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.
People say that "Fredheads want to give Fred a pass on prior statements and always point to his actual record as being good enough, but Mitt gets no such breaks."
These are the people who want to equate a questionnaire that an aide filled out 13 years ago with Mitt Romney's lifetime of being pro-choice and subsequent conversion.
A little fairness is all anyone wants (both candidates have damaging youtube videos out there)
Fred Thompson has a video of him saying exactly the same things he's always said about abortion and people say it means he's pro-choice. Mitt Romney has a video excoriating his opponent in a governor's race because she dares to say he's less pro-choice than she is. Little bit of a difference, no?
for the most part, the Romney posters are very civil and usually make very factual postings backed up with evidence
Phony or incomplete or misleading information from dubious sources claiming outrageous things intended to bring the record of a conservative down to the level of a recent convert to conservatism are NOT 'factual postings backed up with evidence'.
I think it is the hypocrisy that gets some people angry and then they are unable to post as civilly as they should.
You bet your butt it does.
Here's the problem if you want to get through all the BS and down to the heart of it. We don't trust Mitt Romney. Mitt has changed his tunes too many times and in too many serious ways for people like me to support him.
He may well be telling the God's honest truth, but the fact is that it is too important an election for us to bet on a guy that was singing an opposite tune on many issues as late as 2002. And you can say that he wasn't all you want, we all know that he was.
And I've heard the mantra that we have to look past his words and forget about them and look to the record. If his words were meaningless then, they are just as meaningless now and you know that. And words are all we can get from the man at this point.
It's actually a shame, because Mitt Romney seems like a genuinely nice individual. If he were to take a lower position to prove his conservative bona fides in a more substantial way and over a longer period of time, I could see myself being a supporter. However, time is something we don't have prior to this election.
As to your other point, I believe one can be anti-abortion/ personally pro-life per se and still support a woman's right to choose. Many people hold that position. That was me (and Mitt).
I would have never had an abortion or encouraged anyone I knew to have one, but I didn't feel it was my business to tell others what they could or couldn't do. Yet, over time, one can have a change of heart, do research on embryonic stem cell research (Mitt), view your unborn child's ultrasound (Fred), ponder the idea and realize that life does start at conception and acknowledge that a baby's life is more important than a woman's "choice" thereby coming to a full anti-abortion/pro-life position.
It is a wonderful thing to change hearts and minds and embrace converts to our side.
Governor Romney: "Times of decision are moments of great clarity. Before I was Governor, the life issue was just that, an issue. But when responsibility for life or ending life was placed in my hands, I made the right decision. I chose life."
"I am evidence that your work, that your relentless campaign to promote the sanctity of human life, bears fruit." (Governor Mitt Romney's Remarks At The National Right To Life Convention Forum, June 15, 2007)
That doesn’t give you any more crediblity on the subject.
And since you’ve never been in the position of a father who has no rights to stop a woman from aborting his child, you’ll never understand!
Vilifying a pro-life mom
is way beneath contempt.
Save your breath ~
‘experience of mothers’ is exempt.
I am pro life. Shall I save my breath?
Your poems are cute (if they are yours) but completely off subject.
The subject here is pro-life moms ~
the root of how this started.
The ones who bear and raise the child
with love for life wholehearted.
To claim the same unfoldment
is impossible for you,
no matter how committed
and no matter what you do.
You have your place of nurturing,
protection and defense ~
to say the roles are equal
is what never will make sense.
Respect for motherhood and life
is all but lost today.
It seems some want the babies,
but would throw the moms away.
• The Flake amendments are a joke.
• Club for Growth is troublesome in their zeal for not-so-free-trade at the expense of sovereignty.
• NAFTA and CAFTA No votes are NOT troubling! They should be applauded. Too bad others weren’t as visionary as the troubles those treaties are bringing.
• I don’t like his support of Medicare Drug Benefits, but most Republicans did support this, or a similar program, including Fred Thompson.
• Protectionist? I appreciate someone trying to protect our sovereignty and the future of the nation. I’d like to see more of them instead of the open-borders big-government globalists who are selling out the country everyday.
So you took my advice, lol!!!!!
Moderator:
Why was Rob21 banned or suspended? I don’t see any untruthfulness in his latest posts on this thread.
Thanks for your service.
You left out the primary reason why I asked that poster and made that statement...
"Since I have asked you twice already if you would support Thompson if he is the nominee, and both times you have refused to answer, I have to ask you one more time"
You've been around long enough to know that we have many disruptors here. That poster was a very recent newbie, and when I read thru his/her "In Forum" of all previous posts, there was no ample evidence of this person being a committed conservative. The opposition are signing up on FR and trying to pose as conservatives in order to divide us amongst ourselves.
