Posted on 11/28/2007 10:48:10 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I enjoyed watching Chris Wallace’s recent interview with Fred Thompson — and I share Thompson’s bewilderment at Fox’s nitpicking negativity, so far, about his budding campaign.
In general, I agree with Matthew Dallman’s assessment of Thompson; he feels to me like the most presidential and even-minded of the candidates.
While I could support Giuliani, something about him often strikes me as ... dark and edgy. Maybe I just don’t have enough East Coast in me to take to him right away.
Thompson is the first (and, so far, only) leading candidate reminding us that social security still needs reform, and soon. That shows me he is a man unafraid to deliver important news even though it’s politically unpopular.
Although I disagree with Thompson that abortion constitutes the “taking of a life” in any legally meaningful sense — to me it’s more like taking the life of a fish than of a human — I do agree with him that Roe v. Wade should be overturned so that decisions about the legality of various abortion procedures can be made at the local rather than federal level.
My own position is that abortion is a subject about which reasonable people can disagree, with no end in sight. So why should such a truly gray-area subject — I mean, when does human life start for those of us who don’t think it’s at conception? — be subject to such absolute rule at the federal level.
With the possible exception of his position on immigration — seems to me immigration should be fast, easy, and well-documented — I definitely like Thompson’s list of principles.
“Dissolution of the IRS as we know it”? Count me in. “Free market solutions” to problems in the health care industry? Love it.
But what I like best about Thompson is his explicit, repeated, and principled emphasis on the importance of federalism. Ultimately, that’s why I can agree with him on Roe v. Wade while disagreeing with him about abortion.
Federalism is a beautiful thing, and I’m glad to see a major presidential candidate pushing the subject so strongly.
Yes you did and I should have read more thoroughly before I responded. Many of your points are valid.
I am favoring Fred right now myself. He seems to be a true strict constructionist, and I believe strict construction is the glue that can hold social conservatives and small government conservatives together.
These so called debates are neither debates nor informative. Considering the seriousness of our times, I welcome Fred’s idea of a roundtable discussion where people can have a serious conversation on the issues.
The media manipulation, we’ve had enough.
“We’ll need some moderates and independents to win next November.”
Not as many as you’d think...but I think Fred could pull in enough.
Fred stood out as the only conservative at last night's debate. The rest are moderates or liberals.
Duncan Hunter is a conservative.
Rush also said he would support the Republican nominee. That's not a very popular position at Free Republic.
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.