ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Fred's first town hall, sort of

Posted: Friday, September 07, 2007 3:17 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC's Lauren Appelbaum
On the second day of Fred Thompson's official campaign, the Republican presidential hopeful held his first town hall -- but with auditorium seating instead of the audience-friendly round stage many candidates have used. The question-and-answer session forced Thompson to address issues, including healthcare, homosexuality, and energy independence. A room at the Sioux City, Iowa, convention center was filled with about 150 to 175 people. There were about 100 seats set up and some stood in doorways.
 
Thompson got a wide range of questions, including one from a man in the audience who asked what "society's position should be on deviances including homosexuality." Thompson answered by saying the federal government should "show no favor for any particular class of citizen" and "not set aside categories for special treatments."
 
Thompson later addressed the federal marriage amendment. "I would support a constitutional amendment which says some off-the-wall court decision in one state that recognizes a marriage in that state like Massachusetts, just to pick a state, cannot go to another state and have it recognized in that state. You are not bound by what another state does." Thompson added, "My amendment would also state that judges could not impose this on the federal or state level unless a state legislature signed off on it."
 
Like yesterday, Thompson devoted a large portion of his opening speech to national security, but today he also talked of new support coming from the Iraqis, who he says have had a taste of Al Qaeda and are now siding with American forces. Speaking to reporters, Thompson attacked his Democratic counterparts for not seeing any positive change. "There are some folks on the Democratic side who have become so vested politically on the feelings of the left wing of their party that no good news is going to be good enough for them, and they'll constantly concentrate on the negativity. But again, we all have to look down the road, what is going to make a more secure situation for the United States of America."

Thompson continued to stress he is a "common sense conservative," called for smaller government and said he is for "standing tall" for Second Amendment rights, anti-abortion rights, lower taxes, more individual, political and market freedom, and free and fair competition and trade.
 
On healthcare, Thompson called for a "divorce [from] the complete dependency so many have on their employment" for health care. He proposes an open marketplace situation that would provide individual freedom and competition to drive down the prices. He dismissed the idea of universal health care, saying many European countries are trying to get rid of the system and move toward America's current health-care policies.
 
On why he’s seeking the presidency. "I was blessed, as you can see, later in life, with something I hadn't planned on, but something that's been the greatest blessing imaginable to me," Thompson said of having children. "But it causes me to think what kind of a world, what kind of a country, will these kids grow up in. How many daddies get a chance to do something about it?"
 
"I could sit back and read somebody else's scripts, cash somebody else's checks, and that's enjoyable and I highly recommend it if you get the opportunity," Thompson added. "But this is something different."
 
During the town hall, Thompson's daughter wandered onto the stage and hugged her father's leg. The audience applauded her interpretation of an elephant before she returned to the side of the stage with her mom and younger brother.
 
After speaking, Thompson spent time signing autographs and talking with members of the audience. A parent brought her child over to Thompson, telling him the child loves the movie "Baby's Day Out." Thompson, who played an FBI agent in the film, held the child and talked about the "Tick Tock," the home of the bad guys in the movie. The child gave him a kiss in response.
 
Another child asked Thompson what would happen to "Law and Order" if he became president. Thompson said he hopes the re-runs keep playing. "Every time they re-run one, they got to send me like five dollars or something," Thompson said to a rousing round of laughter, "so you keep watching."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

We do not seem to have gone much for genius.
Fred is the only viable candidate who can win.

Join the Fred Thompson grassroots.

www.fredthompsonforum.com
Sounds good, state policies on behavior based practices should not translate ot other states having to abide by them. If you can get a majority of your state to go along with it then you got it, if not then you go with the majority.

President Fredrick Thompson, YEA...
Thompson is showing what kind of candidate he is early. Today, Sen. Inhofe almost endorsed him because of Thompson's skepticism about global warming and its human cause... More information here: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/09/morning-news-roundup-bush-has.html
A common-sense conservative wouldn't amend the constitution to prevent gay marriage.  Period.  What a bastard.  He's no Reagan.
Um, isn't heterosexual marriage a "behavior-based" practice?  

That plan is not Federalism, either.  It's insanity.
First Bush talking about lining his coffers with speaking fees, and Fred here with Law and Order episodes.  Combine instances with repub scandals and the party is rapidly losing class.
So much for Fred's earlier announcement that "we get our basic rights from God and not from government."  I guess now we're getting a clarification from Fred:  "If you are heterosexual, you get your basic rights from God; if you are homosexual you get no rights from God -- you only get what the heterosexual majority in your state decides."  Thanks for the clarification Fred.  
Isn't beating ones wife a behavior based practice? So if it were legalized in Oregon I guess that would be ok.
who cares
Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are not looking for "special treatment" as Thompson so ignorantly states.  We are looking for EQUAL treatment under the law....more than 1,049 rights as couples that we are denied.

