Posted on 06/24/2007 7:54:42 AM PDT by rob21
We are holding Rudy and Mitt to the fire about their past on abortion. Lets not forget Fred Thompson.
Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy. Link
A very strong statement from Fred Thompson when he was running for congress.
"As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."
By the way, not only is Mr. Thompson out of step with the Republican platform vis a vis applying Fourteenth Amendment protections to the innocent unborn, he also opposes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution.
Read post #53 to see what upsdriver is talking about. That kind of talk is just not cool.
Well, I suppose the feeling’s mutual. More often than not, click on a Hunter thread, and you’ll find a dose of retread insults on Duncan Hunter.
“Duncan Who?”
Just for starters. Alas, politics is a nasty business.
Did you even read rob21’s posts?
He conceded that Fred had a pro-life record. He was troubled by past pro-choice statements.
If anything, post #53 was more out of line than rob21.
It's one thing to ask questions. It's another to troll.
Fred has a perfect pro-life voting record and wants Roe overturned. But we've had a couple of posters pretending to be Hunter boosters who are bashing about a possible pro-choice survey Fred filled out in 1994 - and these are the same people who actually support Mitt or Rudy, who were unequivacally pro-choice in the past.
So it's a matter of trying to discern the actual Hunter supporters from the trolls. Unfortunately, the bogus trolls are souring the debate.
rob21 wrote: “Duncan Hunter would make the best president out of everyone who is running or not running.”
I guess that explains why Duncan Hunter is mired near the bottom of the GOP field in both popular support and fundraising. His fans are too busy dissing Fred Thompson to bother supporting Duncan Hunter.
The Club for Growth’s Andrew Roth:
“Like most Republicans, [Duncan Hunter is] strong on tax cuts, but he’s been part of the big government spending spree of the last 6 years. He also has a protectionist streak in him. Here are some of the more troubling votes:
NO on NAFTA
YES on No Child Left Behind
YES on Sarbanes-Oxley
YES on the 2003 Medicare Drug Benefit
NO on CAFTA
YES on 2005 Highway Bill
YES on the 527 bill (like most Republicans, he flip-flopped, having first voted NO on McCain-Feingold)
Hunter also went 0 for 19 on the Flake anti-pork amendments.
Despite being a member of the Republican Study Committee, Hunter frequently votes NO on their fiscally conservative annual budgets (2006, 2005, 2003...)
We gave him a 49% on the 2005 Club for Growth scorecard. That places him 187th within the House GOP conference, out of roughly 230 members.
National Taxpayers Union shows a more telling trend. He was strong in the early 1990s, getting B’s and one A, but as time went by, like most politicians, his score dropped. For the past few years, he’s been getting C’s.”
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2006/10/duncan_hunters_voting_record.php
*
“...This explains why Duncan Hunter isn’t gaining any traction; his record on fiscal issues is that of something other than a conservative.”
http://race42008.com/2007/03/24/fiscally-fisking-the-2008-contenders/
*
Hunter needs to raise tens of millions of dollars over the next year to boost his profile among conservative activists, say experienced political hands. That effort could be complicated by the opposition of influential power brokers because of Hunter’s long history of opposing free-trade deals...
Other top Republicans decry what they consider Hunter’s indifferent record on the effort to curb extravagant federal spending.
“Our (political action committee) would cross him off the list,” said David Keating, executive director of the fiscally conservative Club for Growth. “We wouldn’t even consider endorsing him because his record on fiscal issues has been so bad.”
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20061226-9999-1n26hunter.html
*
“Duncan who?”, while rude, is nothing like the blatant falsehoods that are spread by a certain select few Duncan Hunter supporters on Fred Thompson threads.
That’s childish teasing of people and you guys should tell them where to shove it. However, it does not justify the behavior that is happening on Fred Thompson threads.
You wouldn’t enjoy it if I posted on every Duncan Hunter thread about Flake anti-pork blah blah blah and then accused you of personally attacking me and all Hunter supporters of being kool-aid drinking Rudy supporters if you said anything back, would you?
No, and I can’t recall ever doing so.
Agreed, but it is the first time I’ve seen anything like it from any Fred Thompson supporter. I think it should have been removed, but that’s not my call.
After this slanderous thread was started (by an angry Duncan Hunter supporter), it does seem kind of disingenuous to paint Fred Thompson supporters with such a broad brush over a single response, no?
