Posted on 10/17/2007 8:08:58 PM PDT by Calpernia
Why did he spend years in the Senate Centrist Coalition, and support a liberal for the 1980 GOP presidency over RWR and support a back stabbing ‘maverick’ for the 2000 GOP.
He is not much of a conservative.
From exactly what time would you base that.
1994?
1985?
2000?
Don't even try to pretend that your intention was anything other than trying to belittle Kimberly GG just because you disagreed with her.
and his quotes and surveys are 100% restrictionist pro-choicer , up til recently.
I pretend nothing.
Then I’ll assume you find moderates vile. Thanks.
I never said that Thompson wasn't conservative. Ever. In fact, there are several posts on this forum where I defended Thompson's conservatism. But nice try in changing the subject.
The purpose of my previous post was to point out your hypocracy. In one earlier post, you disparaged a poster because you felt that she felt she was playing the "keeper of conservatism." Then, a little over 20 posts later, you yourself demonstrated that you must think yourself to be the "keeper of conservatism." How that became me somehow saying that Thompson wasn't conservative is a mystery.
Ya got me. He’s been less than forthcoming about it. And for the record, I do not like his current ‘pro-life’ stance, that does not support a pro-life amendment, nor supports Hunter’s Right to Life Act.
If you’d ever been pregnant, living in the SF Bay Area, you’d know the difference between pro-life and pro-abortion people.
Fred is this conservative’s best friend in this race.
He’s lived with vile opposition like you his entire career.
You are doing nothing for conservatism by vilifying Fred.
???
I’m not trying to do “anything” for conservatism. I’m trying to get the rock ribbed conservative in the race elected, which would be the best thing since 1980 to happen for conservatism.
A few thoughts though.
Other than that lobbying bit, he has been pretty up front on things. As far as the current record vis a via an actual amendment, I can’t fault you for that. I think he knows we just don’t have the support for that yet so the direct route with the courts is our current best bet to save lives the quickest.
Indeed, and this is speculation, since he tends to think things through (maybe too much at times) he may feel that to start hammering an amendmendment right now may put the issue TOO much out front and give the Dems too much of a platform.
When I look back at what he did with CFR, as I have shared before, I see support that doesn’t fit his stances UNLESS he has a deeper strategy. Let’s face it the Dems kick our ass all the time publicly since they control the flow of info and there “rich” have a lot more disposable income to finance things than our “rich”, so in the end CFR for him may have been about trying to level the field. It would explain why he thinks it’s FUBARed and want to just go to straight reporting.
Similar on abortion, the end run is the courts, with the right judges. It is public but not the same and trying to ratify an amendment. Then you will have 50 platforms and positions (I know I am swimming against Federalism here)
Now obviously FDT can’t come out and explain it this way, It would be a Geraldo drawing troop movements in the sand moment, but it is possible he sees the direct path as the best and fastest means to save lives.
So in the end, I will, as a FDT supporter, say that his convictions many years ago were not as solid as they are now. He himself mentioned in that interview that seeing the ultrasound of his child even strengthened it more. I don't think it was that he was "Pro Choice" as much as he was ambivalent and thought there were bigger fish to fry back then. I tend to have been of that mind set myself. My Pro Life stance has matured dramatically in the past 20 years and is locked now after seeing my own son's ultrasound. I will also grant the CFR piece, but I submit he seems to have seen the light and while he may have had honorable intent, it still is what it is. However he was not the only guilty one. That too effected his stance vote wise when it came to Pro life rankings, but the votes on the issue itself were strongly pro life.
I'll return the ping favor to something interesting if you haven't seen it already:
Anti-Gay Church Says Thompson Agreed
(very misleading headline out of AP and FoxNews that actually turns out to be a pro-Fred piece)
That doesn't make me an arbiter of what is conservative, but a stater of the obvious.
Well, that is a good defense. And it has some merit, otherwise I would not vote for him ever. The fact that he now supports overturning R v. W is a big step in the right direction, and away from ambivalence. But rest assured, his opponents, and not just us gadflys on FR, will bring up some of his previous surveys and/or statements, so he will at some point soon have to make some substantial statements beyond saying he is “suprised” people thought he was pro-choice. I want complete frankness and clarity from a candidate, not lawyerly answers.
Another example was his interview with Laura I. on CFR. He obtusely implied that he was not in favor of the 60 day speech restrictions language, by saying “they” put it in the bill, but he voted for the whole thing anyway. He co-sponsored the Snowe-Jeffords amendment that added those restrictions. Rather than tell Laura, “yeah, WE made a mistake with that one”, he tried to distance himself from responsibility for its existence.
When Duncan Hunter and Christopher Cox were called to the carpet by the MSM and the dems on the Armed Services committee for supporting the “plane that could not fly” with earmarks, Cox immediately folded and said he no longer supports it. Hunter OTOH, argued vociferously with his fellow ASC members that this VTOL program is drastically underfunded and vowed to fight for more funding, not a cancellation. One can agree or disagree with the wisdom of his support, but you cannot argue that it is unclear or tepid.
You're right. How can the article even be allowed with no author and no source?
Thank you for the other ping link ~ I'll check it out.
On the CFR, there has been a lot of whirling around on it, I grant that. But I think he was targeting the fiances. In the end he did cosponsor though, maybe as ;part of some deal, who knows. Again it is all so strange given FDT’s normal stances.
The moderator did that, not the poster.
The article can be found here. Search by title.
There's no author at all. How did this even pass posting requirements?
I did not post this thread, but I was told the moderator removed the source, so I searched and found a source. I posted it in post #9, but the Newsbank search engine ‘results’ page expired, so I posted a link to the search engine for you because you apparently believe the article is a fake.
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.