Posted on 06/06/2007 8:16:14 AM PDT by John Cena
So, Fred’s for federalism? Sounds fine to me.
Fred’s voted 100% pro-life in the Senate. Sounds fine to me.
Fred doesn’t want to “criminalise young women”, which is right in line with every pro-life law on the books in the United States. Sounds fine to me.
What’s the problem again?
You're fat, with buck teeth!
/couldn't resist....
Face it, there are always going to be people who can’t get around the fact that you FIRST have to deal with the federalism issue before you can actually deal with the abortion issue. For as long as Roe v. Wade stands, and the prevailing thinking in the political establishment is “well, we can’t do anything about abortion because the Supreme Court said we can’t”, and for as long as we don’t get the issue thrown back to the States, abortion will not even be dented.
Fred is right on abortion - make it an issue of FEDERALISM first, get it back into 10th amendment territory, and throw it back to the States. That’s the way to save little babies. People like TexanSniper, who like to huff and puff about how pro-life purist they are, and who think that unless you go all out to pass a Constitutional amendment banning all abortion, or else you’re just not *really* pro-life, are the people who are the impediment to stopping little babies from being killed.
Much better to reinstitute federalism, and see abortion curtailed at the state level than to futilely deal with it at the national level, and see abortion remain as protected as it is today. Fred Thompson’s way will save little babies’ lives. TexanSniper’s way, apparently, will NOT.
no...notice that person’s comments are gone.
Around 50% of Rudy’s support is in the northern blue states...some of which we’ll likely have no chance with. Not necessarily out for the count, but I’m doubtful.
Well, likewise someone like Fred will draw very little from the northern states. Rudy is VERY popular in NY, NJ, OH, PA, and so on. People here talk to each other, but I’m out there in the election process working with candidates, and the “peeps on the street” don’t always see it the way Freepers do.
Yah, that was terrific. But let’s remember that Howard “Yeaaahhhh” Dean was the fund-raising champion by far on the internet and it got him zip. He found out that it’s one thing to raise money, another thing to actually have organizations on the ground.
“Well, likewise someone like Fred will draw very little from the northern states. Rudy is VERY popular in NY, NJ, OH, PA, and so on”
That all means nothing if Rudy loses the base support and makes the Republican party ‘an empty shell’. Fred has to win the same states Bush did, and that shouldn’t be hard at all.
I didn’t vote for Bush in either election. Sure many here think that’s a vote for the dems, but I live in California (so my vote doesn’t mean much), and I vote for people that I think are worth it. Fred’s worth it to me.
Very weak comparison there my friend. You're going to have to lose some of your pessimism soon or no one will have a good time at your summer barbeque's.
Well, I said if you didn’t supply some support for your statement, I’d be inclined to think you’re a liar. I have to say, although I reach a different conclusion than you do, that you’ve presented enough of a case that I would certainly not call you a liar!
Look, Thompson’s pro-life, in his own words and as demonstrated by the votes he made which a lot of pro-life folks were too cowardly to make. His support for life goes beyond merely a federalists’ deferral to the states.
I’ll concur that the statement he made on Hannity, as cut off by Hannity, is unfortunately ambiguous, but there is ample additional evidence to resolve that ambiguity.
Frankly, Mr. Straight-talker did seem to equivocate on Hannity. It may be because he didn’t want to directly contradict previous statements he may have made in the past: I’m not as convinced as some that he had always been purely pro-life; It wouldn’t be odd for a Southerner to have moved more solidly pro-life, since the entire Southern Baptist Convention, for instance, went from pro-choice to pro-life in the 1980s.
But he is pro-life now, and had been while in DC.
The uploader of the clip you linked to was directly suggesting Hannity kept him from coming out in favor of abortion to prevent him from alienating his base. I’d suggest a little more context is needed: for whatever reason, Thompson came out sounding a little more like Giuliani than, say, Brownback. And Hannity prevented him from clarifying his comments one way or another. But Hannity’s agenda is not rescuing Thompson from sounding pro-choice. Hannity is a huge promoter of Giuliani, and it would benefit Giuliani greatly if a key wedge issue between Giuliani and many of Thompson’s supporters were to vaporize.
If Hannity’s agenda were to make Thompson seem pro-life, why bring up the issue at all, without at least giving Thompson the heads-up so he could make a more artful response?
But I can’t presume Hannity’s motives either. All I can do is concur that it is unfortunate that Thompson’s remarks were strangely interrupted while Thompson’s position was, at least in that context as isolated, ambiguous.
I think I’ll ping you to my response to #109. Getting all muddied up over bizarre definitions of Pro-life was a disservice to TexanSniper’s main point; Thompson was simply unfortunately ambiguous on Hannity, and, while knowing a broader context of Thompson’s statements on abortion I have to reach a different conclusion than TexanSniper, his concern is actually valid.
ADMIN MODERATOR:
I believe that, at great delay, TexanSniper has supported his original assertion in a manner which demonstrates sincerity. I don’t agree with TexanSniper, but I do believe his sincere opinion reasonably assists conservatives in deciding which candidates are credible.
If Thompson has waffled on the issue, FReepers need to evaluate his credibility. We’ve been burnt by too many fakes (Bush I, Souter, Anthony Kennedy, Miers, Bush II, Graham, Chambliss, Kyl, etc.)
People cite name recognition. Well, Fred has some name recognition as an actor (recent Pew polls say far less than even I thought, however). The way you are preceived as a candidate is to actually BE a candidate. I'm on his team the second he is in---have been contacting Zach Wamp about getting on board. But there has to be a train to get ON.
Felt and did the same. One important distinction I think is that the southern Dems tried to out conservative the GOP candidates. They were pro security, pro winning in Iraq, pro tax cuts, anti illegal immigration, etc. These conservatives Dems cannot be happy about the betrayal.
Enter Fred. His pro America conversations can bypass the MSM in ways that will resonate and thus garner support with those who hear it. His message is right, serious and adult. The gravy is that he is recognizable from the TV and can attract the non politico types. It's not too early yet, and one thing that can't be said about Fred's campaign so far is that it isn't well thought out. The timing has been very good.
The thing that surprised me most about November 2006 was the influence of the MSM. I thought they were nearly dead but the constant pounding took it's effect. Fred will benefit even more playing this unconventionally, since other candidates rely so heavily on traditional sources of message dissemination.
I think Fred may be our last best chance. I see no other viable small government conservatives. Add to that the anti security, pro illegal immigration, Marx quoting Dem candidates, conservatives are in dire straights if we don't get our message out. 2012 may be too late.
TS -
Fair enough - when I am wrong, I admit it. Please accept my apology for incorrectly casting aspersions on your motives.
A friendly suggestion - clarifying your point at the beginning (federalism) rather than simply calling a politician with a 100% pro-life voting record "pro-choice" without any disclaimer or explanation would have gone a long way to avoid your being (incorrectly) labeled as a troll. After the battles with the Rudybots (and supporters of a couple other candidates), FReepers have had their fill of dishonest debating tactics and propaganda.
Personally, I still have no problem with FRed's position. One step at a time: let's send RvW to the trashbin of history, then we can worry about fighting it out state-by-state.
I agree with you on abortion=murder. I also still believe FDT is our best bet to get a fifth SC originalist. If that happens, 100 years from now the history books will equate abortion with slavery, wondering what in the world we were thinking as a nation in each case.
Jonathanmo - thanks for your kind words.
Best wishes to both of you.
bttt
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.