[Pox]

Pitiful.

Any 'dings' that you can post concerning Mr. Thompson are insignificant compared to the train wrecks that are Rudy McRomney.

Mr. Thompson is the most conservative candidate that can actually win the election.

[RockinRight]

Wanna take this? I'm kinda busy.

[traditional1]

Yawn.....

[elfman2]

I hate John Glen. I'd like to hear the story behind that.

The other issues mention more or less disturb me, but a relatively conservative candidate with great ability to articulate it overwhelms that.

[GSlob]

The only Fred I was familiar with had an inflection point on remuneration-rank curve named after him. [The point at which the rank-holder idiocy started preventing or constraining his capacity to cause harm, loss and damage, and thus his remuneration]. I doubt it is the same Fred, though.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Besides being a Senator and an Actor, what else has he done?

He served on several high-profile government panels and committees, including Watergate. Plus he helped shepherd Bush's judicial picks through.

2. Is this the same Fred Thompson that was rolled over by John Glenn in the Chinagate hearings?

That never happened

3. Is this the same Fred Thompson that supported McCain and voted for the McCain/Fiengold bill?

Yes, but he conceded that it didn't turn out the way it should, and should be revised or scrapped.

4. Why is it ok for Fred Thompson to start as Pro-Choice and end up as Pro-Life but not ok for others like Romney?

Thompson has been consistently pro-life throughout his political career.

[pissant]

You supporting Rudy, I take it?

[RockinRight]

1. Was a Watergate prosecutor when only in his early 30s. Also an accomplished lawyer.
2. Yes, it was a weak spot, see my last post.
3. Yes, but he has quite definitively admitted it was a mistake - something McCain hasn't done - and all the other "major" candidates still support it.
4. Because most evidence says that the National Review article in question (where he was called pro-choice) was simply incorrect, and Fred was never pro-choice to begin with. Even if he was, his Senate voting record was 100% pro-life.
5. I dunno.

[flashbunny]

"1. Besides being a Senator and an Actor, what else has he done? "

You could have found this by searching the internet yourself.

Google "fred thompson bio" and you find this:

THOMPSON, Fred Dalton, a Senator from Tennessee; born in Sheffield, Ala., on August 19, 1942; attended the public schools in Lawrenceburg, Tenn.; graduated from Memphis State University 1964; received J.D. degree from Vanderbilt University 1967; admitted to the Tennessee bar in 1967 and commenced the practice of law; assistant U.S. attorney 1969-1972; minority counsel, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (“Watergate Committee”) 1973-1974; special counsel to Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander 1980; special counsel, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1980-1981; special counsel, Senate Intelligence Committee 1982; member, Tennessee Appellate Court Nominating Commission 1985-1987; actor; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate in the November 8, 1994, special election to fill the unexpired portion of the term ending January 3, 1997, left vacant by the resignation of Albert Gore, Jr.; took the oath of office on December 2, 1994; reelected in 1996 for the term ending January 3, 2003; not a candidate for reelection in 2002; chair, Committee on Governmental Affairs (One Hundred Fifth and One Hundred Sixth Congresses; One Hundred Seventh Congress [January 20, 2001-June 6, 2001]); resumed acting career.

If you really want more, try wikipedia.

[flashbunny]

"4. Why is it ok for Fred Thompson to start as Pro-Choice and end up as Pro-Life but not ok for others like Romney? "

Gee, didn't you see this one covered in the dozen other "thompson is pro choice" threads started by the Rudyphiles?

Here's the real answer:

http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=6017

BREAKING NEWS: National Right to Life Committee on Thompson - Thursday, March 22, 2007 @ 5:37:50 PM

This morning, I cited reports being promoted by the pro-Romney blog Evangelicals for Mitt suggesting that Fred Thompson ran his two campaigns for Senate in Tennessee as a pro-choicer. Not so, National Right to Life executive co-director Darla St. Martin just told me.

St. Martin said that she went down to Tennessee in 1994 to speak with Thompson personally when he first ran for Senate, and that she determined he was against abortion.

"I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion," St. Martin said. She told me that the group went on to support him in that election, and his record reinforced for her that their determination was correct.

"He has a consistent voting record that is pro-life," she said.

