocent citizens through "roving wiretaps."

He was a key water-boy for one of the most unconstitutional pieces of legislation in American history—the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act. Apparently there's something "dirty" about grassroots lobbying—unlike his lobbying for billions in corporate pork and welfare.

"Fred Thompson the political actor is very adept at delivering his lines about the need for fiscal responsibility, putting an end to pork and corporate welfare, and the rest of the conservative litany. Fred Thompson the lobbyist and Washington insider, however, sees pork as a juicy way to make a living.

---

And Ron Paul is living about 100 years in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

And Ron Paul is living about 100 years in the past.

---

Alright, see, this is what we need to get past. This overgeneralized mud slinging. You do not question or comment on ANY of the statements made by Zaknafien, you just make a broad, generalized insult towards the other candidate. Why do you think he's living 100 years in the past? I'd just like to hear your actual reasoning for disliking Paul, if there are indeed real reasons.

Sorry Zak, but I'm not gonna support a guy who thinks the gold standard is a good idea.

Whole presidential campaigns were run against that bad idea 100 years ago, and it's even more of a bad idea today.

Not to mention Dr. Paul's votes against free trade agreements. :dizzy2:

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greaterkhaan

Alright, see, this is what we need to get past. This overgeneralized mud slinging.

---

Is unsourced "specific" mudslinging any better? The outrageous crap they come up with belies how seriously they must take Thompson as a candidate.

The lobbying for Aristide charge is a real gem. Yep, lobbied for a brutal dictator and therefore supports everything that Aristide did- including "necklacing". What's that based on? The fact that his firm filed lobbying paperwork listing Aristide. The Thompson campaign admits to making one phone call that advocated keeping an embargo in place.... so yeah, he supports necklacing. :dizzy2:

Other things like:

Quote:

---

He's voted 14 times against the Constitutional right to bear arms.

---

are impossible to respond to. What votes? On what bills? When?
The only claim that I know to have any validity is that he voted for McCain-Feingold.. Bad Thompson. :whip:


I'll take that any day to a candidate who actually campaigns on a return to the gold-standard, an anti-free trade platform, and moonbat conspiracies about a secret plan for a new super-government that will rule all of Mexico, Canada and the US. :dizzy2: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues

Edit: Oh, and straw polls are meaningless- a scientific poll taken from likely voters is a far more accurate predictor. Sure, Paul has some highly motivated supporters, but they only make up 2-3% of primary voters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The latest Rasmussen polls have Thompson in the lead. :yes:

---

That Rasmussen site is an interesting one, Xiahou. Digging around a little, it has some data on the current standing of the Presidential race. It is very early days, but at the moment, it looks like it will be Hilary vs someone and it will be close:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...s_remain_close

I think the next US Presidential election will be just as fascinating (to outsiders) as the last two.

The crazy thing is that our mainstream Republican candidates are still embracing the whole eternal war policy of torture and invasion even though its very obviously unpopular with a vast majority of the American people.. The GOP could be irrevecably ruined as a result of this bellicose policy.

I thought that the president is not involved in passing constitutional amendments- so why does anyone care?

Here is something I read that impressed me about Thompson:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...Thompson showed he was willing to buck his party, even if it meant making enemies. In 1997, he was appointed to lead hearings into Democratic fund-raising abuses in the 1996 campaign. It was a starring role for a first-term senator and a nod at his popularity within the GOP. But the warm feelings didn't last. When Thompson broadened his investigation to look into alleged abuses by Republicans, he became an enemy to his party. "Fred was under considerable pressure to turn up and publicize evidence of wrongdoing [by Clinton], but his goal throughout was to be thorough and fair, and that didn't endear him to either side," says Sen. Susan Collins, a friend of his.
Thompson's probe—which concluded without a splash—left him on the outs with GOP heavyweights. His archives show he repeatedly requested a seat on the Senate intelligence committee. But Majority Leader Trent Lott, once a close ally, snubbed him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19263100...wsweek/page/4/

But it doesn't matter, since Fred has now dropped out of the race:

Quote:

---

Mr. Thompson’s move surprised supporters and rivals alike, since the Tennessean had announced his candidacy less than one week earlier.
But in his announcement Mr. Thompson made it clear that the “punishing” schedule of a presidential candidate was not to his liking: “I am putting in seven, sometimes eight-hour days, and that is not what I signed up for.”
When asked when he began having second thoughts about his decision to run for president, the former senator replied, “I’d say halfway through my announcement on the Leno show—I could definitely feel myself fading.”

---

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20710729/site/newsweek/

:laugh4:

Clearly, he didn't care too much for his candidacy to begin with.

The Anti-gay marriage stance of most GOP voters is pretty obvious. However, the number of those voters for whom this single issue is the absolute litmus test for a candidate is small.

Would such single-issue voters stay home rather than vote for Thompson? Quite possibly. However, a given state race would have to be exceedingly close for this to make a decisive difference.


Zak':

Few US Presidential candidates have foreign policy experience prior to achieving the presidency. Quite a few legislators have little executive experience. Should all such be barred from seeking the office?

