Replies

the problem is going to come

What evidence do you have, what facts, support your opinion that this vetting will be a problem?

It certainly won't be a problem for you, unless you actually LIKE Rudy's positions on those issues and will therefore find Fred not liberal enough for you.

President Thompson isn’t going to be able to do a thing about gay civil unions in the states

That is true, but he will be able to support doing whatever it takes so that the american people are educated as to why it's a bad idea, and to protect states from OTHER state's laws on civil unions. That is in my opinion the best we can hope for right now.

what’s the pro-life movement going to do when no more then 2 states vote to outlaw abortion for adult women in the first trimester?

Well, first thank God that in two states all the babies are being saved, and in most others a good number of them are being saved, even though many will still be slaughtered.

Then we will use the positive news from states who ban abortion (banning abortion will in time help with gang violence, child abuse, all those crimes that stem from people's devaluing of human life that started with selling abortion to women who knew better), to convince other states to protect all the people, not just those who vote.

And we will pour our money into the states that do the right thing, and take it away from states who do the wrong thing.

At least I have much better confidence that a President Thompson will try to appoint a judge that will lead us to where states COULD ban abortion. I have no confidence Rudy will appoint such a judge -- there is no evidence for it in practice, only a few nebulous statements and the promise of one of his supporters.

Is Thompson for a constitutional amendment banning all abortion, which is the next logical, legal, conservative step in the pro-life advance? I doubt he will take that position.

Apparently we didn't have a vote on the human life amendment while he was in the Senate. So let's ask him. I don't see anything in his record to suggest he'd support it, or not. I doubt it would pass in any case.

Anyway, as a constitutional amendment, the President could do nothing more than use the bully pulpit -- he doesn't vote on or sign constitutional amendments, and can't veto it.

At least there's a possibility Thompson would support it, or be neutral. We already know that Rudy would speak out against it.

Now, having addressed your policy points without personal invective, your post was a typical rudy supporter post, where you raise doubts about a candidate precisely for positions that the candidate you support is strongly for.

What is most interesting is that you call it a "problem", meaning that at least you acknowledge that these positions of your chosen candidate are problems. Most supporters think they can be dismissed.

I refer to it as a “problem” because I don’t think Thompson is going to be as fervently pro-life as most of the people here on FR are. Its easy as a buzzword to say “I’m pro-life”, but that position requires deeper explanation these days. And if becomes apparent that Thompson is tacking slightly to the center on this issue, are they going to bail on Thompson too?

So you admit that a constitutional amendment banning abortion would never pass - you are correct. So where is the equilibrium on abortion likely to be? Once Roe goes, first trimester abortion for adult women will be in control of the states, and their elected bodies will determine it. And even the states that are generally pro-life, I believe they will try other means to combat the practice, rather then outright bans. South Carolina’s sonogram requirement for example.

You don’t trust Rudy on judges, OK fine. If Hillary is elected - its all over - she will replace 2, perhaps 3, justices, and that will secure Roe for the next 30+ years. The next president will get 2 SCOTUS picks very quickly in the term - Stevens and Ginsburg. If Thompson doesn’t “catch fire” with the electorate, and it doesn’t look like he can win the general - I’ll take my chances with Rudy’s SCOTUS picks over two 100% sure losers from Hillary. I’ll play the odds on the Rudy replacements (guided by Ted Olson) for Ginsburg and Stevens, getting 1 of those 2 to flip Roe.

And here is another factor at play - for political reasons, the national GOP wants Roe gone. They want this issue returned to the states (we are talking politics now) because its hurting the ability of the national republican party to focus on other things - the litmus test issues are the one and only thing the socon base wants to talk about. And a good portion of Republicans as well as Independents aren’t really focused on these issues and these issues alone, as a determining factor in how they vote.