On the NRLC website, they archive their congressional ratings back to 1997, so they include six of his eight years in the Senate. Thompson took the pro-life position on every vote he cast on the abortion issue. The only reason he didn't have a 100% rating is that, as Jim pointed out, the ratings also include votes on campaign finance reform, which he supported. I specifically pressed her on the 1994 National Review story that read: "On abortion, both Thompson and Cooper are pro-choice. But Thompson favors parental notification, Cooper voted against it." I also asked her about the 1996 AP story mentioning Thompson's opposition to a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

St. Martin said she was skeptical of such media reports, because they can be wrong as was her experience with stories in 2000 that George W. Bush had been pro-choice. She reiterated the fact that she knows Thompson opposed abortion because of her conversation with him, and that was reinforced by his subsequent voting record.

No doubt, there will be new articles and video clips to come out should Thompson decide to run, publicizing any past pro-choice statements, and clearly Romney supporters have a vested interest in pointing to Thompson as another recent convert to the pro-life cause. However, it seems that Thompson's voting record is consistent enough, and dates back far enough, to satisfy the pro-life community.

This is the record of jim cooper (his democratic opponent, also labeled "pro choice") that I can find from ontheissues:

* Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Rated 30% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

So the truth is he was endorsed by PRO LIFE groups when he ran for the senate, and the person he ran against, also labeled as "pro choice" has a pro life voting record.

[flashbunny]

"3. Is this the same Fred Thompson that supported McCain and voted for the McCain/Fiengold bill? "

Yes, and he's called it a failure.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009798

Many on the right remain angry he supported the campaign finance law sponsored by his friend John McCain. "There are problems with people giving politicians large sums of money and then asking them to pass legislation," Mr. Thompson says. Still, he notes he proposed the amendment to raise the $1,000 per person "hard money" federal contribution limit.

Conceding that McCain-Feingold hasn't worked as intended, and is being riddled with new loopholes, he throws his hands open in exasperation. "I'm not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn't just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately."

[jr48154]

Bravo for asking the questions. I like Fred Thompson. I like Mitt Romney. I even think I could vote for Rudy or, gulp, McCain -- I would against HC or BO anyway.

I appreciate the critical questions, especially amid the Thompson lovefest (and I admit I've been excited about the prospects of a Thompson candidacy, as well). I ask myself similar questions about the others, too. No one's perfect.

Too bad so many freepers don't even take such questions seriously. I mean, you're not attacking FT. You're just asking critical questions that any serious conservative voter would have to ask.

In the end, Thompson may well get my vote if he were to run -- but I'd rather vote knowing full-well that even though he's a solid conservative, he's still a mere mortal with some notable shortcomings.

[Cowboy Bob]

4. Why is it ok for Fred Thompson to start as Pro-Choice and end up as Pro-Life but not ok for others like Romney?

Why is it ok for Ronald Reagan to start as a Democrat...

[SampleMan]

1. THOMPSON, Fred Dalton, a Senator from Tennessee; born in Sheffield, Ala., on August 19, 1942; attended the public schools in Lawrenceburg, Tenn.; graduated from Memphis State University 1964; received J.D. degree from Vanderbilt University 1967; admitted to the Tennessee bar in 1967 and commenced the practice of law; assistant U.S. attorney 1969-1972; minority counsel, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (“Watergate Committee”) 1973-1974; special counsel to Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander 1980; special counsel, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1980-1981; special counsel, Senate Intelligence Committee 1982; member, Tennessee Appellate Court Nominating Commission 1985-1987; actor; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate in the November 8, 1994, special election to fill the unexpired portion of the term ending January 3, 1997, left vacant by the resignation of Albert Gore, Jr.; took the oath of office on December 2, 1994; reelected in 1996 for the term ending January 3, 2003; not a candidate for reelection in 2002; chair, Committee on Governmental Affairs (One Hundred Fifth and One Hundred Sixth Congresses; One Hundred Seventh Congress [January 20, 2001-June 6, 2001]); resumed acting career.

2. Yes if this is a rollover, http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37aa28c44345.htm

3. Yes. We need a better explanation on his current reversal.

4. Its OK in my book for anyone to have a 'Come to Jesus' on abortion, as long as they are sincere about it.

5. Not the kind that would be best for a Presidential resume (governor of a large state), but the current field lacks that on both sides (except for Bill Richardson). Rudy has been a mayor of NY of course, but I'm not sure I'd put "mayor" as a great resume bullet for POTUS.

