Fred Thompson Again Says He Wants Roe v. Wade Abortion Case Reversed

Life News ^ | 6/6/07 | Steven Ertelt

[firebrand]

I think perhaps the amendment should come first. The pro-life states will drop out of the battle if Roe is overturned, the national movement will thus be weakened, and we may never get the amendment. It’s a toss-up, maybe, when you get to the heart of the issue: which scenario saves the most babies? I’d go for settling it once and for all.

[dirtboy]

I think perhaps the amendment should come first.

It takes 3/4s of the states to ratify an amendment. So IMO you have to have a lot of states that already have banned abortion within their jurisdiction for an amendment to be ratified.

[RichardMoore]

You're right about that . There is little hope of getting someone who isn't under the influence of the CFR but the dems and most of the reps are terrible!

I still like Duncan Hunter the best.

If Fred would just talk to him some maybe we could get something going.

Hunter has all the right positions and none of the CR nonsense connected to him.

[mnehring]

There was a real good debate on a thread last night about this..
Some want this to be federal because of the big picture, some of us want this to be State because of the speed of change.. either way, we want it to end, we just have different opinions of what battlefield this should be fought on..

Let’s not forget, we are on the same side.. let’s not tear each other down simply because someone wants to fight for the same end goal on a different battlefield.

[wagglebee]

Hunter would be my first choice, but I am realistic enough to see that his chances of getting the nomination are virtually nonexistent. He would make a perfect running mate for Thompson and it would pave the way for him in 2016.

[dirtboy]

Hunter would be my first choice, but I am realistic enough to see that his chances of getting the nomination are virtually nonexistent.

Hunter had one shot - run an alternative campaign harnessing the net and grassroots.

The irony is, out of all the pubbie candidates, old guy Fred has the best grasp of the potential of the new media - and how to use it effectively. The first debate, he outgunned them with a YouTube video. The second debate, as the other candidates dealt with the idiocy that is Wolf Blitzer, he outgunned them by having his own private session immediately afterwards on Fox with Sean Hannity.

[shutterspeed]

FReeper AmericanMade1776 is a woman.

Thank you for the excuse to repost the vent:

______

Madame, you smell of...

TROLL $h1T

You're no newbie, no excuses; you've read the rebutals...

I CALL TROLL!

_______________

I need to learn how to do that cool strikethough thing for my corrections.

For the record... I am a newbie, but I'm already fed up with the trolls. Especially the OLD trolls. The screen names I see over and over again; who post the same talking points over and over again - DESPITE the massive amounts of information that Perfect Rovian Storm, PolitcalMom & SE Mom have posted.

If some one has some new point to make FINE! But of all the candidates I dare say FDT has more of his opinion OUT THERE, IN WRITTING & IN DEATAIL than just about anyone else running. Floor speeches, radio addresses, blog postings - his thoughts are out there.

I fear the Anti-Fred trolls asking loaded rhetorical "questions" are either cursed with A.D.D. or are simply green-eyed monsters, foaming at the mouth because they picked a slow-pony.

/rant

[wardaddy]

If he wants Roe overturned and will nominate SCOTUS folks who will do as such then I am cool with that.

anything to help stop this abomination

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I am okay with it too. I believe him because of his voting record. As to the issue, I really think the right-to-life is a federal issue already protected in the federal Constitution. States can’t decide whether you or I have the right-to-life (unless we are murdering maniacs). But since so many people can’t seem to come to terms with the fact that a pre-born baby is a human being, I am fine with making it a state issue. Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision.

[dirtboy]

Here is what AmericanMade1776 said the other night about her preferred candidate:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1845541/posts?page=44#34

I like Mitt....best..but I was really proud of all the Republicans on that platform, but Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo.

