Posted on 11/04/2007 4:46:14 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, November 4th, 2007
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Former President George H.W. Bush.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., Mark Penn, chief strategist for Sen. Hillary Clinton campaign.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Mideast peace envoy and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair; Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Scientists try to build a better 'womb' for IVF (Boston Globe -
So instead of getting an abortion it may be possible to "decant" the baby into an artificial womb someday and not kill it. But then we have an entirely new ethical delima: who's going to pay for it all? The state?
I think the reemergence of eugenics as a cause for abortion (aborting because of the wrong sex or inconvenient genetic anomolies such as bad vision) may change a lot of the emotional content of the debate. The first inklings of that have come up surrounding the possibility of there being a "homosexual gene" and the logical consequences that finding that out in routine pre-natal testing could be. There already is a big problem in China with the aborting of female babies in preference for males causing a skewing of the population such that there could be a collapse in their population from lack of child bearing age women.
It may be time to read Huxley again.
Sun, Tim Russert did not mess up my question. LOL Candidate for Governor McBride messed up his answer! It went according to plan. Russert read my question as I wrote it. Those were the good old days before I became an escapee from political activism.
Very sensible post and I am glad to see you using Abortion-On-Demand as distinguished from Abortion.
Abortion was always legal to save the life of the mother or the child or both. Abortion-On-Demand is the moral equivalent of murder where a woman ‘chooses’ to terminate the life inside her for reasons other than her health.
Abortion is a medical procedure to save a life. Abortion-On-Demand is what the Pro-Choice movement backs, a decision not to save a life but to unnecessarily end a life.
And not only does Fred Thompson showing the path, he is also illuminating the true culprit for many social ills of the last decades, that would be an overreaching federal judiciary that federalizes many issues that are best dealth with at the state level.
The next best thing is a president who will strive to appoint judges that will overturn Roe and give the decision-making power back to the states. There is no president -- NOR SHOULD THERE EVER BE AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT -- who wields the power to make abortion a punishable crime nation-wide. As has been pointed out here, murder is a state's issue; certainly abortion belongs there as well, then.
You grasp for the red-herring item that Thompson finds disagreeable the prospect of states making it so that young girls, their parents, and doctors be held criminally liable for abortions, and Thompson states PLAINLY that just because he holds a certain view, he doesn't think he should have the power to make all the rest of America abide by those views. People of your mindset refuse to hear that part.
Engaging in willful self-deception and pretending your own lack of ability to grasp the truth is somehow Thompson's fault, is destructive. And a very poor representative of "moral" thinking.
Stop yelling please.
You presume a lot in that post. We’ll leave it at that.
You called a post personally slamming me a “great post”. I am all for civil debate. Your post and the other one didn’t reflect that.
I have a freind with a voice like that. She had acid reflux really bad for years. Her Dr. told her it was the reflux that caused it, and she smokes.
And there were thousands of posts on this site that criticized him (and the MSM) for this.
Clinton's medical records might likely have confirmed suspicions of drug abuse (hardly unreasonable, considering the company he was known to have kept). I would have had a very low opinion of ANY Republican or conservative who would stoop to using Clinton's or any other political candidate's medical records in the search for evidence of cancer and the possibility of its threat of recurrance.
I have the same low opinion of anyone of any political stripe who does the same with regard to Thompson. It has caused me to lose huge amounts of respect for Hugh Hewitt, and I was once a big fan. I didn't and don't mind when HH objects to Thompson on the issues, but when he does it on the insulting and inane premise of a frightening, scary, misunderstood disease, dropped him very low in my opinion. It will be a long time, if ever, that Hugh Hewitt can redeem himself in my view from that wicked, ugly move. There are important issues to be discussed, and the "concern" foes claim to have with regard to past illnesses is not only macabre, but purely opportunistic. It is not a serious "conern," as much as you would like it to be. The REAL concern is political, not medical -- and you know it.
lol, and sorry I got it wrong.
Good points. I do agree issues such as this are ever changing as new technology develops.
I just finished watching the Fred Thompson interview on Meet the Press. Fred had the best insight on Pakistan, Iraq and Iran as I have heard from any candidate to date. Things Fred said coincided with my understanding of many issues and he came across as logical and methodical in his approach to the presidency should he be elected. I don’t know how anyone could watch the MTP interview without acknowledging his knowledge on these issues. As to his position on abortion, what he said satisfied my concerns. From what I read earlier on FR, it seems this wasn’t enough but I fail to see how.
the following comment proves to me what Tony Snow said at his awards ceremony is so very true.