[SE Mom]

The following interview- conducted in another world and lifetime- pre 9-11- may answer SOME of the questions you have- all of which are reasonable to ask.

~ snip ~
Was Thompson, like most of his party, disappointed in the outcome of his Asia- gate probe? "Of course I was disappointed, on many levels. Mainly on the level of truth and justice." But "on the level of process and doing as well as we could with the opportunity we had, I'm satisfied"-though "you can't be completely satisfied when you know you got stiffed, in certain respects."

Thompson is referring chiefly to the behavior of his committee's Democrats, the memory of which visibly appalls him even today, a year and a half later. Republicans faulted him for bending over backwards to accommodate the minority; that minority-the Democrats-tarred him as a partisan witch-hunter anyway. Thompson says that he had Watergate in the back of his mind-"too much so, in some respects"-and tried to follow the Watergate model, which demands a certain broadness.

"A lot of my friends," he says, "thought that if we could just get something on the Democrats-and God knows there was a lot to get-we'd be in clover." But Thompson opted to tread lightly, recognizing that "today the accuser is almost as suspect as the accused. There's a good deal of skepticism about all of us in the political process"-which, he argues, happens to be "the major part of Clinton's success." Indeed, "that's why he survived." What Thompson had not sufficiently appreciated is the vitriol, coupled with a knack for sabotage, of the Democrats.

"There was nothing I could have done," he pleads, "to cause John Glenn [the senior Democrat on the committee] to try to have a fair, down-the-middle investigation." Could he hazard a guess as to why Glenn, in the waning days of a long and relatively dignified career, chose to play the part of White House protector? After a long pause, he answers, "I got some ideas, but I'd just rather not get into it. I can only say that it's one of the most disappointing things that I've ever encountered. I've been around hearings and practiced a lot of law and all, but I didn't expect that. I can't read his mind, but it was consistent, it was persistent, and there never was a moment when he deviated from what he had decided to do."

What about the suspicion that there was an exchange between Glenn and the president: obstruction for a valedictory space flight? "Well, that's between him and the good Lord," says Thompson. "I certainly don't know the answer and never will."

Thompson has concluded that traditional investigative hearings are a thing of the past. As it stands, "You have to find out all you're going to find out beforehand and use your hearings to demonstrate what you've already discovered." Why? Because "there's too much partisanship and too short an attention span among the media, especially television. We were deemed a failure literally the day after our hearings started." Most of the press considered the hearings too dull, too cautious, too fussy. Thompson held some off-the-record meetings with reporters, "and I said, 'Look, guys: Pay attention. I don't have John Dean and a taping system, but there's some very interesting stuff here. This was the most corrupt political campaign we've ever seen. You need to keep up with it, even if it doesn't seem blockbuster.' And they all nodded, said they understood. Bullsh**: They didn't. I should have saved my breath. The name of the game is the president: Are you going to get him or not?"

The Asia-gate investigation led by Rep. Chris Cox in the House, Thompson believes, shows that "you can still succeed." (The results of that inquiry are as yet unknown to the public.) "But they didn't have hearings. They did all their work behind closed doors, in secret, which doesn't necessarily portend good things."

Not only was "ol' Fred," as the senator calls himself, unable to destroy the president over China; many conservatives are miffed that he voted to acquit Clinton on one of the impeachment counts-that concerning perjury. (He voted to convict on obstruction of justice.) Thompson explains that he found himself "encumbered" by his legal education; the perjury charge was inconsistent with "the facts, the Constitution, and my perception of what the Founding Fathers had in mind."

As for Clinton himself, Thompson has given this extraordinary figure some thought: "He's a man of his times. He's forgiven for more than people have traditionally been forgiven. Less is expected of him. We're more into personal relations and everyone's motivations than we are what they stand for." Because of nonstop and pervasive media, "the president is there with you, lives with you, on a daily basis. And we're more comfortable with a buddy than we are with a father." The remarkable thing about Clinton is "his utter lack of shame. He literally-I mean this-has no shame. He's not affected the way normal people are by humiliation. For him, it's all a part of the game. It's a matter of maneuvering to the next point. And it serves him well in the kind of environment we have now."

