Fred Thompson Takes First Step in Presidential Run, Opposes Abortion

LifeNews.com ^ | May 30, 2007 | Steven Ertelt

[gpapa]

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Former Tennessee senator and well-known actor Fred Thompson has taken the first step in what could be a full-fledged candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. Thompson will file paperwork on Friday forming saying he is considering an exploratory committee allowing him to start raising funds.

[jonathanmo]

I've read his comments and they are interesting. I would hope the one thing he has learned from his CFR "mistake" is that trying to limit political contributions is not a solution. It merely takes away a citizen's right to participate as one wishes in the political process.

The true solution to CFR is to reduce the amount of money available to the Congress. No money to play with will reduce the amount of soft and hard money spent on contributions quicker than any byzantine maze of artificial campaign restraints.

If Fred wants to grab we fiscal conservatives, he needs to annoumce specific cuts in the federal budget, ala the Contract With America. This may help with his total lack of experience in the executive branch.

[jonathanmo]

My boy Newt, sure wish he had kept it in his pants and ran for President in 2000. He would have been a good one. Newt's been light on the "abortion should be illegal" comments. In all my time reading his stuff, he said it one time to my knowledge back when he was pimping/promoting "Winning the Future", something along the lines of abortion doctors should be the ones charged with crimes, not abortion seekers.

On Fred, I just want a clearly stated position, that's all. Duncan Hunter has no problem with it, nor does Sam Brownback, who are the two true conservatives in the race at this time.

My best to you!

[cripplecreek]

It’s the first time I’ve mentioned it.

[Politicalmom]

SR, did you ever locate a trancript of the second half of Fred’s interview on Hannity and Colmes on May 2, I believe?

Thanks. :)

[Deo volente]

He’s got my vote!

Unless Duncan Hunter were to get the nomination, of course.

[cpforlife.org]

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, April 23, 2007

This is the first thing I've read that indicates to me that Fred Thompson might not be FULLY 100% Pro-Life. So now my first question to him would be about the rape and incest exceptions. Duncan Hunter & Tom Tancredo support a Human Life Amendment and are against the easily abused and unacceptable loopholes of rape and incest. Though I am aware of their current poll numbers.

Prior to Roe it was legal to abort to save the life of the mother, an exceptionally rare occurrence then and even more so with today’s medical technology.

So as I now understand it, Fred Thompson is as Pro-Life as Justice Antonin Scalia, both are of the Federalist position. They think Roe v Wade should be overturned so the “legality” of abortion is decided on a State by State basis, BUT both oppose the federal government criminalizing abortion, meaning neither see the unborn as Constitutional persons that deserve equal protection under the law. That is not even close to a 100% Pro-Life position.

While overturning Roe v Wade is certainly an important step in the right direction, if left to the States 80+ % of abortions will continue. Leaving abortion up to the States is much the same as leaving slavery up to the States.

With the incremental approach in mind, abortion must eventually be illegal everywhere.

I have read what Politicalmom has posted in 59 and I believe it to be true. Fred Thompson is Pro-Life—but not beyond overturning Roe. Still, I would like him to explain his positions in a more complete way.

Duncan Hunter would be my first choice, and even though it’s early it looks like he is a very long shot. So I am hoping Fred Thompson does run because the front three are unacceptable. I will wholeheartedly support him, but lets be completely honest about where he truly stands on the life and death issue of abortion.

[TAdams8591]

The problem is, Duncan Hunter is not electable.

Therefore, I'll take the the less-than-100% pro-life positions of candidates who are, like Romney and Thompson.

[Anita1]

You can check out Fred and Duncan’s record on this site:

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm

http://www.issues2002.org/Duncan_Hunter.htm

And you will find that Duncan is in the Conservative block -

Fred is classified as a Moderate.

It maybe because of his support of trade relationships that you mention.

[Anita1]

Re: “Now about McCain Feingold.....(and Fred)

Check out the latest article on that:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/5/29/133920.shtml

Interesting article.

[Blue Collar Republican]

Thompson speech

[RichardMoore]

We are in a sorry state when Hillary and Obama are electable and someone of the caliber of Duncan Hunter is unelectable. If it’s all about winning then we can see why we ended up with Bush. Who we end up with this time?

[Pippin]

Re your tagline

Me to!

read mine! :o)

[Pippin]

Re #15

so am I!

Now I can get excited about the '08 election!

get 'em Fred!

[Pippin]

How about either

Hunter/Thompson

or

Thompson/Hunter?

[Mr. Silverback]

This is the first thing I've read that indicates to me that Fred Thompson might not be FULLY 100% Pro-Life.

OK, time to stop this train right here.

Opposing the Human Life Amendment doesn't make someone less than fully pro-life any more than opposing the flag burning amendment makes one a flag burner. Some people just believe that the HLA is a futile effort. I'm not one of them, but I recognize that those in the pro-life fold who differ with me on it are not any less pro-life than me, they're just advocating different tactics.

We had better be awfully bloody careful to avoid getting in a circular firing squad over this issue, or we will end up with nominee Giuliani followed by President Clinton.

[hunter112]

Isn't that the only true pro-life position?

So, by that standard, an anti-abortion politician should vote no on a partial-birth abortion ban, simply because it is not the whole enchilada?

Returning the issue to the states means that abortion at least slows down throughout red state America. It makes it possible to enact reasonable restrictions even in the blue states. It puts power into the hands of the people of each state, rather than in the Hillary Clintons and the Ted Kennedys.

No, it ain't the whole enchilada, but it's progress.

[jonathanmo]

Hi Hunter112, thanks for the reply. I would think, if he was 100% pro-life, he would say "I believe abortion should be illegal, so Roe V. Wade should be overturned. I would then push for an amendment like the Human Rights Amendment to be ratified because I believe human life begins at conception. Until that amendment is passed, I would like to see each state ban abortions with an exception for saving the LIFE of the mother."

To me, that's the pro-life position and would solidify the conservative base. If he doesn't believe that, that's fine and he needs to just lay out his true position, whatever that may be.

Take care.

[hunter112]

And that would guarantee that he wouldn't stand a chance of being elected to anything besides dog catcher. The lamestream media would shred him like meat for a taco. Incrementalism is the way that the great injustices of the past have been rectified, I see that applying here, too. Hopefully, the libertarian baby boom generation will come to its senses as they age, and see the folly of having snuffed out their grandchildren's generation.

Even Romney's new revised position on abortion is good enough for me, since I think he was really there all along, and just willing to lie to the voters in Massachusetts to get elected as their governor. What is completely unacceptable to me is Rudy Giuliani's decision to completely abandon the cause of people working to limit, or eliminate elective convenience abortion.

[TAdams8591]

I would agree with you. Winning however, in politics is most important. It’s not a football game. If we conservatives don’t win, we will be unable to promote anything from the conservative agenda, which will have disasterous consequences for our country.

[rintense]

Love it!