“it has been rumoured that after several days campaigning etc that Thompson has taken time off.”
and your comment “This is the illusion they crafted around Bill Clinton, like he was some sort of superhuman working machine.”
bill clinton wasted his Presidency and damaged this country by his playing around. The media did protect and did build an illusion of the clintons. bill clinton is a crooked man from the bottom up!! And that is all I’m going to say!!
Tony nailed the media!! And I think the media is nervous about Fred Thompson!!
Tony Snow Discusses the Media
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1920363/posts
Remarks of Tony Snow
Upon Receiving Freedom of Speech Award
From The Media Institute
Friends & Benefactors Awards Banquet
Washington, D.C.
October 16, 2007
post #7
His manner will be very effective against a candidate like billary who is prone to delivering a response bordering on the frantic when she has been cornered. The more reasoned he remains the more hysterical she will become.
Not something that Timmy, Bob, Stephie, Wolf, and Chris want to talk about, huh?
Read this welcome news.
Posted at 12:19pm on Nov. 4, 2007
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - Open Thread
(w/ a review of Fred Thompson on MTP.)
By Mark Kilmer
Unfortunately, my physical condition has rendered me unable to do the complete, show-by-show review of this morning’s talk shows, but this can be an open thread wherein we talk about what we’ve seen and heard. NBC’s Meet the Press with Tim Russert, FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, CBS’s Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, and CNN’s Late Edition, with Wolf Blitzer.
Like many of you, I was anxious to see how Fred Thompson would perform on MTP, and if Russert would behave. Thompson did very well, I thought; Russet, not so much.
Thompson went through a lengthy explanation about the number of factors involved in our relationship with Turkey, how they all must be considered when considering how to react to Musharraf’s recent declaration of martial law. Russert, on the other hand, wanted Thompson to mindlessly yank U.S. aide. Thompson answered: “Not now.” Though he vowed that everything should “remain on the table”
Russert wanted to know if we “should allow Musharraf” to do one of the sundry things which Russert does not want us to allows Musharraf to do. Russert pointed out that Musharraf is head of a sovereign nation, and I would have liked to have pointed out that Russert is a selective neo-con.
Thompson, it turns out, as referred to Iraqis with IED’s as “a bunch of kids,” and Russert demanded an apology. Thompson explained that those with the Improvised Explosive Devices in Iraq were mostly young fanatics, with little education, easily recruited – ergo, “a bunch of kids.”
Read On…
Read More »
He has a good bit more at the link.
Brices, your post on Thomson & abortion is cause for many thanks, posted and thought. Count mine among them. The excerpt above reminds me of something my politically wise dad told me long ago and that I've always remembered:
You don't vote for the man, you vote for the philosophy because the philosophy sets the principles, and the principles can always be trusted. Like a compass. So when you vote for a man who embraces your philosophy, you know exactly what you're getting. On the other hand, when you vote for a man according to his personal opinion on separate issues, you have no idea what you're really getting in part because you have no idea what's going to come up in the next four or eight years.
My pet peeve is the demand for "pledges." They are crap, and every time someone asks for or expects one, it ticks me off. And every time a candidate succumbs, it drops him a tad in my view. I liked the way Thompson handled Russert's demand for a pledge by finally conceding that he'd pledge that his administration would do what it could to keep nuclear options away from hostile ME nations. As in, DUH! Pledges are jokes. Demonstrated consistency to philosophy and principles are serious and true.
Still, crickets from the Sunday Talk Show hosts.
Keep in mind that Thompson is 6'4. He's a very big man, and people -- men and women -- with big frames have more to support physically.
Put politely, in my personal experience, large, tall people don't age *visually* particularly well physique-wise and in appearance without real effort. We petite folks age much better with less effort, because there's a lot less to maintain and gravity has a lot less of a drag, and NO, it isn't proportional as much as we may think. There's a REASON that insects have never gotten to be the size of dumptrucks, and it has to do with gravity, energy, and mass.
Anyhoo, empirically speaking, most folks that big in their 60s to 80s don't look as hale as an equally fit person the same age but with 3/4 or 5/7 the the body mass. Just a thing I consider when I see Thompson, knowning that he's well over six feet tall, and that's a pretty big fellow.
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.