As a reminder, in 2000 the GOP nominated a governor whose border state's relations with a foreign nation required him to develop more foreign policy experience than almost any other governor in the nation. Moreover, his primary opponent had only conducted foreign policy through a bombsight and didn't have any executive experience with anything larger than battalion.

So by your own rationale, George Bush was clearly the better candidate for President, no? :devilish:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The Anti-gay marriage stance of most GOP voters is pretty obvious. However, the number of those voters for whom this single issue is the absolute litmus test for a candidate is small.

Would such single-issue voters stay home rather than vote for Thompson? Quite possibly. However, a given state race would have to be exceedingly close for this to make a decisive difference.

---

Like say... Oh, I don't know... Let's say... Florida, for example?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Like say... Oh, I don't know... Let's say... Florida, for example?

---

Oh, I'll be the first one to acknowledge that it does, on occasion, come down to a few hundreds of votes in one state. However, the number of times it's been that razor thin -- at least at the Presidential level -- are pretty few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

:daisy:

---

A bit too far Dave.

I too think that Zak's beliefs on some of these issues run counter to practical good sense and our national interests. I actually suspect, however, that he deeply and truly believes his stance to be motivated by a patriotic desire to make the USA better -- the old "oppose this X in favor of the greater long-term good" stance. Implying that he is some sort of active traitor bent on the destruction of the USA is a bit much.

I find this kind of single voting issues curious. I guess they do the same here in Holland to some degree, but it's far less noticeable due to the multitude of parties. Perhaps this emphasis on single issues shows how similar voters perceive the candidates to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Clearly, he didn't care too much for his candidacy to begin with.

---

Uh, did you miss the part where it says 'satire'? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Uh, did you miss the part where it says 'satire'? :inquisitive:

---

Did I forget a smiley again?

There's an old piece of research that may shed some light on the tortured relationship between the G.O.P. and homosexuality:

Men he had observed having anonymous sex in a public place often turned out to be ardent champions of law and order. Unable to control themselves in that part of their lives, they put on the defensive “breastplate,” redoubling their efforts elsewhere: “Motivated largely by his own awareness of the discreditable nature of his secret behavior,” wrote Humphreys in his dissertation, “the covert deviant develops a presentation of self that is respectable to a fault. His whole lifestyle becomes an incarnation of what is proper and orthodox.”

Now, before any of our right-wing Orgahs go ballistic, I am not implying that all or even a substantial portion of Republicans are self-loathing gay people. Rather, I am trying to come to grips with a small portion of G.O.P. leaders who are fervently anti-gay, while also being gay. The list is extensive -- start with Roy Cohn, move on to Terry Dolan, David Dreier, Ken Mehlman, Armstrong Williams, Mark Foley, and of course Larry Craig. And that's just a starter plate of prominent figures who have been, one way or another, outed. Never mind the openly gay Republicans, they don't count for this mental exercise.

So here's the lemur's theory: Take a political party that presents itself as the law-and-order, traditionalist wing. Add in a small minority of men who have uncontrollable urges and dark secrets, and want to assume the mantle of respectability. Also mix in a portion of the base that is truly, honestly against homosexuality and any expansion of gay culture. You get an explosive formula, no?

Again, I am not saying that Republicans are all self-hating homos, so please don't build a strawman to knock down. I am trying to come to grips with some contradictory trends within the Republican leadership.

Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Thoughts?

---

Republicans are mostly self-hating homos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Again, I am not saying that Republicans are all self-hating homos, so please don't build a strawman to knock down. I am trying to come to grips with some contradictory trends within the Republican leadership.

Thoughts?

---

What? ~:confused:
I'm not at all sure what you are saying.

I don't understand the 'coming to grips' bit, either. What is there to come to terms with? Republicans have alot of hypocrites? If this is such a shock to you that you need to 'come to grips' with it, I'm a little surprised at your ...naivety.

wait a minute ...who the hell are you and where did our resident prosimian cynic go?!

This threads soooo gay....

I really hate the people in charge. Like really. Iraq welfare school anyother issues that we could slove but noooooooooooooooooooooooooo. The gays.agaun. Who do these people think they are!!!!! THERE GAY WHO CARES WHY DOES IT MATTER????????? I blame this all on old people. There the ones who vote old people and people who think they know whats right those are the people who vote and screw us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'm not at all sure what you [n]are[/n] saying.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

I don't understand the 'coming to grips' bit, either. What is there to come to terms with?

---

I'm just playing around with cause and effect when it comes to the weird relationship between closeted gay men and the Republican leadership. Came across an account of research from the fifties about how "degenerates" would sometimes gravitate toward the most upright, conservative, moralistic positions they could find. It finally sheds some light on why there is a steady drip-drip-drip of morals scandals. I reprinted the relevant portion, and contrasted it with the fact that there is a portion of the base that is honestly opposed to all things queer.