44 posted on 06/05/2007 9:47:33 PM EDT by AmericanMade1776

So she likes Mitt. And then turns around and tries to imply some form filled out in 1994 shows Fred is pro-choice. But apparently something Mitt said about abortion in 1994 doesn't bother her a bit:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY1MTQyMTk0Yjk2ZDNmZmVmNmNkNjY4ODExMGM5NWE=

“I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.”

Apparently for her, "I like Mitt" rhymes with hypocrite. I thought we wouldn't see any more such two-faced posts after the Rudy boosters were exiled to WAnkerville. Apparently some of the Mitt boosters are taking up the slack.

[Swordfished]

Thompson's voting record is pro-life, he has never actively supported abortion, that's good enough for me.

It's good enough for me, too. But, where are the ardent pro-lifers? In this interview, in 2007, Thompson doesn't take a moral stand on abortion - he dodges that issue in casting it as a states' rights issue. Many pro-lifers call abortion murder - so in their mind Thompson is condoning the right of states to murder by allowing abortion. Overturning Roe v. Wade is a step in the right direction, but it is hardly the core of the issue.

I'm thinking they are silent because their savior candidate isn't everything they thought he was.

Does Thompson have a stand on the morality of abortion itself?

[Politicalmom]

PING!!

Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference

Please FReepmail jellybean if you want on/off this list. WARNING: This ping list is EXTREMELY active.

[AmericanMade1776]

Why so angry? This is a conservative debate forum, and I posted a questionaire that Fred Thompson filled out in 1994. I see Eternal Vigilance go thru the same thing when he debates a different view on Romney. I dare say, that Eternal Vigilance can debate with me on this, and really make a case for Fred Thompson, better than all the "sticks and stones" and "swearing and spewing" you guys are involved in.

Yes, I am a woman, and I hardly think visiting different threads and discussing the candidates is trolling. You guys need to lighten up.

[AmericanMade1776]

I do like Mitt, I will say it here on this thread too, I liked all the Republicans in the Debate but Tancredo and Ron Paul. Yes...I said that, it is my right to express an opinion on the debate, I actually watched the debate.

[dirtboy]

Why so angry?

Because you're a hypocrite, that's why. You support Mitt. Yet you have no answer to his statement from 1994 that he supported abortion rights AND Roe - as you bash Fred for a couple of possible pro-choice comments (while ignoring his perfect pro-life voting record).

That reeks, quite frankly.

[mmichaels1970]

OpinionJournal interview by John Fund on 3/17/2007.

Many on the right remain angry he supported the campaign finance law sponsored by his friend John McCain. "There are problems with people giving politicians large sums of money and then asking them to pass legislation," Mr. Thompson says. Still, he notes he proposed the amendment to raise the $1,000 per person "hard money" federal contribution limit.

Conceding that McCain-Feingold hasn't worked as intended, and is being riddled with new loopholes, he throws his hands open in exasperation. "I'm not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn't just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately."

[Saundra Duffy]

Thompson has flip-flopped on McCain-Feingold.

[AmericanMade1776]

First of all I didn’t bash Fred, I posted a questionaire he filled out in 1994, sorry if that hurt your feelings.

[dirtboy]

I do like Mitt, I will say it here on this thread too

So tell us, then - where is your outrage over Mitt saying this in 1994:

“I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.”

Or is your outrage selective and only kicks in against the likes of Fred?

I said that, it is my right to express an opinion on the debate, I actually watched the debate.

And it is in turn OUR RIGHT to point out your rank hypocrisy for attacking Fred for a couple of lukewarm pro-choice statements from 1994 while you support a guy who tried to outflank Ted Kennedy on abortion in 1994.

[dirtboy]

First of all I didn’t bash Fred, I posted a questionaire he filled out in 1994

Was this part of the questionaire?

Fred Thompson has sure changed his stance since 1994, when he was Pro-choice.

You're not even a good liar. You've been going from thread to thread bashing Fred. But when you support Mitt but bash Fred over the abortion issue in 1994, that is hypocrisy and rank political opportunism. And I'm calling you on it.