Posted on 11/04/2007 6:37:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I had said Fred Thompson could do him a lot of good if he passed “the Russert primary” with flying colors.
His campaign had been dismissing the Washington press corps, and implicitly running against the media, refusing to do the things candidates traditionally do (enter early, do five events a day, appear at the New Hampshire debate instead of the Tonight Show). But every once in a while a Washington media institution really does matter, and Meet the Press is one of them. Simply because Tim Russert, without commercial interruption, will throw hardballs and curveballs for a solid half hour, and standard delaying tactics won’t work. Also, his research staff can find every awkward quote from 1974 that every candidate dreads. Generally, a candidate who can handle Meet the Press well can handle just about any other live interview.
This morning I had caught a brief snippet – his discussion of Iraq - and thought he was striking out. I thought the reference to “generals we respect” was so odd, I wondered if he had forgotten David Petraeus’s name.
Having just watched it on the DVR, I thought it was a very, very solid performance. Ground rule double.
My initial shallow thought was that Thompson still looks a bit on the gaunt side. Then, during the interview:
“You’ve lost a lot of weight. Is it health related?”
“Coming from you, Tim, I’ll take that as a compliment.” Ouch. Thompson says no, it’s not health related, it’s just that his wife has him on a diet to watch his cholesterol. He says he had additional tests for his Lymphoma in September and was the results were all clear.
Every once in a while Thompson slipped up - I think he suggested that oil was selling at “nah-eight hundred dollars a barrel”, and I’m wary of his quoted statistic that car bombs in Iraq are down 80 percent – but overall, Thompson was measured, modest, serious, and completely at ease. After a couple of debates, it’s odd to watch a man not trying to squeeze his talking points into an answer, and instead speaking in paragraphs, conversational and informed.
Jen Rubin wrote, “He does not answer questions linearly with a direct answer to the question but rather talks about the subject matter. Some find this thoughtful and other think he is vamping and unfocused.” His talk on Iran was a perfect example, in that Thompson’s position isn’t terribly different from the rest of the field – he doesn’t want to use force, but he’ll keep that option open - but as he talks at length about the risks and benefits and factors that would go into a military strike, the audience, I think, will feel reassuring that if Thompson needs to face that decision, he will have weighed each option carefully.
That voice is fatherly, reassuring, calm. The contrast to Hillary couldn’t be sharper.
I’m going to say ‘well-briefed,’ but I know that will just spur one of the Thompson Associates to call me to tell me that’s not a sign of others briefing him, that’s a sign of Thompson’s own reading and study of the issues.
I was about to say that he was almost too conversational, that he could have used one quip or pithy summation at his views, and then, finally, at the tail end of his question on Schiavo, he summed up, “the less government, the better.”
I’m hearing that David Brody listened to the section on abortion and Thompson’s expression of federalism in this area, and has concluded, “all he needs now is to buy the gun that shoots him in the foot.” Look, if Fred Thompson isn’t pro-life enough for social conservatives, then nobody short of Mike Huckabee is. If Huckabee gets the nomination, great, I’d love to see Hillary Clinton go up against the Republican mirror-image of her husband’s rhetorical skills. But it feels like the past few months have been an escalating series of vetoes from various factions within the GOP. I’ve seen more amiable compromises on the United Nations Security Council.
Let me lay it out for every Republican primary voter. You support the guy you want, you rally for him, you write some checks, you vote in the primaries… and maybe your guy wins, maybe he loses. If the guy who beats your guy is half a loaf, you shrug your shoulders, hope your guy is his running mate, and get ready for the general. Life goes on.
Fred, Fred, Fred.
C'mon now.
If the guy who beats my guy is RINO-rudy, he's not even CLOSE to being "HALF a loaf" (read that, HALF CONSERVATIVE).
He's NINETY PERCENT LIBERAL TURD, and not worth my vote.
True.... what?
95 - 99 percent LIBERAL TURD.
In fact, he did Sen. Thompson a lot of favors by bringing up various press reports that misquoted Fred or mis-analyzed what he said during this past week. This gave Fred the opportunity to set the record straight.
Fred did a very statesmanlike interview this morning.
Russert is the one that needs an extreme makeover. He looked over-tired and under-coiffed. Fred looked rested, alert and at ease. All in all, I thought it was a good interview.
One-on-one interviews are much better for Thompson's laid-back style than being one of the stick-figures all lined up in a row in the Republican debates.
Leni
Russert also did not approach Social Security, almost questioning his desire to nail Fred on something. I find these points disturbing. Fred has solid solutions to these problems in contrast to Hillary, the DemocRATs, or even to his Republican rivalries. I feel Russert could not find anything to nail Fred on, and just couldn’t pin him down with the usual spin he has.
I thought Fred did okay on MTP.
Somehow, the republican gay community Log Cabin Republicans seems to differ with your opinion about Mitt and gays, as they too are running ads about what they say Mitt used to say because they are upset that he hasn’t lived up to their interpretation of what they heard him say.
Your characterization of Mitt is so totally off that it is hard to imagine you actually could believe what you are writing.
It’s not like Fred Thompson has been working in the pro-life movement his entire life. Or even an entire day.
Seriously, I know he’s voted right, and I admire that, but point to ONE paragraph he wrote or said before he started talking about running for President that demonstrates he was “at one with” the pro-life, anti-abortion movement.
Even now he can’t bring himself to grant to the unborn the same inalienable right to life that we grant, at the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT level, to every other human being. No, for this ONE class of humans, Fred believes that life should be defined by the states, an argument that generally is great for a federalist, but not when it comes to basic human rights, like say abortion, or slavery.
Nobody thinks now that slavery should have been left to individual states. But Fred thinks killing babies should be left to the states.
I’ll support him anyway, because from a federal government perspective, at THIS time, it’s about all we need to get the ball rolling.
But eventually we need a president and a congress that will act on abortion like we once acted on slavery. And Fred Thompson is NOT at that point.
I’m not saying Romney is, or any other candidate is (although some certainly are). I’m just saying that people who support glass candidates should not throw stones.
He did not say that.
You said that.
outlawing abortion by Constitutional amendment is hardly a dictatorship....allowing another 40-50 million to be killed is more akin to that.
i support Fred more or less but leaving it to the states could very problematic.....as well with other very contentiuous issues like gun control or homo-marriage.
but it's a start.
what would Fred's position be as POTUS on Fed funding, Title 10, and SCOTUS nominations as well as being a leader to stop the practice.
sadly I think much like all the other GOP including Ronaldus Maximus he will be mixed and somewhat disappointing on the subject.
The pro infanticide side is hardly as ambivalent and if we wish to defeat them we have to do better.
The issue is not whether Freepers will vote for half a loaf -- I think most will. The issue is whether Giuliani is half a loaf. Many of us believe that he is not, by a long shot.
I believe Thompson takes a federalist viewpoint on abortion because it's the only way to handle issues society is currently so divided about. Given this division, there is zero chance a Constitutional amendment would pass; the only way to at least stop some abortions is to return the issue to the states. He obviously isn't a pure federalist on this issue, since he voted to ban partial birth abortion on a federal level.
Just for reference, here are all Thompson's abortion-related votes in the Senate. He voted with Jesse Helms 100% of the time. I hope that this provides some insight into your questions above.
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against allowing coverage of abortion under the Federal employees' health insurance policies in cases where it is medically necessary - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00371
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe (and against almost every moderate republican in the senate) against an amendment "to express the sense of Congress in support of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade" - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00337
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against killing an amendment to prohibit the expenditure of certain appropriated funds for the distribution or provision of, or the provision of a prescription for, postcoital emergency contraception - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00169
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe "to provide for certain disclosures and limitations with respect to the transference of human fetal tissue" - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00338
One of only 17 senators (including Helms, Gramm and Sessions) to vote against the Schumer amendment "to ensure that debts incurred as a result of clinic violence are nondischargeable.- http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00002
One of only 24 senators (including Helms and Inhofe) to vote for requiring that the Congressional-Executive Commission monitor the cooperation of the People's Republic of China with respect to POW/MIA issues, improvement in the areas of forced abortions, slave labor, and organ harvesting, and for other purposes - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00249
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe (and against almost every moderate republican senator) against killing an amendment to prohibit the use of funds the pay for an abortion or to pay for the administrative expenses in connection with certain health plans that provide coverage for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00197
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against Tommy Daschle's "moderate" amendment that banned late-term abortions but affirmed Roe v. Wade - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00070
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against cloture for Henry Foster, surgeon general (and abortionist) - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00273
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against striking the limitation on the coverage of abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00129
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against a joint resolution that stated limitations of abortion coverage was negatively affecting population planning programs - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00013