Confronting further conservative criticisms, Thompson cheerfully acknowledges that he is "off the [Republican] reservation" on campaign-finance reform. He contends that "it's just not right to take large sums of money from people who have legislation before you. It's that basic. The idea of mixing policy and money in that way is just so obviously a problem . . . It's kind of like an elephant in a bathtub: If you don't see it at first glance, chances are you never will." The situation "may not be fixable," he says-but ought to be.

In answer to his critics on tort reform-one of them complains that he is "in the pocket" of his fellow trial lawyers-Thompson has a single word, which he freely expands on: federalism. The question, says Thompson, should not be, "Do we think people are being sued too much this week?" It should be, "Do we believe that certain decisions ought to be made at certain levels of government?" Moreover, "we're not supposed to legislate by anecdote." For every "coffee-in-the-lap" story, Thompson and others are happy to provide a tale of a litigant unjustly squashed

~ snip ~
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_9_51/ai_54516234/pg_1

[CharlesWayneCT]

I've got some more questions.

6) What makes Fred Thompson So Darn Popular?

7) If Rudy was comparing himself to Fred Thompson, would he wish he wasn't against Gun control so he could just shoot himself and be done with it?

8) Fred Thompson is a Senator, an Actor, and a Lawyer, all things conservatives usually loathe. Isn't it cool that he manages to do all those and still be the best?

9) As you may know, former Governor Tommy Thompson also served in the Bush administration, and is a well-liked politician. What do you think he would give to change his first name to Fred?

[Gop1040]

1. Besides being a Senator and an Actor, what else has he done?

(Minority Counsel For the Senate Watergate Committee)

2. Is this the same Fred Thompson that was rolled over by John Glenn in the Chinagate hearings?

(Yes)

3. Is this the same Fred Thompson that supported McCain and voted for the McCain/Fiengold bill?

(Yes)

4. Why is it ok for Fred Thompson to start as Pro-Choice and end up as Pro-Life but not ok for others like Romney?

(He's not Romney)

5. Does he have any executive experience?

(No)

[jellybean]

I have some questions about Fred Thompson that needs to be answered.

Most of your questions have been asked and answered numerous times. Nevertheless, I'll provide some links for you to research.

Additional Views of Chairman Fred Thompson

Another Beltway Bubba

In the Line of Fire

No Tennessee Waltz

The Star Stays Out

That should get you started...if you want more, let me know. I've got lots of links! :)

Sign the Fred Thompson for President Petiton

Join the Draft Fred Thompson Bandwagon

▲ Click the box to see where he stands on the issues. ▲

Draft Fred Thompson

If you'd like to be added to the Fred Thompson list, let Howlin or me know.

CAUTION: This is a very high volume ping list. You may receive between 5 and 10 pings a day. If you'd rather not receive so many pings, let me know and I'll only ping you once a week.

[papasmurf]

Using this Amazing Patented Resource , you can find the answers you seek.

LOL

:O)

P

[Josh Painter]

Kevin Davis wrote: "1. Besides being a Senator and an Actor, what else has he done?"

Plenty. Fred began by working his way through college, holding jobs as a shoe salesman, truck driver, and even a factory worker prior to becoming a lawyer. This work ethic, combined with his extensive study of classical philosophy and political science, led Fred to a firm belief in conservative ideals.

Fred Thompson served as a member of the Tennessee Appellate Court Nominating Commission, 1985-1987; Special counsel, Senate Committee on Intelligence, 1982; Special counsel, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1980-1981; Special counsel to Lamar Alexander, governor of Tennessee, 1980; Minority counsel, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities ("Watergate Committee”), 1973-1974; an Assistant U.S. attorney, 1969-1972 and a practicing attorney, 1967-1969.

Thompson is a Visiting Fellow at The American Enterprise Institute, where his areas of advanced study include China, Korea and russia. He was elected to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2002. Thompson is also a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

Fred Thompson is also an author. He has written a book, the Watergate memoir "At That Point in Time," and numerous articles and white papers.

Fred's latest occupation is that of radio commentator, filling in for Paul Harvey with a series of hard-hitting short commentaries on ABC radio.

*

And wrote: "2. Is this the same Fred Thompson that was rolled over by John Glenn in the Chinagate hearings?"