I’m glad, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are a few bad apples that do. And they’re really nasty about it. There are probably about 5 or 6 Duncan supporters and about 15 Willardites that are really nasty on thread after thread.
It goes beyond a normal spirited debate about issues. It’s people posting the same things over and over again, no matter how discredited the source is or how many times you say ‘Hey, you know, Fred should really answer that, I’d like to know too...’, they continue and continue and continue. Much of it is talking point stuff, similar to Clintonista tactics.
Then the peanut gallery nastiness starts insulting Fred’s wife or chiding him about having cancer in remission.
I wholeheartedly invite you to post a ‘Fred who?’ on every Fred Thompson thread. It would be a welcome departure from the shenanigans we so often see! :)
He might, but on the other hand enforcing the law is totally an Executive Branch function and he wont need the Democraps to get that done..
But the bottom line is.. does he respect his Base? Republicans are 2 to 1 against amnesty and why would anybody other than a blueblood no-nothing cross their base when their position is not ambiguous? Thats the big question that comes down to character.
BTW, I always despised Bush Sr as a phony country club conservative but I thought Jr was "different". Thats another mistake I wont make again
So if you've never served in the military, can not make a comment regarding the war?
Or better yet, since Fred, Duncan, and the rest, have never given birth,they, and all men, have no right to make decisions regarding abortion?
We'll leave the abortion decision to....Hillary?
If popular support and fundraising are your criteria, then you'll be happy with Rudy as VP?
Willardites?
That’s a pet name for the Mitt supporters that are nasty to us. Mitt’s real first name is Willard. Someone, I think it was Petronski, started calling them Willardian Trolls, which I think has a great ring to it and makes me laugh every time I read it.
..I was a little late to the dance in 2000
Some old-timers tell me that it was full-scale war amongst the Buchanan, Keyes, and GWB people...
>>>In similiar fashion, Rudy Giulani made a pro-life statement in 1989 but since has been endorsed by abortionists. <<<
http://www.reason.com/news/show/118673.html
Reconstructed Strict Constructionist
Rudy Giuliani tries to split the difference on abortion.
Jacob Sullum | February 14, 2007
In 1989, when Rudolph Giuliani was running for mayor of New York, some news reports described him as pro-life while others called him pro-choice. Now, as he prepares to seek the Republican presidential nomination, his position on abortion is so nuanced that even he does not know where he stands.
Giuliani’s current problem is the opposite of the one he faced in New York. Back then, he was a reputedly anti-abortion Catholic courting voters who overwhelmingly supported abortion rights. Today he is a former New York mayor known for his liberal views on abortion who is trying to please the socially conservative voters in the Republican primaries.
At the same time, Giuliani has to be careful not to move so far in the pro-life direction that he alienates voters in the general election, most of whom support the continued legal availability of abortion, though perhaps with more restrictions than is typical today. The result is a muddle that will satisfy no one who is paying attention.
Giuliani’s basic position is the same as the one he took in 1989, when he first ran for mayor (and lost to David Dinkins). He said he thought Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision in which the Supreme Court discovered a constitutional right to abortion, should be overturned. But he also said abortion should remain legal.....
>>>In similiar fashion, Rudy Giulani made a pro-life statement in 1989 but since has been endorsed by abortionists. Are you stupid enough call Giuliani a pro-lifer? <<<
http://www.reason.com/news/show/118673.html
Reconstructed Strict Constructionist
Rudy Giuliani tries to split the difference on abortion.
Jacob Sullum | February 14, 2007
In 1989, when Rudolph Giuliani was running for mayor of New York, some news reports described him as pro-life while others called him pro-choice. Now, as he prepares to seek the Republican presidential nomination, his position on abortion is so nuanced that even he does not know where he stands.
Giuliani’s current problem is the opposite of the one he faced in New York. Back then, he was a reputedly anti-abortion Catholic courting voters who overwhelmingly supported abortion rights. Today he is a former New York mayor known for his liberal views on abortion who is trying to please the socially conservative voters in the Republican primaries.
At the same time, Giuliani has to be careful not to move so far in the pro-life direction that he alienates voters in the general election, most of whom support the continued legal availability of abortion, though perhaps with more restrictions than is typical today. The result is a muddle that will satisfy no one who is paying attention.
Giuliani’s basic position is the same as the one he took in 1989, when he first ran for mayor (and lost to David Dinkins). He said he thought Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision in which the Supreme Court discovered a constitutional right to abortion, should be overturned. But he also said abortion should remain legal.....
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.