I can write another Republican off:
Likely Republican White House hopeful Fred Thompson told CNN Friday that he would push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and would work to overturn Roe v. Wade if elected president.
“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.
New rule- screwing with the Constitution, especially over something like gay marriage, automatically disqualifies you for the office of President. Especially when you are doing it simply to court the vote of the nutroots.
ATTN: Republicans
Small (but efficient and functioning) government, balanced budgets, a strong military, free trade, individual rights, respect for the Constitution, suspicion of executive power, and muscular but sane foreign policy (that does not mean unending military adventurism, Rudy). Really, you should try those ideas out.
*** Update ***
From the Thompson campaign:
In an interview with CNN today, former Senator Fred Thompson’s position on constitutional amendments concerning gay marriage was unclear.
Thompson believes that states should be able to adopt their own laws on marriage consistent with the views of their citizens.
He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states, or that activist judges should construe the constitution to require that.
If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states.
Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
I am not sure what an amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage means, as I was under the impression that the full faith and credit aspect of Article IV was where that came from. Color me as unsupportive of amendments to overturn Articles of the Constitution, either.
At any rate, it looks like CNN was not accurate with their Thompson quote.
*** Update ***
What I thought- FF&C is what he was talking about, and it does not apply to issues like marriage. I really don’t know what the hell Thompson is talking about in this press release.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Barry Goldwater, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
Woo woo woo.
Toolshed
He should have just not said anything through the primary. You know he would have gotten the nomination regardless. But no, he decided to spout off this bile and well, I think thats the last we’ll be hearing from him. Good job, dipshit!
kchiker
Suspicion of executive power? Didn’t Alberto proclaim that illegal?
Did anyone see the last 5 minutes of Hardball?
Must-see-TV.
stickler
Well, “we” did try those ideas out. Under Clinton. Worked out pretty well, as I recall.
Sirkowski
Did Law & Order start to suck when Thompson got his role?
Shelby
Shall we put you down for Ron Paul, then, John? Or does the whole Gold Standard thing queer the deal?
Alan
Isn’t Ron Paul supposed to also be anti-choice? Doesn’t that also rule him out as a limited government conservative?
dslak
You can be anti-choice and limited government. But Ron Paul actually supports expanded the federal government’s power to restrict abortions.
John Cole
He lost me with his war on Christmas Christian nation crap.
I just tossed him in the nutter pile after I read that shit. Like his stand on some issues, and like that he challenges the administration on some things, but I am tired of settling. Either the GOP throws up a candidate I like, or I vote for the Democrats to keep destroying the GOP.
Mike
I’ll go along with Fred part of the way: states shouldn’t pass laws requiring gay marriage. But if they want to pass laws requiring sexy blondes to marry middle-aged men, I could probably live with it.
Tsulagi
Well, since Fred is coming a little late to the party, seems to make up time he’s aiming straight for the constituents that matter in the Party of Bush…the Dobsonites. Smart move. They’ve never really been happy with Rudy/McCain/Romney.
Of course not a calculated move at all on Fred’s part; it’s all from the heart.
FlipperRomney could tell you how that works.I’m sure the RedStaters will swoon. They’ve been tossing their room keys and panties at Fred so long now, while giggling he’s such a tease not to commit sooner. Swelling up with excitement, there’s going to be a whole lot of man cleavage popping out over there.
Steve
Haha, “staunch federalist” Fred Thompson wants a federal amendment to ban gay marriage. Tell me another story.
Dreggas
Uh big difference is states wouldn’t pass laws requiring gay marriage, they would pass laws allowing it and should. Now if states don’t want to recognize marriages from other states then that is their perogative, however I believe there was a case in Virginia that settled that one with regards to miscegenation (sp?) laws.
grumpy realist
John, don’t know if you want to jump over the barrier to this side, however. We seem to be up to our armpits in a slithering of wimps that make jellyfish look vertebrate-enabled.
The Other Andrew
I don’t think Fred misspoke; the right loves to vaguely hint at (or outright say) that gays are out to recruit and thus strengthen their ranks. And if they do that, then surely those evil liberals will literally require straight people to get gay married, once they’re in the White House. Some sort of Department of Peace draft!
