Posted on 11/08/2007 12:00:05 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
WASHINGTON -- Fred Thompson was well into a prolonged dialogue about abortion with interviewer Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday when he said something stunning for social conservatives: "I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors." He then went further: "You can't have a (federal) law" that "would take young, young girls ... and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail."
Those comments sent e-mails flying across the country reflecting astonishment and rage by pro-life Republicans who had turned to Thompson as their best presidential bet for 2008. No anti-abortion legislation ever has proposed criminal penalties against women having abortions, much less their parents. Jailing women is a spurious issue raised by abortion rights activists. What Thompson said could be expected from NARAL.
Thompson's comments revealed astounding lack of sensitivity about the abortion issue. He surely anticipated that Russert would cite Thompson's record favoring state's rights on abortion. Whether the candidate just blurted out what he said or planned it, it reflects failure to realize how much his chances for the presidential nomination depend on social conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
But many of those people are reasonable, and can be reasoned with. I have faith in all conservatives eventually working together on this. Color me optimistic.
Oh, of course.
They have to destroy real conservatives because they pale Slick Willard’s counterfeit conservatism in contrast.
The outrage over this is proof to me that even some conservatives are not capable of listening to a coherent discussion of someone’s position.
“Back at the state level we would start saving lives immediately, at first in a small number of states but then in a growing number.”
Something like the Dems’ incremental attempts at “gun control”: target `Saturday Night Specials’, then guns not designed for hunting or sporting use, then all handguns, then all long arms, etc.
Yeah, that’s working really well for them: the 2nd amendment has been a `3rd rail’ for liberals.
I think the average American voter, if asked whether they support partial birth abortion, would say `No’ because they recognize that even the least sophisticated 16 year old knows within a month or two if she is pregant or not.
The biggest issue is to get past the emotion and begin to think rationally, to plan and develop tactic. Look at what will save the most the fastest AND move towards a national amendment if that is what is still needed...
A recent Rasmussen poll confirmed what I have suggested for years...that the GOP cannot win with out social conservative Christians (of course, the GOP also cannot win without the moderates). The poll stated that 27% of the GOP base will NOT vote for a pro-abort nominee.
They won’t vote democrat...they just won’t vote. And in a day of RAZOR thin margins, the GOP cannot dismiss ANY of their base...a pro-life nominee is no threat to the moderates...but a pro-abort canidate is the kiss of death for the GOP...(by the way, the liberal media and the democrats understand this, and that is why they LOVE and build up pro-abortion republicans). It has nothing to do with the liberals and democrats finding commom ground with a republican, they know that a spit GOP is a WIN for them.
A recent Rasmussen poll confirmed what I have suggested for years...that the GOP cannot win with out social conservative Christians (of course, the GOP also cannot win without the moderates). The poll stated that 27% of the GOP base will NOT vote for a pro-abort nominee.
They won’t vote democrat...they just won’t vote. And in a day of RAZOR thin margins, the GOP cannot dismiss ANY of their base...a pro-life nominee is no threat to the moderates...but a pro-abort canidate is the kiss of death for the GOP...(by the way, the liberal media and the democrats understand this, and that is why they LOVE and build up pro-abortion republicans). It has nothing to do with the liberals and democrats finding commom ground with a republican, they know that a split GOP is a WIN for them.
Yep. I’d rather see terrorists and illegals get law enforcement attention.
No, although I’m pretty pissed that in order to get rid of slavery, we had to give up federalism. I understand what you’re saying, that if something is unquestionably wrong, why should the states be free to legalize it. To some extent I agree with you, perhaps some issue other than would be a better one on which to hang a revival of federalism, but as you can see, he’s the only candidate talking about it at all. Maybe if the others were actually Republicans we’d a better choice of hills to die on. Besides, who says we can’t still fight it if it’s properly recognized as a state issue?
I didn't see the interview, but from quotes on another thread, I gathered that federalism was the core of his problem with Roe, as it is with many conservatives. If he actually supports the "right to kill inconvenient offspring", that is a big mark against him, though perhaps not a fatal one when he's up against this bunch of RINO's.
President 2008
Republicans:
Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) may have seriously wounded himself with his handling of the abortion issue on Sunday’s “Meet the Press.” Thompson unequivocally stated he opposed a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, which is a plank in the Republican platform. Without prompting, he then attacked the idea of “criminalizing” abortion and locking up mothers who procure abortions — images that are used as scare tactics by the pro-choice lobby. Throughout the long discussion of the topic, Thompson was incoherent at best and thoroughly objectionable to his party’s pro-life base at worst. He backed away from his firm opposition to the platform, but he never quite set himself right on the whole issue.