No, it's the same Fred Thompson who was stabbed in the back by a man Fred, like many Americans, had believed to be a marine aviator, astronaut and authentic American hero. Turns out that Glenn had been reduced to being just another Democrat political hack. Fred, who had worked in an atmosphere of general cooperation in the Watergate Hearings, would soon discover that the Demoncrats has lost their last drop of honor. In his own words:

The Governmental Affairs Committee's final report sets forth the results of our investigation to the fullest extent publicly possible. The committee concluded that in the light of the plan, the ties of many leading Democratic fundraisers to the PRC government, and the money trail leading back to the Greater China area, ``there is strong circumstantial evidence that the PRC government was involved'' in funding, directing, or encouraging illegal contributions to American political campaigns during the 1996 election cycle. We emphasized that while the intelligence information seemed pretty clear it did have some gaps. Moreover, no consensus existed regarding whether we were witnessing a single plan or a series of possibly coordinated efforts by different parts of the Chinese government. Again, we vetted the report with the intelligence agencies, and they carefully scrubbed potentially source-identifying information.

Nevertheless, many media accounts characterized the report as interesting but a failure because we did not demonstrate conclusively the flow of specific Chinese dollars into specific campaigns. The Democrats on the committee issued a minority report which minimized and denigrated the significance of our findings.

- Fred Thompson, "The China Syndrome," June 22, 1998

http://www.nationalreview.com/22jun98/thompson062298.html

[Thompson] points out that he has held office for only four years, and, in Washington, "people get built up fast, and they get taken down fast." Sure, conservatives hungry for a spokesman were tickled by that response to Clinton's address back in 1994, but "the idea that they would build me up based on reading a five-minute speech into a monitor is kind of silly." And then they were "disappointed that I wasn't able to 'get Bill Clinton' in my hearings, so they consider the hearings a failure. That's just part of life."

Thompson says that he had Watergate in the back of his mind — "too much so, in some respects" — and tried to follow the Watergate model, which demands a certain broadness.

"A lot of my friends," he says, "thought that if we could just get something on the Democrats — and God knows there was a lot to get — we'd be in clover." But Thompson opted to tread lightly, recognizing that "today the accuser is almost as suspect as the accused. There's a good deal of skepticism about all of us in the political process" — which, he argues, happens to be "the major part of Clinton's success." Indeed, "that's why he survived." What Thompson had not sufficiently appreciated is the vitriol, coupled with a knack for sabotage, of the Democrats.

"There was nothing I could have done," he pleads, "to cause John Glenn [the senior Democrat on the committee] to try to have a fair, down-the-middle investigation." Could he hazard a guess as to why Glenn, in the waning days of a long and relatively dignified career, chose to play the part of White House protector? After a long pause, he answers, "I got some ideas, but I'd just rather not get into it. I can only say that it's one of the most disappointing things that I've ever encountered. I've been around hearings and practiced a lot of law and all, but I didn't expect that. I can't read his mind, but it was consistent, it was persistent, and there never was a moment when he deviated from what he had decided to do."

What about the suspicion that there was an exchange between Glenn and the president: obstruction for a valedictory space flight? "Well, that's between him and the good Lord," says Thompson. "I certainly don't know the answer and never will."

Thompson has concluded that traditional investigative hearings are a thing of the past. As it stands, "You have to find out all you're going to find out beforehand and use your hearings to demonstrate what you've already discovered." Why? Because "there's too much partisanship and too short an attention span among the media, especially television. We were deemed a failure literally the day after our hearings started." Most of the press considered the hearings too dull, too cautious, too fussy. Thompson held some off-the-record meetings with reporters, "and I said, 'Look, guys: Pay attention. I don't have John Dean and a taping system, but there's some very interesting stuff here. This was the most corrupt political campaign we've ever seen. You need to keep up with it, even if it doesn't seem blockbuster.' And they all nodded, said they understood. Bullsh**: They didn't. I should have saved my breath. The name of the game is the president: Are you going to get him or not?"

- Jay Nordlinger in National Review, May 17, 1999

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805040/replies?c=2

On issues, he addresses head-on the major complaints conservatives have about his record. He was largely stymied in his 1997 investigation of both Clinton-Gore and GOP campaign fund-raising abuses: Key witnesses declined to testify or fled the country, though evidence eventually surfaced of a Chinese plan to influence U.S. politics. He won't argue with those who say he showed "naiveté" about how he would be stonewalled in his investigation. He says he's wiser now.

