Posted on 11/04/2007 1:38:41 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
Fred Thompson told Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that he DOES NOT support a Human Life amendment. That position is part of the GOP platform. Here’s what the 2004 GOP platform says:
"We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions." Here’s what Thompson said about it lifted from today’s Meet The Press transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about an issue very important in your party’s primary process, and that’s abortion.
MR. THOMPSON: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: This is the 2004 Republican Party platform, and here it is: “We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution,” “we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?
MR. THOMPSON: No.
MR. RUSSERT: You would not?
--snip--
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
It would if you would take your head out of the dumster!
“Dumster?”
LOL
Romney was actually a governor so I’m sure he had more experience as to what federalism is. Having said that, I don’t understand how any conservative can really be excited about Romney
Romney Garnering Coveted Evangelical Endorsements
By
Michelle Vu
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Oct. 25 2007 03:15 PM ET
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney seems to be gaining ground with the much sought-after evangelical community as he adds more Christian leaders to his growing list of supporters.
The former governor of Massachusetts picked up support among evangelicals and social conservatives while campaigning in South Carolina.
Among his new supporters are the heads of Bob Jones University, an influential conservative Christian college that teaches the Mormon Church as a cult. Romney gained the endorsements of Bob Jones III and Robert Taylor, the grandson of the university’s founder and a top dean at the school, respectively, according to The Associated Press.
Megachurch pastor Don Wilton, former president of the South Carolina Baptist Convention, and Dr. John Willke, a founder and past president of the National Right to Life Committee, had also signed onto the Romney bandwagon.
Never mind, I see his post got deleted.
I’m assuming he lied and got called out on it.
‘S okay, according to his tagline, he’s an ‘achiever’. He just achieved the thread’s most idiotic post award from me.
LOL
I think he meant "dumbster."
Jim Noble wrote: “The whole charade is a travesty. Good for Fred Thompson, if he really told the truth - my opinion of him just increased twentyfold.”
I’m leaning for Fred for much the same reason. I get the feeling he’s telling the truth, and he’s not apparently pandering to the base to get nominated. Either agree or disagree with his positions, but at least you know what you’re getting. My perceptions:
FRed - mostly a true conservative. Wants to restore constitutional government, aka federalism, and has the voting record to back it up.
Guiliani - RINO. Twenty years ago, he’d probably be considered too liberal for the Democrats.
McCain - maverick who simply shouldn’t be trusted on anything for any reason.
Romney - slick flip flopper.
Huckabee - just another big government conservative (Bush III).
Personally, I just want someone who will start moving the country in the other direction. I’m tired of having to choose between liberal and liberal-lite politicians.
The odd thing about Romney’s endorsements from Evangelicals is that they seem to not translate into numbers in the polls.
As an expert, you should point out the major differences between Rudy and Fred on the abortion issue.
it does look that romney has the best chance at winning the primaries that rudy won’t. In other words: it’s a rudy-romney race and rudy rill rin. will win. sorry
See......some people are never satisfied......
“Personally, I just want someone who will start moving the country in the other direction. I’m tired of having to choose between liberal and liberal-lite politicians.”
You’ll have to if you are going to limit yourself to only those five candidates.
Please do...
And don’t waste time on the past.
I want to know the differences between the two candidates stated positions on how they will handle this issue as President.
The number of actual voters who are influenced by "Christian Right" themes isn't as big as Christian Rightists think.
I asked the question since I cannot see any major differences between Rudy and Fred on the abortion issue-—I’ll bet other FReepers do, however.
taxpayer funding of abortions
That is not entirely true. While its true that Fred doesn't support a Human Rights amendment to the Constitution, based on a certain interpretation of the 14th amendment. The rest of the GOP`s pro-life plank Fred does support.
Including:
~ That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.
~ We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it.
~ We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
~We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion.
As Fred said today on MTP:
"... that’s been my position the entire time I’ve been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided."
"My public position has always been the same. I’ve been 100 percent pro-life in every vote that I’ve ever cast in, in my service to the United States Senate."
"I had an opportunity to vote on an array of things over eight years, whether it be partial birth abortion, whether it be Mexico City policy, whether it be transporting young girls across state lines to avoid parental notification laws and all that--100 percent pro-life."
"... let me finish on my point, and ... my legal record is there, and that’s the way I would govern if I was president. I would take those same positions. No federal funding for abortion, no nothing that would in any way encourage abortion."
"I think life begins at conception."
“Are you advocating he should tailor his statements to get a certain reaction or to seem to mean something other than what he believes?”
Not at all. I’m saying he’s mistaken (or disingenuous—I’ll cut him some slack and say, mistaken) in what he believes. He believes, apparently, that good federalism requires him not to support a constitutional amendment. My point is that constitutional amendments are, surprise, highly constitutional, having been arranged for expressis verbis in the constitution. Moreover, they are federalist at heart becuse of the state-by-state ratification process. So, even if we grant that Fred sincerely believes that a constitutional amendment is anti-federalist, Fred is wrong in that belief.
So, it would not “hurt” him or his beloved Federalism to support the amendment.
That’s all I said. You might want to reread what I have posted on this thread.
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.