Posted on 05/24/2007 12:02:11 AM PDT by familyop
There was NOTHING wrong with his stance on impeachment. He voted FOR one charge, and against one he thought wasn’t proven. A principled stand.
And you’re just lying if you claim he isn’t pro-life. He is for states’ rights. Something conservatives are SUPPOSED to support.
A video of Fred Thompson answering a question about abortion policy during a televised debate during his 1992 Senate campaign has surfaced on YouTube and is being portrayed as proof that Thompson once was “pro-choice” on abortion, but those who think that’s what it shows are simplistic in their analysis.
Key phrase in Thompson’s answer is this one: “I do not believe that the federal government ought to be involved in that process.” That sentence is the summary of all he says next, and shows he is opposed to Roe v. Wade, which represented the federalization of what had been a state-level issue.
He then says he is opposed to federal funding for abortion and supports the states’ right to regulate abortion - both are federalist and pro-life positions - and he opposes the federal government criminalizing abortion. Again, a federalist answer.
Thompson’s entire answer is very “federalist” - he believes abortion policy should be a matter for states rather than the federal government.
His answer also fits within the mainstream pro-life platform. Most pro-lifers do not favor making criminals of women who have abortions, and the pro-life push to overturn Roe v. Wade would merely return the issue of abortion to a state-level issue.
And, finally, Thompson’s voting record in 8 years in the Senate is solidly pro-life.
- Bill Hobbs, Elephant Biz, April 24, 2007
http://www.elephantbiz.com/2007/04/is_fred_thompson_prolife.html
*
Fred wonders how it all got started:
In the days since Thompson allowed that he was thinking about running for president, his views on abortion have come under scrutiny. Thompson finds the news reports from his first run for Senate perplexing.
“I have read these accounts and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them. Although I don’t remember it, I must have said something to someone as I was getting my campaign started that led to a story. Apparently, another story was based upon that story, and then another was based upon that, concluding I was pro-choice.”
But, he adds: “I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100 percent voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate.”
Darla St. Martin, associate executive director of National Right to Life, supports Thompson on those claims. She traveled to Tennessee in 1994 to meet with him. “I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion,” she told the American Spectator’s Philip Klein.
Thompson says he thinks Roe v. Wade is bad law and should be overturned, but he says he does not support a Human Life Amendment.
- Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard, From the April 23, 2007 issue
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/528aylls.asp
*
LifeNews.com on Fred:
“Thompson accumulated a strong pro-life voting record in Congress, and said over the weekend that he supports overturning Roe v. Wade.”
- Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com, March 12, 2007
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2978.html
*
A reality check on Fred and life:
“He [Fred Thompson] IS pro-life!”
- Doug Hagen, TheRealityCheck.org, march, 2007
http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/dhagin032007.htm
*
Fred Thompson on the Issues:
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
*
Fred Thompson SenateMatch/VoteMatch questionnaire response:
STRONGLY OPPOSES topic 1: “Abortion is a woman’s right”
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson_SenateMatch.htm
*
Don’t believe the lies:
Both sides of the aisle are trying to figure out a way to derail the [Fred Thompson] campaign...[so don’t let them fool you into thinking Fred Thompson is anything other than 100% pro-life!]
- JB Williams, MichNews.com, Apr 11, 2007
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_16415.shtml
*
Do not be deceived:
Today, the Evangelicals for Mitt operation has spent its time attacking conservative Republican presidential candidates, most recently former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and unannounced candidate, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson.
Thompson, who has made it clear that he does not support Roe v. Wade, and who was certified as pro-life by the National Right to Life Committee back in 1994, has continued to state that he is pro-life. But the Evangelicals for Mitt, using research provided by the Romney campaign, has been putting out information on its blog that Thompson, as well as other Republican Senate candidates, were not.
The Romney campaign has targeted Thompson as a serious threat to its ongoing political survival. Recent polls that have just begun including Thompson in surveys show him running ahead of Romney in Iowa, without his having spent a dime.
