[Petronski]

However, in 1995 he voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.

It is the national flag.

If he were concerned about states rights he would have let them issue their own laws on the matter.

The states could not do that without a reversal of the court decision; that was the purpose of the constitutional amendment. But why would a ban on burning the national flag be a question of state law anyway?

Also, if Mr. Thompson were concerned about cluttering the constitution with superfluous amendments...

I don't believe he said that was his concern.

...he would not have supported a 1997 constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.

Again, it is the national budget. How do states rights fit into balancing the federal budget? What state remedy is there?

This is a pretty sophomoric line of arguments from the Washington Times.

...voted against key pro-life issues in the Senate...

Oh really? Which ones are those?

It's hard to believe they published this trash.

[sitetest]

Dear Petronski,

Good post. Mr. Thompson supported constitutional amendments for national and federal issues. Traditionally, criminal law has mostly been the province of the states.

Myself, I will not rest until explicit protection of the unborn is enshrined in the Constitution. However, I can respect and count as allies for now those who prefer only to overturn Roe and return the matter to the states.

The editorial line of the Washington Times is often like this. A lot of times, they just don’t really get it.

sitetest

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>These are some of the facts showing why we think it is interesting that the nation's premier pro-life organization would back a candidate with such a checkered past and present on abortion.

If the Washington Times thinks Fred`s 100% pro-life Senate voting record in the 1990`s, which gained him two NRTL endorsements in 1994 and 1996, coupled with those consistent pro-life positions he still holds today, can somehow be considered checkered, this article must have been written by a liberal guest editorialist. I can't think of any rational reason for this old conservative newspaper to publish such a sophomoric article.

We've covered all these issues on Free Republic for months on end. Fred`s work for a pro-choice organization in 1991 was minimal. Especially when compared to the work private attorney John Roberts did to assist homosexual groups in the case of Romer v Evans around the same time frame.

The NRTL Committee has spoken. When you look at the top tier candidates, the NRTL`s reasoning makes Fred the logical choice. Methinks the Wash Times won't be backing Fred anytime soon. Something tells me there could be a Mitt Boy or a Huckster in the Times future.