This coming from a Slick Willard supporter??
C'est la vie! (Or is it "c'est le mort"?)
Actually Fred’s postion on this issue is the one I have held for years. Naturally, I think it is logical, sensible, and defensible.
I really like the way Fred put it; something to the effect that people are free to enact laws that even Fred Thompson doesn’t like. Speaking for myself, there are PLENTY of laws that legislatures have enacted that I don’t like.
What you and folks like you need to reconcile yourselves to is that we Americans don’t live in a dictatorship, and what’s more, we don’t want to. All an individual can do is to be just and well-considered in his own time. Fred has complied a 100% pro-life voting record. Fred has clearly described his own views on abortion, and pre-natal life.
He also believes in the power of state legislatures to act on behalf of the people of their states to enact laws that he does not approve of.
Or that you don’t approve of. That seems to be your big beef. I’d suggest that you might consider that you are only one of 200 million plus. You don’t get to decide things all by yourself.
Neither does a President, even one that might be named Fred Thompson.
This coming from a Slick Willard supporter??
He did not say that.
You said that.
Life is more complicated that that.
Please get a clue.
Or take your ball and go home. We won't miss you.
John Hawkins, Right Wing News, Duncan Hunter supporter:
“I don’t find Thompson’s position on this issue to be troubling. To the contrary, it’s actually a little reassuring in a roundabout way (Pay close attention to this next paragraph or you’ll get confused).”
“Let me tell you why: since we can’t get a constitutional ban on abortion passed, we lose nothing if Thompson gets elected and doesn’t support it. That being said, it would have been politically advantageous for him, with social conservatives, to say that he supports the Amendment. The fact that he isn’t supporting it is another strong indication that he means what he says about Federalism. That’s great news for people who are pro-life, because it means he will likely keep his promise to appoint an originalist judge who respects the Federalist principles in the Constitution and any such judge would certainly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
“Granted, if Thompson said he supported the Constitutional Amendment, it would also be another indicator he was going to appoint a judge who would overturn Roe v. Wade, but still — any candidate who really believes in Federalism will move the ball forward for those of us who are conservatives — and not just on pro-life issues.”
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/11/fred_thompson_tim_russert_fede.php
Coming from a Romney supporter, that’s pretty rich.
No. He didn't say what you wanted to hear is more like it. If you couldn't understand his simply word stand that's it's up to the states, well.
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.
What a buffoon you are.
No, I don't like that we can't get HLA passed, but the issue is SO hot that it will be demagogued by the left as a way for theocracy to push itself into all our life decisions. You and I know that is a load of carp, but there are WAY too many voters who are paranoid enough about religion that they will swallow that, hook, line and sinker.
If a Republican is elected, who has stated that he will appoint Justices to the Supremes who are willing to overturn Roe, that will be a major step. When Roe is overturned, abortions will not be outlawed, the issue will just go back to status quo ante Jan, 22, 1973. There are some states in which abortion is already legal, but most will have restrictions on it. If citizens are given the chance to actually vote on the procedure, most will allow abortions for the hard cases, but those are, at most 2% of all abortions.
Unless there is a change of heart in this country, abortion will always be legal, but it will be restricted in most places. That is not the ideal situation, but I'd rather save MOST babies, than not be able to save ANY.
“Fred had no coherent answer on abortion.”
He had an answer. It was coherent. Perhaps you just couldn’t understand it?
Maybe get a transcript and ask for help.
“Fred had no coherent answer on abortion. He hemmed and hawed and hawed and hemmed. In the end he meekly said the killing could go on. He said he was personally against it but could understand and accept why some people (states) might be for it.”
In fact, I thought I was listening to Bill Clinton. I have been beating the drum for Fred, but that scene with Russert shook my confidence. While even a weak-on-abortion-and-gays Fred, is better than Hillabeast; it just galls my gluteous maximus that we can’t have a REAL conservative candidate, and have to “SETTLE” for something less.