- Interview with WSJ's John Fund, March 17, 2007

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009798

*

And wrote: "3. Is this the same Fred Thompson that supported McCain and voted for the McCain/Fiengold bill?"

No. He's also wiser about the chances of having any measure of real campaign finance reform. Still, he sees something fundamentally wrong about accepting money from people who have a critical stake in issues a lawmaker will have to help decide:

Confronting further conservative criticisms, Thompson cheerfully acknowledges that he is "off the [Republican] reservation" on campaign-finance reform. He contends that "it's just not right to take large sums of money from people who have legislation before you. It's that basic. The idea of mixing policy and money in that way is just so obviously a problem … It's kind of like an elephant in a bathtub: If you don't see it at first glance, chances are you never will." The situation "may not be fixable," he says — but ought to be.

- Jay Nordlinger, National Review, May 17, 1999

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805040/posts

WALLACE: You have taken some stands that conservatives may not like. For instance, you voted for John McCain's campaign finance reform.

THOMPSON: I came from the outside to Congress. And it always seemed strange to me. We've got a situation where people could give politicians huge sums of money, which is the soft money situation at that time, and then come before those same politicians and ask them to pass legislation for them.

I mean, you get thrown in jail for stuff like that in the real world. And so I always thought that there was some reasonable limitation that ought to be put on that, and you know, looking back on history, Barry Goldwater in his heyday felt the same thing.

So that's not a non-conservative position, although I agree that a lot of people have interpreted it that way.

- Interview with Fox News Sunday's Mike Wallace, March 11, 2007

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258222,00.html

Many on the right remain angry he supported the campaign finance law sponsored by his friend John McCain. "There are problems with people giving politicians large sums of money and then asking them to pass legislation," Mr. Thompson says. Still, he notes he proposed the amendment to raise the $1,000 per person "hard money" federal contribution limit.

Conceding that McCain-Feingold hasn't worked as intended, and is being riddled with new loopholes, he throws his hands open in exasperation. "I'm not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn't just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately."

- Interview with WSJ's John Fund, March 17, 2007

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009798

*

And wrote: "4. Why is it ok for Fred Thompson to start as Pro-Choice and end up as Pro-Life but not ok for others like Romney?"

Because Thompson did NOT start as Pro-choice. National Review got it wrong years ago and even today will not own up to having published information that simply has no basis in fact.

Fred Thompson's voting record is 100% pro-life:

STRONGLY OPPOSES topic 1: "Abortion is a woman's right"

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson_SenateMatch.htm

Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm#Abortion

National Right to Life Committee on Fred Thompson:

"This morning, I cited reports being promoted by the pro-Romney blog Evangelicals for Mitt suggesting that Fred Thompson ran his two campaigns for Senate in Tennessee as a pro-choicer. Not so, National Right to Life executive co-director Darla St. Martin just told me.

St. Martin said that she went down to Tennessee in 1994 to speak with Thompson personally when he first ran for Senate, and that she determined he was against abortion.

'I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion,' St. Martin said. She told me that the group went on to support him in that election, and his record reinforced for her that their determination was correct.

'He has a consistent voting record that is pro-life,' she said.

On the NRLC website, they archive their congressional ratings back to 1997, so they include six of his eight years in the Senate. Thompson took the pro-life position on every vote he cast on the abortion issue..."

http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=6017

"NARAL also rated nine other Republicans... Based on their abortion rights stance, the following Republicans received a grade of 'F': ...Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee..."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Try=No&Page=\Politics\archive\200007\POL20000714a.html

"With 54% of the vote, pro-life former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander (R) won the seat of retiring PRO-LIFE Senator Fred Thompson."

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL11/senate.html

"Listed below is the name, state and party of each of these senators along with Planned Parenthood's rating of them.

Name State Party PP rating...
Fred Thompson TN R 0% "

http://www.all.org/stopp/rr0111.htm

*

And wrote: "5. Does he have any executive experience?"

Some. Thompson served as Special counsel to Lamar Alexander, governor of Tennessee. He has over 20 years experience as a small businessman, running a successful law practice with offices in Tennessee and Washington, D.C.

Executive experience in government, however, is no guarantee of a a great or even good presidency. Jimmy Carter has demonstrated that it can lead to what was arguably the worst presidential administration in the history of the United States. And two of our greatest presidents, Jefferson and Lincoln, had little or no executive experience prior to becoming president.