Be careful people.  Once again we are getting caught up in listening to their words and trying to place value in the apparent meaning.  Especially after this last six years, we should really have learned to be very skeptical.  This one says that and that one says this and we simply try to find meaning in it all and something to reassure us.  The truth is that you simply can’t trust anything they say and likely can only find some meaning in their history of actions; then even that can be misleading as they change course to accommodate and attract support with their total focus really being solely on winning.  They are all doing it with Fred Thompson, with his recent entry into the activity, currently being the most obvious as he appeases, cultivates and vies for the backing of the George W. Bush Special Interests and influential few.  In every way he tries to sound like George, only with more poise, promising more of the same and even now making references to God.  Had we only been more deaf to the words and more observant of each individual’s character in 2000 and then again in 2004 possibly things would be different today.  I personally can imagine some Christian leaders who are now chastising themselves and begging for God’s forgiveness as they simply recognize how they were manipulated and had just failed to understand that a true sociopath, who completely lacks any conscience but is highly capable of faking anything, is totally unable to ever be a true Christian (with the results seen verifying that).  How can we know these things; how can we discern what is the truth?  Regrettably there is no easy way and we each have to do it for ourselves, resisting being led by others so that we don’t vote someone else’s choice.  The start can be to ignore the rhetoric and seek to understand the real character that comes across to each of us as we view their lives.  And to objectively do it, which is the only way it has any meaning, by first setting our own biases aside so they can’t be used to manipulate us (as we have seen done).  It is not easy as they are good at what they do, being highly egotistically motivated and then there can be a whole lot of creative, powerful and misleading support behind them.  But it is truly important; good luck to us all!
Hey, FL...

YOU'D care if the government told you that you and the person you loved could not legally protect each other and that your relationship is not valid enough to matter...
Hetrosexual marriage is also based on procreation, that's the genetics of life. Marriage as the promise of fidelity would be a behavior. Even if the fidelity is not always practiced.
I do believe that there should be some kind of 'partnership' 'union of' whatever for alternative relationships. Two commited people in a life long relationship should have say in each others health and welfare, along with inheritance, etc. But it is not marriage as it has been defined for a millenium. Calling it marriage opens up a whole lot of doors people don't talk about, mainly dealing with children, adoption, ect.

GAB.  Wife beating there's a good arguement....
   All you people wake up. This country is going to have a rovolution. They are pushing the North American Union and the SPP is being used to reinforce it and the people who are implementing these plans are from the Council of Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. It will be as bloody as the Civil War. Americans are very mad and the same thing that called out the hidden monster in the American phsyche is in play now. Its coming, a fight is coming and there are millions of middle class Americans ready and eager for the foght because they know that they are right.
Well Kato you need to back a democrat who is in favor of gay marriage. OH wait there aren't any........... It's just something they use against Republicans.
I think Fred Thompson can win. Who do you think will win the Republican nomination? Thompson, Giuliani, Romney, maybe Ron Paul? Vote today at http://www.pollicious.com
Dave:  You don't get it.  None of the democrats are taking away or denying rights to gays.  The issue here is one of equal protection.  Your favorite son Thompson wants to basically legalize bigotry and render gays to second class citizenship.

Thompson says the federal government should "show no favor for any particular class of citizen" and "not set aside categories for special treatment."  But then he finds it okay for the federal government to grant special rights to heterosexual couples (tax benefits, inheritance rights, medical rights, visitation rights, etc.), but it's not okay to grant those same rights to homosexual couples.  That's hypocrisy.  That's bigotry.    
GAB wife beating was once legal in Boston but it was controlled. Some years back an archaic law was removed from the books in Boston which stated "It is illegal to beat your wife with a stick any bigger around that your thumb". Maybe that is how the stepford wives are kept "in their place".
What are "anti-abortion rights"? Is that an accurate representation of what he said? It makes no sense and the only interpretations I can come up with are very dark and scary.
Fred is all about first principles. His strong American values speak loudly and proudly.

The rest is just details.

He will win decisively.
Most of you need to take off the tin foil hats- a "rovolution", eh? Sorry, but a REvolution by people like you isn't scary, it's sad.

Expecting a viable Republican candidate to support gay marriage is like asking a Democrat to support the end of welfare - it's political suicide.  At least respect the fact that Thompson is uncomfortable with calling homosexuality a deviance and a disease, as Mr. Bush has had absolutely no problem doing.   I'm not saying you should vote for him, but calling him a bastard because he's aware of the political realities is a little much.
I don't think Thompson's, McCain's, or Rudy's current marriages (and really - it is just living together folks, it is not marriage as defined in the Bible) is any worse than same sex couples living together.  If you want to get religion out of the marriage business then let the folks down at city hall say who can get married, sell them a license and let them be on there way - Oh wait , we already do that don't we?  So, if you want religion in the marriage business, stop charging the fee for a marriage license, yes, issue one for social security, medicare and to make sure your spouse and children receive your property after your death, but cut out the charge - cause the charge goes to the state, not the church.  Then you could let the churches decide who marries and who gets to divorce.  That sure would be a big blow to the divorce attorneys and judges, wouldn't it?  Like everything else, if it dips into their bank accounts, it will never get changed.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=350591

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google