Posted on 07/19/2007 9:44:13 AM PDT by pissant
Bullcrap. I’ve posted several quotes from his own mouth, that include not restricting 1st trimester abortions, supporting R.v W, the choice is for the woman to make, etc.
Ditto.
4,000 unborn babies, 4,000 souls, aborted daily in the United States alone. More than all the soldiers killed in the WOT to date. You bet it’s a big issue to me.
Except that’s who his client was and he did in fact lobby, according to the the reports. So sweep it under the rug, but Fred will have to address it head on.
Yes, I can. But I’ll have to dig them up again.
Fred billed 19 hrs over 14 months, most of it was for consulting, but 3.3 hrs are for lobbying. He was working for Advent Fox law firm at the time, and it looks like he was just assisting one of the Partners. I doubt his personal position on abortion was ever relevant to the work he did as a lawyer for the law firm, one of whose clients was pro-abortion. It’s still clear that this attack came from the leftists who certainly believe Fred is pro-life.
Why do you think Thompson has to disprove this? The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant. Thompson’s camp has already denied that this happened, and you don’t believe them. What would one more denial suffice?
If records exist, show them. Otherwise I don’t believe these liberal lies.
hmmm...hard to put in order, but I’d say from least worst to worst:
4. Senator
3. Lawyer
2. Hollywood actor
1. Lobbyist
Half of Washington are lawyers and it doesn’t surprise me that a Senator wants to run for President (half the field is). Hollywood has gotten a lot weirder since the Gipper and lobbyist generally sell their souls. It’d be nice if he has some business background in there, has he?
Eagle, do you have proof that Fred billed the abortionists 19 hours, or is this based on the charge alone? If there is proof for this claim, would it already be available? I read charges like these with a skeptical eye not matter who they are made against, or by whom they are made. Just making the claim is enough to get some to bite, but until the claim is documented with verifiable documentation, I won't swallow it.
They aren’t gonna be denying now.
Hmmm. I haven't seen any of those. I keep hearing people talking about a box on some form that was possibly checked by one of his staffers, but that was in 1994. I consider his votes in the Senate, within the last 12 years, when his position on the subject truly MATTERED, to be of more importance than the answer on a form, or even phone calls he made as a lobbyist/attorney twenty years ago.
Even though it has virtually nothing to do with being president?
No one has ever proposed that Thompson was a priciple lobbyist for either of the two alledged interest groups.
If this is an issue at any level of weight, are there any here opposing Thompson that consider "Strength of National Electability" an issue of less weight in selecting a party candidate?
Don't get me wrong, I really like Duncan Hunter and if Thompson were not going to enter the race, he is my top candidate. If I was going by political principles alone, I would have to write in Jim Robinson, IronJack or someone else who I agreed with across the board.
Heck pissant, as I recall, your positions on issues are pretty sound maybe you should give me enough information to write you in, LOL
Somewhere you have to take into account, broad experience in government, electability, money raising ability, likely strength against the rat opponent, regional issues and the like.
Politics is always the art of the possible as Burke, Bismark and Russell Kirk have always reminded us.
You're forgetting the fact that the supreme court, of its own accord, established an inalienable right for a woman to have an abortion, so the states cannot decide on their own how to address this issue.
Because it is the President that nominates justices to the Supreme Court, abortion is a Presidential issue because a former court made it a Presidential issue.
A federalist might address the issue by appointing justices that will roll back the overreaching by previous courts, including the creation of the right to an abortion, but it is still an issue that the president needs to address.
Well, get Duncan Hunter up to an electable level and I will vote for him. Unfortunately, he just isn’t catching fire, is he?
Right now, Fred Thompson is the only one who can unite the party AND get elected.
Hey, I was quite happy to see our president overturn funding for UN abortionist groups, and re-instituting the No abortions rule for military hospitals, and pushing for and signing the PBA ban, and blocking federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and appointing two judges who will likely help overturn the travesty called Roe verus Wade.
You are full of it yourself. I've seen your quotes, and you have mis-characterized his words. None of the quotes of Thompson himself claims support for R v W, 1st trimester abortions except for certain exceptions that most pro-life folks agree with, or a blanket pro-choice point of view.
If this is what it takes to win support for Duncan Hunter, he must be pretty pathetic.
No, Hunter is a good conservative. But a handful of his supporters are just this pathetic, and worse.
I suspect if Hunter knew about what was being done in his name, he'd start busting heads.
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.