Just saying “allowing gay marriage” isn’t threatening enough for those who are closer to the cultural fence, they need to make it sound like an epidemic or an out-of-control authoritarian government thing. Which is hilariously ironic in and of itself, but…
The Other Andrew
Also, do these candidates not realize that one of the main reasons that Bush was elected in 2000–shenanigans notwithstanding–was because he held off on promises to overturn Roe? Moderate, suburban women arguably gave him that tiny edge he needed. But thus far, all of the 2008 guys are promising to overturn it ASAP, and that isn’t going to help. Maybe they think they can tone it down once they’re playing to the nation, rather than the base (for primaries), but that won’t work.
John Cole
I am not voting for Democrats because I like them, I am voting for Democrats to destroy the GOP. Burn the whole damned thing to the ground.
Call it tough love.
Dreggas
This kind of explains me. I mean socially I am liberal (then again the republicans USED to be socially liberal in that they weren’t scarlet letter distributing fuckwads who’d been hijacked by christianist shit-stains). I was an independent, I could have voted for a conservative if they weren’t so damn toxic, oozing religion and culture warrior bullshit. That’s what they have become and it’s funny because I grew up with the notion that it was the democrats who wanted to sterilize everything and repeal my freedoms in the name of some cultural “purity”.
Shelby
The Other Andrew,
If we accept your argument about the 2000 election, what about Bush winning more easily in 2004 with a bring-out-the-base strategy? Wouldn’t that suggest the smart Republican candidate will follow the latter route?
Me, I just want a way to destroy both the Democrats and the Republicans. Barring that, a way to keep them busy fighting one another (and leaving the rest of us the hell alone) will suffice.
ThymeZone
Fred Thompson, as we see daily in the ad here on PJM panels to the left of these inches, looks exactly like Homer Simpson just after electroshock therapy.
He ain’t getting elected to anything. The very fact that the GOP thinks he’s a viable candidate tells you how completely fucked the GOP is right now.
Let them have their Thompson and their Giuliani. Most of them think the earth is 6000 years old, so don’t get too excited about any of this.
Bill Arnold
however I believe there was a case in Virginia that settled that one with regards to miscegenation (sp?) laws.
Loving vs Virginia:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html
Helena Montana
“I don’t think that one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage or allowing gay marriage…”
Which state requires or contemplates requiring gay marriage, Fred? You big dope. Give us a call back when you grow a brain stem.
Paul L.
Sorry but those will not deal with the true threats facing the US caused by George W. Bush that require a bigger Federal Government to deal with them.
Private ownership of firearms.
Hate speech
Global
warmingclimate change.100 million people without access to health care.
The growing gap between rich and poor and the shrinking of the middle class.
Racism, Xenophobia and Homophobia
Rick Taylor
I wish supporting torture disqualified one for the Presidency of the United States. Unless I missed something, that disqualifies the entire Republican ticket except for McCain and Ron Paul. The front runner called for doubling the size of Guantanamo and was cheered.
–Rick Taylor
Jake
Nice move Fredeprick of Hollywood. The Base will be delighted but if you haven’t noticed the country is a tad bit fucking sick of The Base right now.
Why the hell can’t the GOP run a god damned election without vowing to shit on someone who hasn’t done anything wrong?
Or hey, if they’re that worried about “perversion” and “values” they can do something about their members (har) who keep getting busted on sex charges.
And it really is way past StFu about Roe v. Wade o’clock.
Most. Horrifying. Mental. Image. Ever.
Paul L.
I forgot the following on the list
Second hand smoke
obesity
Drinking alcohol in public.
Jake
Unless being against it before he was for it, qualifies, McCainiac is out. Paul is clear in that regard.
cmoreNC
One significant problem for the Rethugs is: if they successfully accumulated enough power and position to overturn Roe v Wade and outlaw abortion, and prohibit gay marriage, tear down separation between church and state and make this a “Christian” nation once again as our god-fearing founders intended…WHAT DO THEY DO FOR AN ENCORE to continue pleasing their wingnut authoritarian-inclined base? The corporate-economic elite part of their “base” is happy enough to indulge the moralistic wingnuts in order to command enough votes to protect their vested interests, thinking that most of what the wingnuts want to impose won’t really affect their affluent personal lives all that much. But that requires stoking new hot-button moralistic issues to replace the old (e.g. abortion) to keep the rabble too angry, aroused, and distracted by these supposed affronts to their society and culture, to displace their resentment instead toward their increasing economic insecurity and become more attracted to economic populism (which tends to lead to proposals the wealthy and corporate interests in the GOP see as deeply against their interests).
