Unlike E.V., I don't have a problem with Thompson's positions.
But I am amazed at how you folks keep saying "we're just posting what Rudy said," but when a direct quote from Thopmson is given it's a "distortion."
I'm not trashing Thompson. He's just about the only one of the other possibilities that I think has a prayer of getting the nomination. But he's going to have to be ready to answer those questions.
Ironic that they would, since Rudy gets a 100% from NARAL.
“But I am amazed at how you folks keep saying “we’re just posting what Rudy said,” but when a direct quote from Thopmson is given it’s a “distortion.””
That’s because rudy’s quotes demonstrate a lifelong pattern with him and the kind of judges he’d appoint.
With thompson they rudy and romney folks have either tried to paint him as a pro choicer like rudy, or a flip flopper.
The truth is that since he started running in 1994 he was endorsed by pro life groups. When he voted in the senate he had a solid pro life voting record. He has a zero rating from NARAL. He has said roe v wade is bad law.
That indicates to me that he shares my position, and what I believe to be the constitutional position - roe v wade is bad law and should be overturned by the court. Then the issue returns to the states. That’s why it is laughable to equate this one quote as meaning he’s a big pro choice threat. This is an attempt at FUD - fear, uncertainty, doubt - by the rudy supporters.
Let’s put it this way: If fred thompson got to appoint judges, I’m sure his “strict constructionists” would overturn roe v wade. Rudy’s would uphold it. That’s what matters.