:O)
P
Posted on 04/01/2007 9:13:44 PM PDT by SE Mom
In just three weeks, Fred Thompson has transformed the contest for the Republican presidential nomination. It is not merely that he has come from nowhere to double digits in polls. He is the talk of GOP political circles because he is filling the conservative void in the field.
Republican activists have complained for months that none of the Big Three -- Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney-- fits the conservative model of a conservative leader for a conservative party. The party faithful have been waiting for another Ronald Reagan. But in conversations with them the past year, nobody mentioned Thompson as the messiah until he appeared March 11 on "Fox News Sunday."
Thompson was surprised by the reaction to his statement that he was "giving some thought" to running. In the first Gallup Poll that listed Thompson (conducted March 23-25), he scored 12 percent -- amazing for someone out of public life for more than four years who has not campaigned. More important is his backing within the political community. Buyer's remorse is expressed by several House members who endorsed Romney, the former Massachusetts governor.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Check this out:
Sorting through all the Romney nonsense
The Eighth Commandment.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
What does this mean?--Answer:
We should fear and love God so that we do not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him,speak well of him, and explain his actions in the kindest way.
--Martin Luther, The Small Catechism
Presumably the authors of the blog Evangelicals for Mitt are not Lutherans. Or maybe some of them are; not a few members of my own religious confession identify with that movement. But Lutheran or not, certainly few conservative Protestants would disagree with the interpretation of their Ninth Commandment (our Eighth) the Reformer gave in the words above.
That's why I was sad to see Evangelicals for Mitt repeat questionable charges that Fred Thompson was pro-choice during his campaigns for the Senate. The charges come from National Review Online blogger Ramesh Ponnuru, who observes that there is "strong" evidence supporting them and that such a Thompson position was "widely reported." To be fair to Ponnuru (and to Evangelicals for Mitt), Ponnuru does cite one- and only one- "smoking gun:" a 1997 letter on the subject of abortion in which Thompson asserts (the context of these words unavailable) that he supports what Ponnuru calles "various restrictions" on abortion, but which also includes the line, "I believe that government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area."
There is, of couse, an obvious logical conflict between supporting restrictions on abortions and not supporting government interference with "convictions and actions in this area" (I really would like to see that letter!).
But besides the letter, all Ponnaru cites are various "press clippings" describing Thompson as pro-choice. In other words, with the exception of that single, out-of context quote, all we have is the second-hand characterization of a National Review writer basing his own characterization, in turn, of the second-hand characterizations of other reporters.
I fear that the folks at Evangelicals for Mitt have failed to "explain (Thompson's) actions in the kindest way." Rather, they have publicly assumed the worst about him on a matter concerning which there is considerably mixed evidence, at best.
On the other hand, we have National Right to Life Committee Committee Executive Co-Director Darla St. Martin's unequivocal statement, based on a personal conversation at the time, that Sen. Thompson was pro-life prior to 1994, when he first ran for the Senate. We have Thompson's spotlessly pro-life voting record throughout his entire Senate career, including his 1999 vote- which even Ponnaru acknowledges- against the Harkin Amendment, which put the U.S. Senate on record as supporting Roe v. Wade. And even Evangelicals for Mitt has this to say:
At any rate, I don't particularly care that Thompson was pro-choice. He's been pro-life in office and is pro-life now. I was the first one to raise Thompson's pro-choice past (not my wife -- can't a guy get any respect around here?), and I did it merely to point out that if Mitt Romney is not a "true conservative" because he used to be pro-choice, then neither is Fred Thompson. As anyone who reads this blog for more than five seconds knows, I think this desperate longing on the right for a "Conservative Messiah" is the height of absurdity. I'm glad Fred Thompson is pro-life, and I like Fred Thompson. He's a good conservative. I just like another candidate better."
When all is said and done, it boils down to this: Mitt Romney, throughout most of his political life, has been quite frankly and vocally pro-choice. There is no debate about that; anyone with any questions need only consult YouTube! On the eve of his campaign for the Republican presidential campaign, in which the pro-choice position which was politically adventageous for a statewide candidate in Massachusetts became a dire political liability, his public position changed.
Now, I hasten to add that I do not question the sincerity of Gov. Romney's change of heart. As it happens, before Sen. Thompson let it be known that he was considering a candidacy of his own, I was briefly a supporter of Gov. Romney. In my personal blog, I argued against the notion that Gov. Romney's late conversion to the pro-life cause should be held against him, as well as against the un-American and frankly stupid idea that his Mormon religion should somehow disqualify him from the presidency. Frankly, to coin a phrase, I'm glad Mitt Romney is pro-life, and I like Mitt Romney. He's a good conservative. I just like another candidate better.
But the fact remains that Mitt Romney does not have the history of pro-life actions Fred Thompson has throughout his public career. He does not have the imprimatur of a Darla St. Martin on his resume as a long-time pro-lifer- or even, to use Ponnuru's tortured distinction, as an "ally" of the pro-life movement. There will be those who will be disposed to be cynical about Romney's conversion to the pro-life cause just in time to run as a pro-life presidential candidate after a career of being outspokenly pro-choice. I am not among them, and I do not believe their suspicion of Gov. Romney's sincerity to be justified.
But it is nevertheless a political fact of life for Gov. Romney and his supporters. In fact, it's a real disadvantage. Rightly or wrongly (I think wrongly), there are a great many conservatives who simply have a hard time accepting the notion that Mitt Romney is an honest-to-goodness conservative, both on the abortion question and on others. It may not be fair that he has to live his past down, but human nature being what it is, fair or not, he does in the eyes of many on the Right.
