Posted on 04/09/2007 5:25:16 PM PDT by areafiftyone
What distortion? My simple question to you was “Are you saying that pro-choice was never Thompson’s position?” It’s a yes or no answer. Like I said before, it doesn’t matter to me, but apparently it does to you. I plan to vote for the Republican nominee no matter who it is. Will you?
And we'll be fortunate to get either one as the nominee.
So, you have all the same exact political positions you had 13 years ago? And everybody who's changed their mind on this issue (Ronald Reagan, Jane Roe, Jane Doe, David Horowitz, George W. Bush) are liars?
If the state lets you kill a small child, that's "treating you like an adult?" Sorry, not getting that. If so, hasn't our society been treating people like little kids for years when we lock them up for murdering their fellow citizens? We treated Jeffrey Dahmer and OJ Simpson like kids?
Yes, but you're changing the subject. Why does it matter to you or anyone else what Thompson said in 1994 if he has a 100% pro-life record?
Fred Thompson believes Roe V wade is bad constitutional law, and the issue should return to the states.
Rudy Giuliani believes Roe v Wade is good constitutional law.
Fred Thompson was endorsed by a pro life group when he ran for the senate. He has a pro life voting record.
Rudy Giuliani spoke to NARAL and praised margaret (eugenics) sanger.
Then there's wagglebee, bringing some more clarity:
Thompson changed his mind on abortion, just like Reagan.
I would add George W. Bush, Jane Roe and Jane Doe (of Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton) to that list.
Frankly, I do not think that Mr. Thompson or Mr. Giuliani need to explain their views or apologize for them. Their views are out there, are not hidden, and are backed up by actions and statements while in office. Hizzoner the Mayor has even told us that we should feel free to vote our principles if we don't like his views. How many GOP or Dem pro-aborts have said that, instead of attacking pro-lifers as some sort of fanatics?
What I think needs to be explained is why Freepers who support the Mayor think being pro-choice is a great feature in their candidate, but any pro-choice expression at any time is proof of horrible hypocrisy in any other GOP candidate. Why is Fred's pro-choice statement an example of hypocrisy and pandering, but Rudy's "conversion" on guns isn't?
If people want to say "I back Rudy because I think he can win," that's fine with me, but if that's so we might as well nominate Obama. Backing a liberal in the primary is selling out.
barely won, against a northeast ultra liberal. after a popular vote loss in 2000.
"Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own." – Fred Thompson
He's the one who describes abortion as a "moral decision" that adults should be allowed to make free from interference from the government, not me.
I don’t see any proof that he’s changed his mind, can you provide me with some?
It really does not matter to me. I see now that I was responding to another posted who was in denial when they commented that......“It’s already been debunked in several posts and in several other threads.” I thought that was your comment. But I see that is not the case.
You miss the point entirely. Thompson has every right to change or modify his position (if indeed he has). And in fact that's what we'd ask of many politicians. That's why we lobby and write letters and make phone calls and send emails...
The only reason this has been an issue at all is that certain FReepers have elevated Thompson to the level of the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan touting his impeccable "pro-life" credentials as though he's always been that way.
If so many FReepers hadn't jumped on the bandwagon and said "Look, here's Fred and he's perfect" this would never have been an issue.
I'm comfortable with Thompson's voting record on life issues. But it's not just the Rudy supporters who have noted his earlier statements. Some have pointed it out from the far right as well.
Dear Corin Stormhands,
I haven’t seen to many folks say that Sen. Thompson is perfect.
Merely that he’s a damned sight better than Mr. Giuliani.
sitetest
You'll never catch me saying anything of that sort.
One thing on guns and Rudy.
As best as I can tell, Giuliani simply enforced laws already in existence in NYC, he did not write any new laws (he couldn't of course).
Adittionally, if one is a strict constructionist (Constitutionally speaking), then one has to look at the Second Amendment as written, and in light of all available information as to its composition and ratification as well as all available discussion from the process of ratification.
If you do, then you have to admit two things...the word "regulated" meant then the exact same thing then that it does now, and the people who wrote and ratified the Amendment meant it to be a limitation on the Federal government.
If that's the case, then enforcing laws enacted by the NY State legislature, or any other legal authority was an integral part of Rudy's job description as both US Attorney and Mayor of NYC.
BUMP!!!!!
You need to get out more.
In that I’m on most of the Fred Thompson ping lists, I think I get out plenty.
Most actual conservatives are quite happy with the thought that an actual conservative might be running. Perhaps when comparing Sen. Thompson to Mr. Giuliani, it may seem as if folks think that Sen. Thompson is perfect, but that’s only because Mr. Giuliani’s presence in the conversation puts Sen. Thompson in such an excellent light.
sitetest
Thompson was pro-choice? Around here that makes him a ‘flip-flopper’!
Thanks again Karl Rove!
You agreed with him, and since he's changed his view, I'm challenging you.
I don’t see any proof that he’s changed his mind, can you provide me with some?
100% pro-life voting record in the Senate.
LOL, thats simple. The Roe v Wade decision is the valid law, even if it was poorly and wrongly decided. Thompson has never had to vote and go on record for issues having to do with first trimester abortions. It's legal to have an abortion during the first trimester and the Senate hasn't tried to undermine that when Thompson was a Senator.
So whatever pro-life votes Thompson made were for issues outside of first trimester (the most common) abortions.
The question here is, how can he consider himself pro-life when he advocates abortions in the first trimester?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.