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 ...
And, by the way, nobody thinks his or her pet cause is a pet cause. Every pet cause is considered holy writ by the holder of the pet cause.
So yes, by that definition, pro-abortion, pro-life, and gay-rights are all pet causes. They are all single issues held by people with strong emotional feelings towards that single issue, to the exclusion of everything else, including the logic and framework of the Constitution of the United States.
The constitution came first in history and the constitution comes first in my mind and hopefully in the minds of enough Americans that our country will survive all the pet causes of all our fellow Americans.
that sounds like moral relativism to me
The amazing thing about some people here in FR is they are presented with a candidate in Fred Thompson who would clearly appoint judges who would overturn Roe V Wade, which is the first step in doing anything that any of us want, whether it’s letting the states decide (gets my vote), passing a federal law against abortion, or passing a constitutional amendment against abortion (something I also would support, there being a huge difference between a federal law and a constitutional amendment).
None of the things that anyone in FR wants on this issue can happen until Roe V Wade is overturned. That is inarguably the first step. And Fred would promote that.
But that’s not good enough for some of the purists here. They want to skip all the intermediate steps and demand that a candidate declare the last step as his campaign platform. And not his last step, but YOUR last step. And if he doesn’t do that, he’s not pure enough for you and you’ll do what? Go third party?
Are you thinking this through?
Bob Novak is a piece of shiite. Did anyone see his column praising the new Jimmy Carter “biopic”, which could have been produced by Leni Riefenstahl? Anything to bash Israel.
The Constitution wasn’t secured by people who checked opinion polls to see what they should favor or who were willing to view their sacred concerns as arbitrary ‘pet causes’ among many.
Democracy is a means to an end.Thank you, Karl Marx, but first of all we don't live in a "democracy" we live in a Republic and secondly, I can't find the phrase "means to an end" in my copy of the constitution. Could you please tell me what page that's on? Thanks.
Bob Novak is a piece of shiite. Did anyone see his column praising the new Jimmy Carter “biopic”, which could have been produced by Leni Riefenstahl? Anything to bash Israel.Exactly.
no need to go 3rd party. besides apparently it is Fred who is thinking it through:
“Thompson thought better of this position after the program. His campaign manager Bill Lacy told me Tuesday that Thompson “does not want to change the platform” in 2008.”
So pro life voters want young girls , under the influence of all manner of authority convincing them to have abortions, to be thrown in jail if they have one? Nice. Go Fred.
I agree.
From the federal level, its bad law, and let’s fix that first.
Fact is, some states will outlaw it, and some won’t.
I call that a MASSIVE improvement.
I also think it gives people a choice on where they want to live.
Right now, we’re all basically forced to live in a country where murdering babies is legal.
Repeal RvW and each state then has to decide for themselves.
that sounds like moral relativism to me
Right. Right out of the mouths of the the relativists.
more like out of the mouth of Stephen Douglas
No need to go third party? Then do what? Support Huckabee?
I’m quoting federalism. If you hear Stephen Douglas, the voice is in your head, not mine.
yes dumping roe v wade would be a massive first step. If Fred could achieve that...GREAT! I just don’t want it to be the last step
Would you take the abolition of abortion if no one got on their high horse to proclaim it morally wrong? Would you take the abolition of abortion if the Supreme Court didn't rule on its sinfulness but just said "Hey, its not constitutionally protected" and would you accept it if afterward 30 of the 50 states banned it?
It’s an end in itself then?
I’m confused. What exactly was wrong with what he said?
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.
