works every time. :)
Posted on 10/17/2007 8:08:58 PM PDT by Calpernia
Well, nothing. Except that if Thompson is our nominee we're likely to repeat 1996 all over again. Except our old, tired, lackluster nominee won't be a WWII veteran and anti-Clinton opinion will be way down in comparison. So, if you want 1996 all over again and another Clinton in the White House...
Oops— I see that you’re a sinking-in-the-polls Romney supporter, still interested in spreading propaganda.
works every time. :)
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/192754.aspx
by David Brody
CBN News Senior National Correspondent
Fred Thompson Wanted to Get Rid of GOP Platform in 1996
July 10, 2007
The Brody File has come up with a few interesting quotes from Fred Thompson’s past.
First off, it appears Thompson wasn’t a big fan of the GOP having any sort of platform back in 1996. In April of 1996, this is what The Memphis Commercial Appeal wrote:
Thompson wants to change the way the 1996 Republican National Convention is conducted. For starters, he wants to abolish the party platform - just toss the archaic thing away. ‘It’s the most useless device I’ve ever heard of,’ Thompson said during a recent visit to Memphis.”
Thompson also said this in a separate article from April of 1996:
Thompson: “Does Anyone Remember What Was In The Last , Except Abortion? … If We Get Caught Up In Having A Platform Debate And Stuff Like That, We Deserve To Lose.”
In August of that same year, Thompson called abortion a “distracting issue.” Read below from an Associated Press article:
U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson says he seldom hears about abortion in campaign travels throughout Tennessee and hopes the issue is downplayed at the Republican National Convention. The Tennessee Republican, a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt, is preparing for next week’s convention in San Diego. He said the party must avoid distracting issues and focus on electing Bob Dole as president. ‘We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us,’ Thompson said in an interview with The Tennessean published Tuesday.
Later in that same 1996 AP article came this part:
In 1996, Thompson Said Republican Ideals Don’t Need To Be Written Down Into Platform. “Thompson said he opposes making early-term abortions a crime, as some Republicans would like to do with a constitutional amendment. ‘But I don’t think you should bolt on one issue. I’m still not convinced platforms are a good idea. We know what we believe in and I don’t think we need to write it all down in a document,’ Thompson said.
So what are we to make of all of this?
On the GOP platform, I would think there are a great number of Republicans who believe the platform is very important because it stands for the principals the party unites behind. But as Thompson says, I’m sure there are those who think the document is a big waste of time.
On the abortion issue, it seems pretty clear that Thompson felt abortion was more of a distraction to the party. You get the sense that he saw it as divisive and something to avoid or downplay at the convention. Pro-lifers will take issue with that. I know Thompson’s defenders will point to his stellar pro-life record in the Senate.
Fair enough. But be warned FDT fans: The other campaigns will be gunning for your guy. I don’t think Romney or Giuliani will do it publicly. They have their own abortion issues to deal with. Instead, expect a stealth campaign where stories “pop up” about Thompson’s past musings on this issue. They know he’s a threat. They’ll go after his past.
Actually, you have it backwards. An average of national polls shows that Romney is the only candidate who isn't sinking at the moment and is actually moving up. Thompson is the one sinking the most, diving down below pre-announcement highs.
“I am the consistent conservative,” Mr. Thompson said to several dozen people at a gathering of the New York Conservative Party with former Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato at his side. “I was a conservative yesterday. I am a conservative today, and I will be a conservative tomorrow.”
Shall I add a /sarc tag?
Great research Calpernia...conservatives must continue to shed a spotlight. At least with the other top tier candidates there is no secret about who they really are. None of them conservative. Fred is alike a wolf in sheep’s clothing, imo, the deception, worse.
The amusing thing is, if we didn’t look to ‘old news’ for his record, we would be posting movie quotes :P
OK--to the article. It seems that Thompson thought that party platforms were counterproductive. So what? There's more than one way to do things, you know. Platforms are usually out the window after the election anyway, unless the electorate keeps hammering at the now-elected politicians about it.
On the abortion issue, it seems pretty clear that Thompson felt abortion was more of a distraction to the party.
Hardly any supposition by Brody there, is there? And, were there any other issues at that time that also needed discussion but were drowned out by the abortion issue? Of course, there were. We have to be able to focus on more than one thing.
As for the rest of it, again I say, "so what?" An AP story-- highly reliable and pro-truth, you know-- says, "The Tennessee Republican, a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt...." Really? AP makes a statement but gives no facts to support it because there are none. We know Thompson's record, and it isn't pro-choice.
Pissant was almost banned for posting trash like this. Why are you doing it now?
So, I see that you’re dodging my original question to you and choosing to comment on a side issue.
If the AP has been banned from the site, I’ve not see that message posted.
A couple of thoughts come to mind though. You will get enough mayo for that last sandwich, but then what? You will be hungry again.
I think of that in light of your post and the Hunter campaign. While I appreciate what you say in the next post about this little details being used down the line, we know them, and still his record, the actions, stand.
It takes a lot of time and effort to dig into the most esoteric regions of the information age. When I look at the fact that Hunter has 130k or so in the bank, and I think you realize it is no where near enough to buy him up from 1%. Maybe this energy needs, for now at least, to go towards helping Hunter stay in the game.
Duncan needs a few new jars of mayonnaise, he is about ready to pull the spatula out on his last one and he has a way to go yet...
According to the National Right to Life Committee's very own pro-life ratings, Fred Thompson did not get a 100% rating.
Fred does not have a 100% pro-life voting record. His voting record, according to Project Vote Smart's list of his ratings from National Right to Life, are:
And according to National Right to Life Committee's own ratings:
If you average the ratings reported by Project Vote Smart, you get only an 81.6% pro-life rating.
If you average the ratings reported directly by the National Right to Life Commitee, you get only a 66% rating.
Are there records in newer news? Records are from when he served. He served in the past. So the records are there.
Wow...over the years his ratings actually got WORSE.
Hmm... interesting that pro-choicers do NOT regard Fred as a friend.
Yet here Calpernia is, playing Twister again.
You have a problem with her pointing out why many Conservative PRO-LIFERS do NOT regard Fred as a friend either?
You can’t recruit a ‘moderate’ and expect to ‘con’ the ‘Cons’.
HOWEVER,
I can be perfect 100% down the line on any issue you want, even abortion, but if I can’t reach enough people or manage to gain a platform such as the Presidency to further our cause, then I might as well be 0% for all those babies being ripped from the womb right now.
Politics is about money. Sad, yes, but true.
You know from the record that many of Fred’s votes that may stray in context were done so on legal grounds. He understands that we are a nation of laws and emotions can further damage a cause.
When you have Tony Perkins and Karen Cross both saying he is solidly pro life, when you see his OVERALL record and see his speech and reaction at national Right to Life, well it is clear that he is pro life.
On the issue has a good wrap:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Fred_Thompson_Abortion.htm
Ont thing I find interesting here though. You guys are digging in the way back machine to try and paint FDT as not being pro life, and really seem to be working the mid nineties. Yet I read this about Darla St. Martin in 1994 saying FDT is pro life;
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=6017
It also explains in that piece why he does not have a pristine voting record at National Right to Life. If the people in the trenches every day, putting there sweat and tears into the Pro life fight like him, I think it is fair to take all at face value.
BTW, 107th congress was on one vote, the military abortion issue. So it is skewed a bit.
Yes indeed, and we have seen them. So have people in the trenches as I said above. They like him.
To be blunt, it begs the question, do you want 100% and going no where or 80%+ and the end to ripping babies from the womb with the only means we have right now, a stricter court over the next few years.
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.