National Right to Life says Thompson has been reliably pro-life and his voting record sustains that view.
- Bill Hobbs, Elephant Biz, March 26, 2007
http://www.elephantbiz.com/2007/03/independent_blog_has_ties_to_r.html
*
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
*
Pro-abortion NARAL gives Fred an “F”:
“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
*
NRLC says Fred is [still] pro-life:
“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
*
Pro-abortion Planned Parenthood can’t find a thing to like about Fred:
“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
ping
You are precisely correct.
.
Duncan Hunter has been THE most EFFECTIVE politician on securing our borders, as he actually accomplished having a 14-mile double fence built, which tremendously cut crime in San Diego, because it stopped drug trafficking, etc.
Can you just imagine what he could do as president?
``(I) except when a parent or guardian of the juvenile is in the immediate and supervisory presence of the juvenile, the juvenile shall have in the juvenile's possession at all times when a handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition feeding device or semiautomatic assault weapon is in the possession of the juvenile, the prior written consent of the juvenile's parent or guardian who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from possessing a firearm or ammunition; and
Ashcroft Amdt. No. 342; To amend chapter 44 of Title 18, United States Code, to enhance penalties for the unlawful use by or transfer to juveniles of a handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition feeding devices, or semiautomatic assault weapons, and for other purposes.
As for immigration, obviously Duncan Hunter has a great record, one rivals anyone’s, including Tancredo’s. However, I have no reason to believe Thompson doesn’t mean what he says these days on immigration. If he made a similar change on CFR, I’d basically drop any doubts at all. Oh yeah, and I find “Law and Order” to be formulaic, pretentious, boring, too often leftist crap that only fools people into thinking it’s good because of its remarkable branding music. Future generations will look upon it as we look upon “MASH”.
I don’t see military service as a plus for a president in and of itself, any more than I see a president’s being a Christian as plus in and of itself.
What I mean is this-— George W. Bush’s faith in Christ is perhaps the major ingredient in his strength of character, and I mean that not in the metaphysical way that God is the source of all good, but in a simple, practical way that an honest atheist would likely recognize. I can’t say the same for Jimmy Carter-— in fact, he seemed to see the New Testament’s praises of meakness at once as both as admonitions to to the United States and pleadings for corrupt (if not downright evil) anti-American Third World governments.
So, I’d much rather elect an atheist like freeper Darkwolf77 or a Mormon like Mitt Romney or a Muslim like Amir Taheri than a Christian like Jimmy Carter, and I view miltary service in a candidate in pretty much the same way. It’s obviously a political asset, although the press only admitted George H.W. Bush had been a great hero when it became possible to use that record as a hammer against his son. But it’s Duncan Hunter’s and John McCain’s political fortitude that I admire and that I’ll take into consideration (I do believe John McCain has the latter, although it’s often put to poorly chosen causes).
>Bear in mind - quite a few is (sic) still looking at candidates, myself included. Congress Critters are often pressured into voting deals with other congress critters and the party leaders they normally wouldn’t vote for.<
I don’t take kindly to Congressmen who succumb to pressure. I like my Congressmen to stand up for their principles and vote for what is good for America, including the electorate they represent.
If you haven’t decided yet, take a good long look at a man who does not fold to pressure - Duncan Hunter. There are plenty of threads on his record each day on FR. And he is often on radio and UTube. Check him out. :o)
No wonder I’ve been so skeptical. Thank you, familyop for all the information. Let’s hope people read it. God bless.
You have selected quotes dishonestly to mislead the reader about a good conservative candidate’s record and positions.
Your forehead doesn’t wrinkle up when making a similar expression?
You must not be human.