And I tried to make it painfully clear that I was not trying to paint the entire Republican party with a single brush. Terribly sorry this makes for such an unsatisfying meal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I really hate the people in charge. Like really. Iraq welfare school anyother issues that we could slove but noooooooooooooooooooooooooo. The gays.agaun. Who do these people think they are!!!!! THERE GAY WHO CARES WHY DOES IT MATTER????????? I blame this all on old people. There the ones who vote old people and people who think they know whats right those are the people who vote and screw us.

---

Reason, sense and intellect. Perfection.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Bad spelling aside, of course, but one can always blame that on alcohol :laugh4:

SFTS '08!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And I tried to make it painfully clear that I was not trying to paint the entire Republican party with a single brush. Terribly sorry this makes for such an unsatisfying meal.

---

Uh-hu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'm just playing around with cause and effect when it comes to the weird relationship between closeted gay men and the Republican leadership.

---

Mark Foley and Craig were part of the Republican leadership? Most of us never heard of them until their respective scandals broke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'm just playing around with cause and effect when it comes to the weird relationship between closeted gay men and the Republican leadership.

---

What relationship? As Xiahou said, who heard of Foley or Craig before this?

Quote:

---

Came across an account of research from the fifties about how "degenerates" would sometimes gravitate toward the most upright, conservative, moralistic positions they could find.

---

And that New Jersey Governor? You're using a study that's 35 years old, you think political positions, like acceptance of gays, has changed since then?

:dizzy2:

CR

Okay, that was deeply unrewarding. The only person who raised any ideas even remotely related to the substance of the post was Crazed Rabbit, whom I thank for stopping by. You make an excellent point about the changing attitude toward gays.

DevDave, Prole, Xiahou, I wasn't trying to rain on your parade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Mark Foley and Craig were part of the Republican leadership? Most of us never heard of them until their respective scandals broke.

---

I would think that having been elected to the U.S. Senate and/or House, the highest elected offices that party members can hold other than President or VP, would qualify them as Republican leaders. Certainly if I were Joe Blow card carrying Republican rank and file member I would think of Republican legislators as my party's leaders, anyway.

But you guys are showing by your arguing over small semantic points that you really have missed the thrust of Lemur's post.

Okay, I still don't get it. The psychological connection is high school level psych. In what party are you going to find closet homosexuals other then the one that doesn't not endorse gay 'rights'? Where are you going to find more closet homosexuals? In the Catholic Church where it's forbidden, or in a park in San Francisco?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Okay, I still don't get it. The psychological connection is high school level psych. In what party are you going to find closet homosexuals other then the one that doesn't not endorse gay 'rights'? Where are you going to find more closet homosexuals? In the Catholic Church where it's forbidden, or in a park in San Francisco?

---

I don't get it either. Love the comparisons though. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

But you guys are showing by your arguing over small semantic points that you really have missed the thrust of Lemur's post.

---

Well, I'm still looking for it and not finding one. Is he honestly wondering why, in a group that would have to include several thousand individials(by your definition of leadership), that a few are closeted homosexuals? Is this a shocker to anyone- especially since we're reaching as far back as Roy Kohn?

I think the theme our Lemur is after is this:

Why are some "gay" individuals stupid enough to make themselves an active part of the political party that goes further than any other in championing traditional values/sex roles, when history tells us that they will be caught out and publicly humiliated for their lifestyle, the inherent hypocrisy of their chosen political stance, or both?

The answer he posits is an old theory, but that theory has never been proven completely invalid. It runs thusly -- I fear being gay in a society that treats such individuals poorly and marginalizes them so thoroughly, so I will refuse to openly acknowledge that aspect of myself and, to make it seem that I could never be one of "them" I will take strong public stances "opposing" that group. I suspect there is some truth here, but accepting this answer usually assumes self-loathing or machiavellian deception. Humanity is more complex.

I suspect, as we know from addictive behavior, that people spend a lot of time lying to themselves.

I also suspect that people are, and can be, clueless and/or confused about a host of subjects -- including aspects of their own sexuality.

Therefore, while I suspect the theory Lemur has brought to the fore touches on some of the answer, I would caution that human sexuality is far too nuanced for one simple answer to explain things fully.


I will now go back to listening to Limbaugh play "Happy Feet." :cheesy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I would think that having been elected to the U.S. Senate and/or House, the highest elected offices that party members can hold other than President or VP, would qualify them as Republican leaders. Certainly if I were Joe Blow card carrying Republican rank and file member I would think of Republican legislators as my party's leaders, anyway.

But you guys are showing by your arguing over small semantic points that you really have missed the thrust of Lemur's post.

---

Well, I'm still looking for it and not finding one. Is he honestly wondering why, in a group that would have to include several thousand individials(by your definition of leadership), that a few are closeted homosexuals? Is this a shocker to anyone- especially since we're reaching as far back as Roy Kohn?

---

Actually, I'm not sure what Lemur is talking about either. I just wanted to use the words "blow" and "thrust" in the same post in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I just wanted to use the words "blow" and "thrust" in the same post in this thread.

---

Oh you! ~:pat: :wink: