When Fred Met Tim: Evaluating Thompson on Meet The Press

The National Review ^ | Sunday, November 04, 2007 | Jim Geraghty

[Aria]

I agree. Fred was the alpha male in the interview...and he was gracious enough to Russert to not bite his head off...but it appeared that he clearly could if he wanted to..

I really like Fred!

[EternalVigilance]

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.

Bullhockey. Fred Thompson could care less about abortion, and it's glaringly obvious. Always has been.

[EternalVigilance]

Bottom line is that the Constitution does not give the Feds jurisdiction over such matters.

I'm constantly amazed at how few seem to be able to read these days. The Preamble makes it clear that the document was written for the purpose of assuring that POSTERITY would have an equal chance to enjoy the Blessings of Liberty. And the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments are clear in their protection of the lives of all innocent persons.

Or maybe you can read, and you're just pretending that those words aren't in the Constitution.

Do you believe that an unborn child is a PERSON? Or do you agree with the author of Roe that they are not?

[ellery]

You mean Civil War? I’m as pro-life as they come, but really, you should think about that statement before repeating it.

Right. Furthermore, unlike slavery, abortion is mandated in every state by the federal government. Overturning Roe does act on abortion, very substantially.

On the other hand, candidates who are weak on an issue risk nothing by championing a Constitutional amendment. Since presidents have no official role in the amendment process, and since Congress and the states are a stumbling block, and since the process takes many years, voila! Instant credibility on the issue with no follow-up results required!

[Texas Federalist]

Hillary is smarter and more dangerous (evil) than Carter. Obama or Edwards are more like Carter, idiots who may mean well but are clueless. Hillary doesn’t mean well.

I think you underestimate Carter and Obama. As far as raw IQ goes, Carter as a 20th century President was probably surpassed only by Wilson. Obama was on Harvard Law Review and, from every report I have heard from classmates of his, one extremely sharp individual (even though he doesn't always show it during the campaign).

[Mr Apple]

Fred in ‘08.

[TAdams8591]

"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."

I was discussing this about the time you wrote it, making precisely the same point. Very much agreed.

[rebel_yell2]

You obviously are a one-trick pony.

Life is more complicated that that.

Please get a clue.

Or take your ball and go home. We won't miss you.

[TAdams8591]

"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."

Then why didn't we decide slavery the same way John?

When it comes to basic human rights, the FIRST being the right to life, the Federalist arguments fall apart. Those kinds of issues should be decided by the states.

And if the forefathers didn't forsee that the Constitution would have to be amended at the Federal level, they wouldn't have set up the ability to do it.

[John Valentine]

I am also constantly amazed at how thin a reed people will clutch to themselves when they are way over their heads.

The PREAMBLE of the Constitution has exactly NO Constitutional or jurisprudential signficance.

I will not get into a debate regarding your preposterous inversion of the word “posterity” excpet to say that it is not even a reed, but the image of one.

Also I will not get into a debate about whether an unborn child is a person, as you will, with the absolute certainty of the amateur, confound and commingle the legal meaning of the word person with the moral one, resulting in mental mush.

[TAdams8591]

"Or take your ball and go home. We won't miss you."

I and many of us would. And JCE, I'm so glad to see you back! Several of us were discussing the other day how good it is to have you here again! : )

[Armedanddangerous]

fred was very clear today..

He sees nothing wrong with allowing anti gun college presidents to disarm law abiding citizens with carry permits when even the state in which they abide allows that.

Pretty clear to me..

You would be surprised how many people turned against him today after that statement.

[TAdams8591]

"Those kinds of issues should be decided by the states."

The above should read "should NOT be decided by the states."

[John Valentine]

But Fred thinks killing babies should be left to the states.

Killing adults is left to the states. What's wrong with the idea of leaving ALL killing to the states?

[rebel_yell2]

I think you are in the wrong forum?

[rebel_yell2]

OK. Go vote for Hillary . . . .

[EternalVigilance]

Why? Jim Robinson has made it clear more times than I can count that the unalienable right to life in not negotiable.

[rebel_yell2]

Then I guess we won’t miss you either. :-)

[EternalVigilance]

OK. Go vote for Hillary . . . .

No. Unlike some, I don't support any candidate who spits on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

[EternalVigilance]

What's wrong with the idea of leaving ALL killing to the states?

What's wrong with the idea of protecting all innocent human life, since that's the exact principle America was founded upon?