We are living in untested times which from this point look like wars will continue to be in our future for some time to come. So a President with military experience and expertise in defense will definitely be an important faction of his qualifications for the office. Combined with Duncan Hunter’s cool head and affable statesmanship; his focus on reality, and his quickly but well thought out responses, I believe he is the very best candidate, running or not yet running. Fred heads think that by stating his record we are dumping on him. A voter is responsible for his vote, so pray that it is an well educated one. And a candidate, alone, is responsible for his or her record.
You’re welcome (per comment #131).
Well, overall, I think Fred Thompson’s record in office is pretty good, so I tend to think you’re complimenting rather than dumping on him but as I said, I also look at what the candidate campaigns on, as opposed to his or her record alone.
I agree that Duncan Hunter has a cool head, etc., although to say a candidate “focuses on reality” is mostly to say one agrees with the candidate, and I can’t say I see him as especially affable-— not moreso than your average politician, anyways.
Miltary experience and expertise in defense are two very different things. For instance, Senator McCain sadly knows more about torture than I or Mark Levin does, from firsthand experience— but I would still trust Mark Levin over John McCain in ascertaining the implications of the nexus between American law and the Geneva convention over John McCain, who I think understands neither.
Now, Duncan Hunter does have expertise in defense, but I don’t see where Thompson lacks in that area, and Hunter’s economic protectionism/nationalism/fair trade agenda will in my opinion hurt America ecnomically and in foreign policy.
A flippant way of describing those supportive of US Sovereignty.
Well said!
However, I do think that whoever wins the Republican primary will be well situated to make a strong run, precisely because whoever does cannot just appeal to a narrow constituency... Unless there’s some third party hijinks yet to happen (Hagel, Paul, McCain,?) that suck away the base, much as Perot did (looking at how Perot ran strong, then quit and “gave” his voters to Clinton, then ran while claiming President Bush had sabotaged him, I have to think his impact upon the president was greater than the numbers showed), whoever wins the Republican primary will have at least a fighting chance.
In other words, I don’t think “they” can foist a candidate on the Republicans without appealing to the party as a whole.
Duncan Hunter, contrary to his naysayer contingency, is definitely not a protectionist. He believes in Fair free trade. I hope he is a nationalist. He is all for America, if that is what you are driving at.
And, being a man’s man, Rep. Hunter is very well liked and respected by other men, so I would say he is affable. He is not afraid to address the realities in which we find ourselves these rather treacherous days, and is competent that he can do the job required of a good President.
Rep. Hunter has had 26 successful years in Congress. Sen. Thompson had eight rather uninspiring years in the Senate.
Rep. Hunter has a good plan how to bring vital manufacturing and it’s jobs back to the U.S. Please tell me how would that hurt America and Americans?
Sen. Thompson is a globalist, and thinks it is just fine that formerly American, now multinational, manufacturing and jobs are operating in other countries, not here. Just how is that good for America and Americans?
Please show me where Fred Thompson is experienced and has expertise in the field of military and defense.
Your arguments contain no substance, m.
Well, they weren’t arguments-— they were assertions.
I understand that you, like many although apparently not enough Republicans, do not see free trade as a worthwhile part of conservatism or as a proper aspect an economic program to strengthen America.
Where I side with Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, Wilhelm Röpke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson and Gary Becker, you (I presume) side with Alexander Hamilton and Pat Buchanan on trade.
America happens to be doing great in manufacturing-— in fact, because of increased efficiency in that area, productivity is up in it but jobs are not— we saw a similar, in fact the same process, when the car replaced the horse and buggy.
That’s not an argument for free vs. fair trade-— I don’t expect to convince you that the latter is diametrically opposed to the former.
Fred Thompson definitely has the experience with regards to foreign policy and defense needed:
Special counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Special Counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee
Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
Member, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Member, Senate National Security Working Group
Member of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission
What’s more, he’s made his positions on defense and foreign policy known in interviews, on the radio and in writing. So far, I haven’t heard much to dislike about them-— at all.
Who would you like to see as VP?
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.