>>>> Asides from the "evil" AP, the National Review was also lying in 1994 about his being pro-choice? <<<<
>> Yes, the NR (or actually just one writer on it) was. <<
I believe the NR was guilty of faulty analysis, not of deceit. NR did correct the matter and desisted calling Thompson "pro-choice." But I think it's about time Luis Gonzalez does likewise. I think Luis did a valuable service by introducing the FACT that Thompson has a history of being soft on abortion, but out of fairness and truthfulness, Luis, I think you should stop pushing people towards the INFERENCE that Thompson is pro-choice.
Frankly, Luis, you are too honorable to be written off as a RudyBot or anyone's bot, but your credibility is best served by pulling back to what you know. We can make our inferences on our own, pushing your own presumption so hard only invites unfortunate questions of your credibility which undermine your very valid concerns.
Here's the point I've been making.
Thompson was recognized as a pro-choice Republican in 1994, according to NR, on a letter to a constituent, while discussing the issue of abortion, Thompson said the following:
"I believe that government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area."
If indeed he said that, and I believe that he did, how do you explain his statement as anything OTHER than a pro-choice position?
Adittionally, since overturning Roe v. Wade would be totally consistent with his notion that government should interfere in no way in an individual's decision, and the fact that it being overturned does not make abortion illegal, when it comes to abortion, stating that he believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned does NOT make his a pro-life position.
P.S. A pro-life position requires government “interference” in making abortion illegal.