You call that coherent?
It puts the abortion issue in smaller, more well defined borders in which to be contested. Trying to sway all 50 states — with the thousands of splintered special interest groups at play — make the pro-life tactics post 1973 unwinnable.
Federalism — and protecting the remaining shreds of state sovereignty from further federal encroachment — rank among the absolute uppermost values in the modern conservative’s mind.
But the job of government is, first and foremost, to protect life, the most basic human right and without which all the others are absolutely meaningless. Any government which allows murder has already abdicated its primary reponsibility.
We should hold fairly radical views on defending federalism, but not to where the federal government stands idly by and watches a state permit murder or authorize slavery.
We amended the Constitution to end slavery. That was an usurpation of states’ rights. Apparently some people here would have a problem with that.
Remember, constitutional amendments must be approved by the legislatures of 3/4ths of the states.
A human life amendment must be approved the same way. Ultimately, it is the states voting democratically in a super-majority to impose a stricture upon themselves.
Is such an amendment likely to be passed today? Certainly not at this time in history. But it’s one thing to say what you want and are willing to work toward and another to give up in face of a great challenge — like the utterly absurb notion of asking a woman to “lie back and enjoy it” while being raped.
Thompson might instead have said:
“I support the right of the states to adopt an amendment to the U.S. Constitution through the process prescribed in the Constitution, even though it appears to be unlikely to happen at present. Human life is sacred and must be protected. We need to keep trying with a variety of approaches, from appointing good judges to the Supreme Court to educating the public to pushing for an amendment.”
Also, taking the position that each state has the “right to choose” whether it will permit abortion has much common with Roe v. Wade protecting the “right to choose” to abort an unborn infant.
It’s another variant of: “I wouldn’t have an abortion myself but I wouldn’t stop someone else from choosing to have one.”
Either abortion is taking a human life or its not.
Who wrote that garbage? Why didn’t you post the source?
The two of you are clueless. Ain't gonna happen. Now or for the foreseeable future. Peddle your 3rd party crap on some other site.
But do you believe it's Constitutionally appropriate for them to be guaranteeing funds, or is it another of those things where they get into health care without authority, then when that mucks things up, they point to the problems as justification for "getting into health care"?
Fred said the same thing in a 1994 video when he first ran for the Senate. Fred doesn’t believe in throwing young girls into jail for getting an abortion. He’d rather not make criminals of those young girls parents either. Fred has stated that prosecution of abortion doctors is a different story. I doubt you’d get 10% of Americans who would agree with jailing minors for getting abortions. Get real!
The guy you’re backing for POTUS, Massachusetts Mitt Romney, was an abortionist for 35 years. From 1970 to 2005 Romney supported Roe v Wade as the law of the land and abortion on demand as a woman’s Constitutional right.
In 2005 Mitt Boy said he had a political epiphany and became pro-life. We all know about Mitt and his late-term conversions. I’d call Mitt’s shift on abortion more like a political expediency. After all, he couldn't run for POTUS as a pro-choicer and expect to win the GOP nomination.
In fact, Mitt's never been a conservative. NEVER! OTOH, Fred`s been a conservative his entire adult life. Ever since he read Barry Goldwater`s book, The Conscience of a Conservative, while in college back in the early 1960`s.
Truth is, Romney never supported the Reagan agenda of the 1980`s and has stated so in public. His promotion of nationalized heathcare shows that Mitt has more in common with Hillary, than he does with Reagan or Fred!
“As a religious zealot and conservative I would be thrilled if Roe vs. Wade were overturned and the decision of whether or not to make abortion lawful was handed over to the states.”
What kind of patronizing crap is this?
People don’t call themselves religious zealots- people who despise others with a religious worldview that informs their decisions label them that way.
Look, you can go round and round on these points all you want.
The fact is, federal efforts to limit abortion have gone basically nowhere. The only thing that’s been limited is the right of states to pass any laws on the subject.
Are you happy with the status quo?
Are you willing to think of new strategies for changing the status quo?
Or are you going to just hold firm, hold out for everything, and continue to get nothing?
Is that your strategy? If it is, it’s working great!
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.