SO, if they succeed in overturning Roe v Wade, outlawing abortion and outlawing gay marriage, the Rethugs, er Repubs will have to come up with some new hot-button issues to keep the social conservatives in bed with the GOP, instead of wandering off politically in search of their economic interests, which don’t lie with the GOP.
jake
Good point. Fortunately for these losers there are plenty of battles they can fight and never win:
War on Porn/Obscenity (which would automatically include anything depicting gays/lesbians in a positive light).
War on Birth Control.
War on Evolution.
War on Premarital Sex.
War on Sex Education.
War on Christmas/Easter.
To name a few.
Equal Opportunity Cynic
Small (but efficient and functioning) government, balanced budgets, a strong military, free trade, individual rights, respect for the Constitution, suspicion of executive power, and muscular but sane foreign policy (that does not mean unending military adventurism, Rudy). Really, you should try those ideas out.
Yeah, but then they’d be Libertarians, not Republicans. The big government horse left the barn a long time ago; now it’s just pick your flavor of big government.
Room for disagreement over “muscular but sane” duly noted. To me that means muscular when needed for our defense and sanely uninvolved in what doesn’t concern us.
UnkyT
Shouldn’t this be the War on the imagined War on Christmas/Easter?
rachel
Back in 2004, I got into a discussion with a guy who was going to vote for Bush simply and solely because Bush was going to outlaw abortion. He didn’t care about Iraq, didn’t care about our civil rights, didn’t care about the economy…
That’s who’ll vote for Fred–if he hasn’t wised up yet.
Rick Taylor
It’s interesting that sometimes really crazy people sound unusually sane because they take their arguments seriously, and are at least consistent. Ron Paul falls into this category, as does Patrick Buchanan.
–Rick Taylor
Beej
If I get married in Colorado and then move to Texas, Texas has to accept that I am married. If I get divorced in Nevada and then move to Alabama, Alabama has to accept that I am divorced. It is called the “full faith and credit clause” of the U.S. Constitution and as John says, I don’t think it’s a good idea to applaud people who think they ought to sponsor laws and/or amendments that negate portions of the Constitution. It’s also not a good idea to applaud people who don’t seem to know that the Constitution actually has a “full faith and credit clause” which courts are bound to enforce. Mr. Thompson ought to read it sometime. It’s pretty straightforward. Not much there for one of them thar librul judges to interpret.
Rick Taylor
It’s interesting that sometimes really crazy people sound unusually sane because they take their arguments seriously, and are at least consistent. Ron Paul falls into this category, as does Patrick Buchanan.
–Rick Taylor
Mike
Full Faith and Credit has not traditionally been applied to marriage. That’s why the plaintiffs from Loving vs. Virginia couldn’t just visit a sane state to get married: they wouldn’t have been legally married in Virginia. And Loving vs. Virgina didn’t change this, rather, it specifically struck down Virgina’s laws against same-sex marriage. If, hypothetically, Utah legalized polygamy, it wouldn’t require any other state to recognize polygamous marriage. Divorce, for reasons I don’t know nearly enough law to explain, is different, and is covered by FFaC.
liberal
Dreggas wrote,
Huh? They already did that in Massachusetts—well, their high court did.
Slide
Can we all agree at this point that the current Republican Party has nothing to do with conservatism? Hey, I’m no conservative but I have total respect for true conservatives (and I do put John Cole in that category) even if I disagree with many of their prescriptions for our country.
But Bush Republicanism is in a category all by itself. It ruthlessly used the veneer of conservatism to gain power. They are as cynical a group that has ever descended on Washington and they pose a very real danger to our democracy. They need to be dealt decisive and unambiguous defeats at every turn. Not only for the good of our country but for the sake of a the Republican party. Perhaps, just perhaps, we can get back to honorable and civil discourse between differing political philosophies but until then, the Republican party is my enemy. I fear them more than al Qaeda and I will fight them with every fiber of my body. Its nice to see John Cole on my side of the barricades even if he is holding his nose.
grumpy realist
Oh, history has already pointed to what will happen if this gaggle manages to get their “Godly, Christian” nation into existence. After they put all the obvious “non-Christians” to the sword, they’ll just turn on each other.