And it is that which has prompted Evangelicals for Mitt (and others in the Romney camp) to cast aspersions on Fred Thompson's record on abortion. Never mind that Sen. Thompson's voting record on abortion (even if one accepts Ponnaru's characterization of his past statements at face value) cannot rationally be compared to Romney's forthrightly pro-choice position throughout his own career. It's not even a question, really, of the Romney people trying to neutralize the disadvantage at which his own record on abortion places their candidate.
It's all about the fact that the emergence of Fred Thompson has put Mitt Romney in deep trouble. Thompson has already passed Romney in Iowa and is closing on him in New Hampshire, despite not even being a declared candidate, having no staff in the field, and lacking anything resembling the former Massachusetts governor's campaign coffers (the Thomposn PAC is less than a week old, and Romney TV ads have been running here in Iowa for weeks).
If you're a Romney supporter, Fred Thompson must be shot down somehow- and right now!
I am hardly the only convert, either in Iowa or elsewhere, to the Thompson camp from Romney's. The Romney campaign simply cannot survive the continuation of the Thompson boom. The former Tennessee senator is already in the process of replaceing the former Massachusetts governor as one of the "big three," along with socially liberal non-starter Rudy Giuliani and widely (if unfairly) distrusted John McCain.
If the Thompson candidacy prospers, it will not simply do so at the expense of the Romney candidacy. The two are antithetical. Mitt Romney's candidacy simply cannot survive the continued burgeoning of the Thompson boom. And so it is no surprise that it is neither openly pro-choice Giuliani nor fellow-convert to the pro-life cause John McCain whose record is under attack from the Romney camp. It's the record of the real threat- Fred Thompson.
Ultimately, the attempt to portray Fred Thompson as another Johnny-come-lately to the pro-life cause is the result of the desperation of the Romney camp- a desperation well founded in reality.
http://iowansforfredthompson.blogspot.com/
BEAUTIFUL!
Can you make one with the following?
SUPPORT FREDERALISM!!!!
"I believe that government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area." -- Source
That's the essence of the pro-choice argument.
Flip-flop.
My check is ready if Fred officially throws his hat in. I've been getting these fundraising letters from the RNC, and I've ignored them all lately. Fred is the only major candidate that's going to get my cash anytime soon. And if he wins, I want him to clean house at the RNC.
You're a lady...thank you for keeping the conversation civil.
P.S. I think Gore may jump into the fray when the field is settled, and if he does, he will win.
Luis Gonzalez wrote: "...Thompson... voted for McCain-Feingold, and voted in favor of bringing more foreign workers into the American economy?"
Fred has admittted that both votes were mistakes. He's still not comfortable with having interests who donate large sums of cash to politicians benefit when issues which favor those same interests are voted on by those same politicians. Neither am I. Fred realizes that McCain Feingold didn't solve the problem, and he would like to find a way to solve it. On immigration, he has admitted that he (and Ronald Reagan by default) were wrong in 1986. He supports sealing the borders and removing all incentives for illegals to stay before any other actions are taken.
In contrast, Rudy supports total amnesty and has declared NYC to be a sanctuary for invaders, in open defiance of U.S. immigration law.
Can't you see the difference here?
Hey Luis, you better
(a) double check the accuracy of the source
(b) realize that it is the AP (cornerstone of the MSM) and therefore makes (a) moot
It has been shown through his record that this is (a)not true and (b)false history
I'm sure that the Romney people had those articles planted in National Review et al back in 1994 so they could use them this year.
So, as a leader he's not certain of his own actions?
Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review published a correction of the National Review article, speculating that perhaps Thompson had had a change of heart in 1997.
After researching the issue, his "running as pro-choice" appears to amount to a single quote in the AP and which was interpreted by a Nashville paper to mean he was pro-choice, in spite of a solidly pro-life record; in subsequent interviews that very year, he stated he was pro-life.
Asides from the "evil" AP, the National Review was also lying in 1994 about his being pro-choice?
>> So, as a leader he's not certain of his own actions? <<
Reagan used to be a Democrat.
Thank you.
Al Gore? Hhmmm...I don't think so anymore. He's...so..20th Century. Basking in the light of global warming..
Those that believe that the federal government including the US Supreme Court have no jurisdiction in matters of deciding when life begins, are believers that such matters are issues for the States to decide.
It's a States rights issue.
And FDT has consistently voted against pro-choice and for pro-life legislation.
So I am afraid your attempted point is incomplete, inconsistent and vacuous.
Surely hope he gets in this race...Fred's looking really good to the conservatives and I surely am happy he's a Southerner...originally from ALA...go Fred! I love Rudy for his leadership but the socials are tough. Let me be perfectly clear, there isn't a REP I wouldn't work hard for in this most important 08 election.
So, he's multiple choice?
Is that it?
In that 1997 letter, he says that he doesn't believe that the government should have a voice in an individual's decision to abort or not. That's consistent with both the notion of overturning Roe v. Wade AND with his being pro-choice.
Luis Gonzalez wrote: "Source"
Thanks, but that's not either one of the links I asked for. National Review got its facts confused and won't admit it.
Again, AP link for the AP story and Memphis Commercial Appeal link for the story attributed it it. Can't you find these links?
OMG NO! He voted for LEGAL immigration!! Well, I never! I could never vote for him!
Do I really have to add the sarcasm tag?
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.