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to prohibit the restriction of certain types of medical communications between a health care provider and a patient (i.e., abortion counseling) - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00283
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against an amendment "to clarify the application of certain provisions with respect to abortions where necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman" - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00593
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to delete language concerning certification of population programs - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00035
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00277
Voted with Helms, Santorum and Inhofe to to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology for purposes of human cloning - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00010
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to prohibit taxpayer funding for abortions covered by the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00370
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against repealing the restriction on use of Department of Defense facilities for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00176
Again voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial birth abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00340
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against killing an amendment expressing "the sense of Congress concerning Roe v. Wade and partial birth abortion bans" - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00334
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe (and almost all other senators) "to protect infants who are born alive" - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00208
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to kill a measure to repeal the restriction on use of the Department of Defense facilities for privately funded abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00148
Voted with Helms, Thurmon, Santorum and Inhofe for a motion to ban partial birth abortions. (motion to table the motion to reconsider) - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00333
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to express the sense of Congress regarding forced abortions in the People's Republic of China - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00243
Voted with Helms, Thurmond and Santorum to kill an amendment to repeal the restriction on the use of Department of Defense facilities for privately funded abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00134
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to proceed on a bill to ban partial birth abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00332
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against Specter's amendment "to protect the reproductive rights of Federal women prisoners" - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00478
Again, voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to kill an amendment repealing the restriction on use of Department of Defense facilities for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00163
Again voted against repealing the restriction on use of Department of Defense facilities for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00167
Again, voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to prohibit the use of funds the pay for an abortion or to pay for the administrative expenses in connection with certain health plans that provide coverage for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00190
Voted with only 37 other senators (including Helms, Santorum and Inhofe) to prohibit the use of funds for research that utilizes human fetal tissue, cells, or organs that are obtained from a living or dead embryo or fetus during or after an induced abortion - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00215
That was not a quote from Fred. It was a quote from the linked NRO column by Jim Geraghty.
I’ll vote for half a loaf — yes, even Rudy, holding my nose — before I’ll stay home or go third-party and put Hillary in the White House. I would hope that any America-loving FReeper would do the same.
Fred did great today!
I’m pretty sure Fred didn’t say oil was $9800 a barrel. The author of the article didn’t understand $98 to $100....?
That’s the way I understood it anyway.
As it happens there are no federal laws against murdering children or adults in any of the 50 states.
I’ll never cast a vote for Fred Thompson for anything. Or Rudy Giuliani. Or Mitt Romney. Or John McCain. Or Mike Huckabee. Or Ron Paul.
These men don’t even believe in the God-given, unalienable rights to life and liberty.
As the Declaration of Independence asserts, the protection of those rights is the reason we even have government.
To hell with the lot of them. And the Republican Party, if the GOP is going to tear the heart out of the Reagan platform.
thank you...I miss Jesse....the good one
Neither is building a castle in the clouds. It is simply not possible. To be specific, and Amendment to ban abortion first needs to be initiated, and that can only be done by Congress or possibly in State Legislatures. Nothing has prevented this from happening for decades, yet it has not. That isn't Fred Thompson's fault. And if he were President, which he is not, he still would have nil influence over this process.
More. Reverting back to the pre-Roe v. Wade situation is not a bad solution. As you should recall it was not our side that was unhappy back then, it was the so-called right-to-choose side that was unhappy. Presumably they would be equally unhappy should Roe-v. Wade be overturned.
If they're unhappy, should you be unhappy too?
Bottom line is that the Constitution does not give the Feds jurisdiction over such matters. A Constitutional Amendment would change that, but if we give the Feds jurisdiction over the killing of unborn life, then why on earth would we leave outright murder to the States? As far as I'm concerend, the States are best equipped to deal with these matters, and that's the way the Founders intended it.
That's good enough for me.
A President can lead by example and by persuasion. There is nothing in Fred Thompson's past, in his voting record, or in his present day statements that would lead anyone to think that he would be anything other than an eleoquent advocate for life.
“But eventually we need a president and a congress that will act on abortion like we once acted on slavery.”
You mean Civil War?
I’m as pro-life as they come, but really, you should think about that statement before repeating it.
Qwinn
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.