Look at the history of Europe between 1512 and 1740.
US has never had a real religious war up until now, but if things continue as they are going, I wouldn’t be surprised if we did.
What I DON’T understand is why this group of clowns is getting support from people like Lieberman. Maybe he thinks he’ll die before any of the chickens come home to roost.
jake
The GOP is infected with so-called Social Conservatives. I’m not 100% certain what this means but so far as I can tell it involves shrieking “EVIL” and “SINNER!” when someone one does something that doesn’t fit their agenda.
…Until one of their own breaks one of their nine bazillion Commandments. If news gets out and outsiders begin to snicker, that’s their cue to shriek “FORGIVENESS!” and (often) “HOMOPHOBE!”
I know a number of people who used to catch shit for identifying as conservative, but back in the day a New England style conservative government wouldn’t punish consensual sex because the body parts of the people involved matched (or didn’t match, but were used in ways that could not lead to procreation). No harm, no foul, right?
But that was in the Stone Age when the most you could hope for was to be left the hell alone. I think that a purely conservative government wouldn’t create arbitrary rules about who could and could not marry, adopt etc. but the term Conservative has been so befouled by a bunch of sex obsessed pervs no one who has a right to it really wants it.
John Cole
It is pretty clear to me that you understand EXACTLY what it means to be a social conservative.
jake
On the importance of knowing when to Shut The Fuck Up:
Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
Dreggas has already mentioned Loving v. Virginia in which the Supreme Court did say to all states with such laws: Knock it off. (Interesting interactive map.)
By Fred’s reasoning the “Activist” SC court of 1967 ruled improperly. In fact, any SC decision that required states to act in a certain way is the result of Activism (TM). Quick, someone ask Right Said Fred his opinion on Brown v. BoE.
Cretin.
Mike
Better stay out of Massachusetts then, or you might be forced to marry someone gay.
Rick Taylor
It surprises me that there’s not a single GOP Presidential candidate who I wouldn’t find a horrifying choice for the presidency, not a single one who I don’t look at and wonder what the hell is he doing up there. I don’t think I’m being unreasonable. I think a minimal requirement for being taken seriously as a candidate is (1) To show some signs they appreciate invading Iraq was a monumental blunder, as any barely sapient individual ought to by now, (2) oppose torture (when the hell did this become something that even had to be listed???), and (3) Not be a raving a lunatic who’s called for abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to the gold standard.
Even after my cynicism has been stoked these past years, I really thought there’d be a candidate I would find to pass those rather minimal requirements. The last really sane Republican I remember was Lincoln Chaffee; I’d vote for him over Hillary in a split second. Shouldn’t at least one moderate sensible Republican run for President even if they don’t expect to win, just to show the rest of us the party hasn’t completely gone off the deep end?
ThymeZone
The GOP has never been about “conservatism.” It once fancied itself being about Goldwaterism, which was nothing more than repackaged good old Arizona Distrust of Washington and the East Coast. That morphed into modern Southern Confederate Nostalgia under Reagan, whose only use for it was votes (he didn’t give a fig for the rednecks any more than Kennedy did).
Lacking any actual theory of government, the whole thing just degenerated into venal coalition-building and making deals with the devil, which is what you have now.
The whole idea that the GOP was about something as noble as “conservatism” is just bullshit. Unless you think “conservatism” is code for “government is no good.”
Tsulagi
This thread is probably dead, but I happened to cruise by the official Blogs for Fred Thompson site. Not to be confused with the officialness of the Blogs4Brownback site.
Anyway, your saying CNN maybe misquoted Fred? Not so according to this transcript excerpt on BfFT…
Bolding is mine of course. A youtube of the exchange they have on the site gives exactly those same words in that segment. So while Fred didn’t in one sentence say “I want a gay marriage ban amendment,” sorta sounds like he gave it a thumbs up.
But given the later official statement from the Fred campaign in your Update, there you have it. Your lying ears prevented you from hearing what Fred really meant.