SPINNING PRO-RUDY BLOGGER: Fred Thompson in 1994: Let The Woman Decide [Thompson is 100% pro-life]

American Spectator BLOG ^ | 4/9/07

[areafiftyone]

Fred Thompson in 1994: Let The Woman Decide - Monday, April 09, 2007 @ 3:06:23 PM

		During his first run for the U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson said in an interview to a libertarian Republican newsletter that the ultimate decision to have an abortion "must be made by the woman." The comments were made in the July/August issue of Republican Liberty, the official newsletter of the Republican Liberty Caucus. In the interview, Thompson was asked: "Some conservatives got flustered by your comments on abortion and Roe vs. Wade. Would you like to explain your position on abortion?" Thompson answered: "Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman.

[Tolsti]

Why? It’ll be out of our hands entirely soon enough.

[Mr. Silverback]

I think your post caught them by surprise. They can’t deal with it except to deny it, or through avoidance redirect it towards Rudy. That says alot.

Imagine if a statistical analysis purported to show that there were more abortions in NYC under Rudy than under either Dinkins or Bloomberg. Then, imagine that it was posted by a Hunter or Paul supporter who has a major problem with Rudy, and has insisted for months that only their chosen candidate can keep Hillary out of the White House.

If Rudy supporters thought that was silly and defended their candidate's record (such as the way abortions declined during Rudy's administration), would it be appropriate for a Hunter supporter to say "Look how you took them by surprise, they're in denial"? I think we're looking at the equivalent here.

[Mr. Silverback]

I think you honestly don't realize that you're dodging.

You clearly meant to imply that Thompson was inferior to Hunter because Hunter hasn't ever had a conversion from pro-choice to pro-life. Then, when called on it, you start talking about other qualifications. I only care what candidates truly believe right now; I don't care how long they've been pro-life. I only care if they really are pro-life. Both Hunter and Thompson have proven with their votes that they'll stand for life.

As to those qualifications, I'm scratching my head here...if Thompson isn't qualified by his Senate service, why is Hunter qualified by his House service? Both would make a good president, IMHO, but I'm not seeing why Fred is unqualified and Duncan is ready for prime-time. Could you explain that, please?

[Mr. Silverback]

If they cannot, then on what basis should poor women be denied access to it?

Wrong question. The proper question (for ANY government expenditure!) is, why should I jhave to be compelled to pay for it. In this case, why should the State compel me to pay for something I believe is the brutal murder of a small child?

[Mr. Silverback]

Why? It’ll be out of our hands entirely soon enough.

First, your view of the future is science fiction, not real extrapolation.

Second, and more importantly, if you think that killing 48 million people won't have consequences down the road, you should definitely stay out of the prophecy business.

Third, there is no way that humans will ever be so computerized that tearing a small child limb from limb won't be an issue.

[Mr. Silverback]

Are you saying that pro-choice was never Thompson’s position?

Pro-choice was once the position of the following people:

Ronald Reagan

Jane Roe

Jane Doe (of Doe vs. Bolton)

David Horowitz

There are plenty more, but that should do. There's no reason other than distortion to care what someone's abortion position was during an interview 13 years ago when it was followed by a sterling pro-life record.

If Rudy was now claiming to be a pro-lifer and a Thompson supporter was bringing up pro-choice statements from 1994, I'm betting you would ask why anyone would consider it irrelevant, or perhaps even dirty pool.

[Mr. Silverback]

I personally could care less, but don’t kid yourself that the media and Leno/Letterman aren’t going to have a field day with that if he gets the nomination.

Who gives a crap? the MSM, Leno and Letterman will talk smack about our nominee whoever it is. If it's McCain they'll make old jokes, etc., etc.

[oceanview]

millions of americans form their political opinions from this kind of mainstream media coverage.

[Mr. Silverback]

The man sounds like a small government conservative.

We should save money on cops by keeping the government out of any rapes involving your female relatives, or any burglaries at your house, or any shootings where someone uses you to sight in their new machine gun.

There. Now I'm a "small government conservative."

[Mr. Silverback]

They will say anything to please their constituents.

Including, perhaps, "I think we should pay for abortions if a poor woman needs it to exercise that right."

[Mr. Silverback]

But “oficially” they think government should stay out of the issue and leave it to the states, which is my position.

Shall we then let the states decide whether one can own an African and use him as a cotton picking machine? Either a fetus is a human and the 14th amendment applies, or a fetus is not a human and a state may not deny the removal of it anyore than they can deny an appendectomy.

[Mr. Silverback]

Anyway, the correct answer is that once the federal government is out of it, it IS up to the state, where citizens have more direct input and control, at least in theory.

That would be an improvement, but this issue no more belongs to the states than legalizing slavery belongs to the states.

[Mr. Silverback]

millions of americans form their political opinions from this kind of mainstream media coverage.

Sure, and that's why Bush won the last election, because Leno and Letterman didn't make any jokes about him, right?

Give me a break. You can't possibly believe that any GOP candidate is going to get a fair shake from the MSM. If you do, you should get a CAT scan.

[Mr. Silverback]

I see a man stating it’s non of the GOVERNMENTS business, or anyone else's but the two idiots that conceived... Quite frankly, I agree.

Well, I think it's none of the government's business whether you're shot dead in the street. I plan to petition the SCOTUS to declare you a non-human and make it OK to kill you.

Certainly you have no objection to that, right?

If we were killing 4,000 ten year olds a day, would you still say it was none of government's business?

[Mr. Silverback]

Compare that to Rudy's bitter divorce and his affairs while still married.

Harping on that won't get us anywhere. I wouldn't have cheated, but considering the shrew he was married to, I can understand...

[Mr. Silverback]

How much confidence would you have that he would nominate strict constructionists if elected?

I'm not seeing any reason to doubt him. In case you didn't notice, the President let McCain-Feingold go through his office with his signature on it...and then nominated two models of strict constructionism to the Court.

[Mr. Silverback]

Romney may not be much, but John Kerry? Totallly out of line. Kerry is one of the lowest forms of life to ever exist in American politics. He actually makes Benedict arnold look good! Comparing Romney or any other current GOP candidate to him is loopy.

[Mr. Silverback]

Stop beating the hell out of Republicans! Everybody! We have Democrats to defeat!

This is what primary seasons are for. This process produces a stronger nominee in the end.

[Mr. Silverback]

romney and thompson are in the same field, IMHO. they both were pro-choice and are now trying to give the impression they are pro-life. sounds like wolf-in-sheep's clothing to me. i wouldn't trust either of them to have a backbone and make wise moral choices for a country.

You're out of line here. Thompson's record is 100% pro-life. Like me (and Ronald Reagan, and Jane Roe, and the list goes on) he has had a sincere conversion and the "no conversions allowed" attitude on the part of some pro-lifers is silly at best.

[Mr. Silverback]

He’s pro-choice.

You don't get a 0% rating from NARAl by voting pro-choice. Try again.