I was merely, and politely I may add, trying to see if this person would utter any words of support for someone other than Duncan Hunter, who if you read all of my posts you would have noticed that I like Hunter and would support him as nominee, and I clearly stated that.
I have seen this pattern of disruptor before. Obviously the mods had some similar thoughts about his sincerity, as that poster has been zotted.
Again, if you read all my posts, my position is uncommitted and supportive of more conservative candidates to enter. I like Thompson, but I would like to see more good conservatives throw their hat in the ring, instead of the media darlings who have a milk toast brand of conservatism.
I'm not a bot for any current candidate.
Hope that helps. Don't get your account deleted! :)
There was no reason to ban Rob21.
Fred is very soft on this issue. When running for office he was all for 1st trimester abortions and that we should never criminalize abortion as that survey showed. Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5a_Fpu_8KE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fconservativesagainstfred%2Ewordpress%2Ecom%2F
Sure Fred’s voting record on abortion was pro life, but what and how many votes did he actually participate in.
Fred has some problems on his abortion statements, on that we can all agree. It is a question of CHARACTER. We should always be free to question that. The Patriot Sam Adam’s said
“The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.”
Reference: Original Intent, Barton (343); original The Writings of Samuel Adams, Cushing, ed., vol. 3 (236-237)
Indeed. So please tell us why Rob21 was banned?
Based on these things, I cannot be certain that Fred Thompson's record would be any different from Mitt Romney's record if they came from the same state. When I look at bad things that Mitt Romney has said or done, I can at least console myself that he had to appease the voters in a very liberal state. With Fred Thompson, I can only surmise that he isn't really on my side or that he is appeasing his Hollywood friends. At their core, I don't think there's much difference between Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson on most public policy issues.
The difference is in their background and experience. Mitt Romney's experience has been in executive leadership. He's spent his life figuring out how to make organizations run efficiently. Fred Thompson has little or no executive experience. He's not been in charge of anything and been responsible to produce results. In his favor, he seems to have spent more of his life thinking about big public issues. On balance, I think the executive experience is more important in a president.
Bill
So have I.
It was the same question the Rudy-bots pummeled all who dared to question his 'anointment', so please understand that this type of question has a bad history here.
Forcing ANYONE to declare their support for ANYONE is, in my opinion, unacceptable.
So, to your question, "Will you support Thompson if he gets the nomination?", I say to you -
Maybe I will and maybe I won't.
Can you live with that?
First of all, he started this thread as a negative accusation without initially identifying his motive.
Second, I challenged him (as did others) but IMO, he was the one who refused to answer questions and kept spouting the same thing over and over.
It was clearly a negative agenda. Rob21 was not interested in debate, and did not even know that his candidate, Duncan Hunter, also checked that survey as being in favor of abortion but in his case, he checked when the life of the mother was in danger.
As you will see, I continued a civil debate on the issue that he posted but he was extermely dodgy in all of his answers.
I'm not sure if he should have been banned, that's the mods call. But his actions were suspicious and lacking credibility at minimum.
Maybe I will and maybe I won't.
Can you live with that?
Absolutely. You answered. Initially he would not. He was a suspected disruptor. He eventually did answer. Once he did, my reply was 'case closed' meaning that's all I wanted to see. An answer. Any answer.
I understand the history of FR and these issues as well or better than most. That's one reason why I take my own personal time to flush out disruptors. I think I've been pretty helpful to FR, as have many others, in self-policing this site.
I noticed that. My question was...If he had voted the other way on that issue, could it have been upheld as constitutional, or would it have been deemed unconstitutional and struck down? Would it have been a waste of time and tax payer dollars to have drug that out?
His position is very clearly marked as Pro-life otherwise.
Hunter's a pork-barreler. THAT'S A FACT.
Other than that he's a fine man, with supporters bordering on pyscho.
They're playing the victim card. Just like the Rudybots who put on that "who me?" air when called on their liberal candidate BS.
You say you take issue with my statements, at least as it relates to ‘rob21’.
I have NEVER specifically mentioned him or his posts in any way.
I speak for me. I do not answer for anyone else. So please do not hold me accountable for the statements of others.
I am addressing a larger problem that I hope will be resolved amicably.
Will the Thompson supporters allow questions and debate regarding Fred and his ‘ past vs. present’ positions?
And will the Jim Robinson Administration allow debate?
Will the anti-Thompson folks concede the debates in light of the facts and evidence?
Or are you going to keep throwing more poop at the wall?
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.